What fresh hell is this? More lies from Gormley - Political Quote

Political Quote

The Internet home of Keith Martin : a blog of Political news, opinion, quotes and analysis

"sparkiest of all" - Sunday Tribune

Hot topics!

Post Top Ad

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

What fresh hell is this? More lies from Gormley

I will say one thing for Michael McDowell, though I never liked him, he would have quashed the Poolbeg incinerator plan no matter what.

Today we read of John Gormless Gormley's poor imitation of Pontius Pilote with his hand-washing, hand-wringing attempts to get out his commitment to stop this project.

The Dublin 4 incinerator will be the first of its kind in the capital and one of the biggest such facilities in Europe, burning up to 600,000 tonnes of waste every year.

Gormley says "There are no effective provisions within current waste management law or policy which would enable me, as Minister, to intervene directly in a PPP project which began more than a decade ago, and where tenders were approved two years before I took office,"

The man is a waste of space. Recycle him, better still, incinerate him.


The Galway Tent Blog. said...

It seems a Dublin Bay Incinerator at Poolbeg
would cost at least 100,000 man-years of life.

This is for the first 15 years,
for Dublin's population of 1 million.

Basis: Estimates by British Society for Ecological Medicine
using World Health Organisation Air Quality Guidelines

American's will live up to 2 years longer than Europeans,
- due to air quality standards.
Basis: European Respiratory Society.

An incinerator is basically a deadly particles generator. Dublin City Council has spent €19 million to promote its cynical one-sided case for the Dublin Bay Incinerator at Poolbeg. Apparently there has been a total omission of the health impacts - apart from spin such as 'you can not prove that'. This is the tobacco industry defence.

joemomma said...

"I will say one thing for Michael McDowell, though I never liked him, he would have quashed the Poolbeg incinerator plan no matter what."

But he didn't, did he? And he was in Government for a lot longer than John Gormley has been. Crucially, he was there before the project went into the planning process, and before the City Council went to tender.

And if you're going to accuse somebody of lies it's traditional to point out the actual lies.

Blogmaster said...

Oh a green supporter! Aren't you an endangered species now?

Are you saying Gormley hasn't lied?

Come on get real. Just look at his behaviour on this issue.

One day he says there is nothing he can do, the next day he says he can.

He's lying when he says the Minister for Local Government (for it is he) has no power of local government.

Blogmaster said...

For example look at his interference in Mayo County Council's Development Plan! He is picking and choosing his fights or rather FF tell him when he can't interfere eg Rossport, Tara, Shannon and when he can eg lightbulbs!

He's a liar.

joemomma said...

"One day he says there is nothing he can do, the next day he says he can."

Is that supposed to be the lie referred to in your title? What he's saying seems pretty clear and consistent to me: he's acknowledging that he doesn't have any power to intervene directly but that he hopes his review of waste policy will make the incinerator redundant. Where's the lie?

Or are you saying that he does have a legal power to intervene, to force the City Council to break their contract or to invalidate the planning permission? Surely that could be established pretty easily with reference to the law.

In the case of Mayo etc. there is a specific section of the planning acts that enables him to intervene. What is the corresponding law you think applies in this case?

"He's lying when he says the Minister for Local Government (for it is he) has no power of local government."

Aren't you a Councillor? I could understand a layperson believing the above, but surely you should know better. Do you really believe that the Minister can force a local authority to break a contract at a whim?

Blogmaster said...

1. He's been the Minister for over a year and a half and in that time he has done nothing on this issue.

2. He is the Minister for the Environment, he sets government policy. If he changed the government's policy on incineration then there would be no problem but instead see above.

3. He could have intervened anytime up until the granting of planning permission but instead he did nothing see above

4. Councillors used to have the power to overturn planning for waste incinerators but FF took this power away. Gormley has neither returned this power (which was green party policy) or intervened as the responsible Minister.

5. All contracts can be broken but I admit there are consequences but if he had intervened before planning was granted or given councillors back the power to stop this then there would be no such issue and no such consequences that would be the end of the issus.

6. Instead in a year and half in power he had done nothing but wring his hands and say how little he can do.

7. Surely you know better now that I have enlightened you?

joemomma said...

Well, at least now we're getting down to specifics rather than generalised slagging so maybe we're getting somewhere.

1 & 2: He is changing government policy on incineration, in fact he's engaged in a review of the country's entire waste policy. You seem to think that setting waste policy is a matter of signing a document that says "No incineration from now on. Deal with your waste however you see fit".

3: False. Again, as a Councillor I would expect you to know better. Are you not even aware that the Minister is specifically barred from intervening in planning applications? He can't even make an objection if his next-door neighbour wants to build a 7 storey extension.

4. Trueish. Councillors used to have the power to vary a waste management plan, they never had the power to overturn a planning permission.

5. You keep saying "intervene" without saying what you mean by that. Intervene in what sense? By doing what? Using what legislation?

Blogmaster said...

What fresh hell is this............?

He has been Minister for a year and a half and yes he could have simply changed policy to end incineration. Why did he wait UNTIL AFTER the granting of the planning permission to do so?

He could have done so at a stroke of a pen anytime before planning permission was granted. The Minister and government are free to effect policy on any issue whether or not planning permission is on-going.

I never suggested that he intervene in the actual application. I suggested that he change the system to either outlaw incineration, change government policy to make incineration irrelevant or to return powers to councillors to decline the planning permission.

There is no "trueish" about this. Waste planning was taken away from councillors.

But you are talking rubbish when you say we never had the power to affect planning. We have the power to grant or decline ANY planning application under Section 140 of the Local Government Act (except for waste management which was taken off us)

Section 140 gives us the power to vote to grant or decline planning permission or any other function of local government with the exception of staffing issues, waste management or illegal activity.

I suggest that you read the Local Government Act before posting any further comments here.

Good luck!

The Galway Tent Blog. said...

And don't forget:

Issued: 27 August 2004

The Green Party has today [August 2004] called for the removal of Environmental Protection Agency director, Ms Laura Burke, due to an unresolvable conflict of interest.

Ms Burke was formerly project manager for Indaver Ireland's planned incinerators at Ringaskiddy, County Cork and Carranstown, County Meath.


Post Top Ad