Jump to content

Lost Login

Regulars
  • Posts

    6,291
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Lost Login

  1. I am indifferent rather than happy and I would take issue that they are being "paid out of the public purse to go round canvassing." They, like all other MLCs are presently being paid to fulfill their roles as MLCs. Providing they are doing that they are canvassing in their own free time which is the same as that of MLCs who are not seeking election. How they choose to use their free time is down to them. If they are not doing their duties as MLCs because they are campaigning then I would have a huge issue with it. It is not unusual for people to apply for other jobs and if they don't get it they stay in their old job. I am more bothered about whether they are good at the job and if they are I would prefer to see them stay in position not just required to resign as a matter of principle. With regard to the two individuals we are talking about I would far prefer them to be MLC's than Bill Henderson and I expect that if they stood down, did not get elected as MHK's and stood for the position of MLC to replace the position they vacated they would get elected as an MLC I am much more bothered about MHK's seeking election as MLC's and then staying as an MHK if not elected than vice versa.
  2. I thought that SP was self employed. I am not sure about TG but I expect that if either are not elected we will see them back on the radio fairly soon if that is what they want. If you are self employed it is your choice how you spend your time. You could if you wish canvass around your working hours or work less hours and spend more time canvassing. similarly if employed you can canvass around working hours or take time off either holiday, unpaid leave or by resigning. If MLCs and MHKs are in a position to carry on performing their duties whilst standing for election I see no reason why they must stand down but I would have no problem if those were the rules. It is the idea that it is only MLCs that do not have to resign etc that I do not agree with as I don't think it is anywhere that black and white.
  3. Those civil servants who I have known who have stood in previous elections all told me when I asked that whilst they had formally resigned they would be going back to their old jobs if they were not elected. Maybe that does not apply to senior positions but it seemed very much a case of being seen to resign.
  4. I have posted before my views on MLCs standing down and reforms I would like to see but I don't think it is right to say "So it’s 100% risk free for them unlike any other candidate standing." In the majority of cases if you are any good your job it is held open so at worst it is an unpaid leave of absence.
  5. I thought manifesto commitments always had outweighed collective responsibilities? Changes re voting in respect of CM are what I referred to as tinkering around the edges as in the big scheme of things such as costs of civil service, addressing issues in education & health services and staffing shortages, pension deficit costs, over run in costs of capital schemes, restructuring & scope of Government, growing the economy, costs of housing the changes re the election of the CM are small fry. The changes re CM voting were nice to have but are not fundamental in respect of the many of the issues that people appear to be complaining about or want addressing. Extending the time to vote in the CM or excluding Legco from voting surely cannot have been time consuming matters. I agree with regard to doing work quietly but when you are in a job that requires people to recognise what you have done to keep your job you do need to be able to evidence it. As I said I do not have a complete downer on CT because he has skills which would be very useful in a leadership team. I just don't think he is the guy to be leading the team. You obviously disagree which is fine. I am also viewing from a distance and judging purely in isolation on what I consider to be his merits and may have an idealistic view as if you asked me to who would be my choice as CM I would be struggling as I don't think it is a particularly high calibre field. I think all of the main candidates have strengths and weaknesses and just view that the strengths of CT would provide better value away from being CM which I view as little more than a figurehead/PR position apart from keeping the Council of Ministers roughly together. To bring in cricket analogy England invariably choose their best payer as captain whose form then drops off. Sometimes it would be better for the team to let somebody else captain and let the player concentrate on his batting or bowling. Good luck on Thursday. I have already submitted a postal vote and whether you are elected or not I think you can be proud of the campaign you have run and how you have come across. People may not vote for you because they are not in favour of your policies but I think you have thought more about the issues, and are more passionate and articulate about them than many who will be elected on Thursday. I may not agree with a person's policies but if I can see how and why they have reached their opinion I have far more respect for that person than somebody who just sits there as a nodding dog as ultimately how you consider the best way to dealing with a problem is often only a matter of opinion. It will be no consolation if you do not get elected on Thursday but as has been said in this in this thread previously only you and JPW have come across, to me, as potential MHKs, not allowing for any policy differences.
  6. Pray tell, although I would suggest that if you are a politician and some of the electorate have not got a clue as to what you have contributed that is a bit of a failing as politician. I presume that you are suggesting that his contributions have been very positive rather than negative and he has tweaked a few things here and there but the Government is criticised for its performance over the last 5 years. For much of that time CT was Minister for Policy & Reform. I think it is very hard to argue on one hand that a Minister has made a great positive contribution and on the other hand the Government has been useless. My views of CT are only my opinions and others, like you, may hold completely different views. My views my be ill founded but whilst I accept that CT is a very clever individual I have never held him in the sort of reverence others do. He has some experience in the private sector but he appear to have spent a large section of his working life pre politics in Academia. To me he comes across as a person who can talk a good game without necessarily playing a good game. I used to listen to his interviews on Manx Radio and whilst they sounded very impressive when you drilled down into the actual contents often they did not stand up to scrutiny or there was surprisingly little. Now as I said I may be wrong in my views and when CT is re-elected I hope he proves me wrong just like if SP got elected I hope his performance as an MHK rams my opinions about him back down my throat. Actions speak louder than words and for far to long we have seen far to many words, although I do give this current government a bit of latitude as I think whoever was in this time around Brexit and then Covid would have dominated their time. Finally I would say that I don't think I have been totally negative about CT. I think he has many very useful skills which would be great in a leadership team but I just don't see him as a leader and I would want to him to be reviewing and assessing legislation or proposals rather than having to deal with a constituent complaining about dog poor in the locality or more mundane matters.
  7. I could argue it both ways. MHKs and MLCs should have completely different roles. There are people I would happily see elected as an MHK who I think should not be MLCs and vice versa. Look at KH he might make a great MHK but I think even he would admit that the principle role of an MLC, reviewing and revising legislation, are not his strengths. Somebody like Chris Thomas I think would actually be better suited to being an MLC. One rule I would like to see is that if you are an MHK or stand to be an MHK then a full parliamentary term, i,e. 5 years should pass from the date of the election or the date you stand down, whichever is longer, before you can stand as an MLC. If are an existing MLC and are unsuccessful then I think the same basic rule should apply except that you should be able to finish your current term before the mandatory gap period kicks in. The above is part of a raft of rule changes I would like to see brought in re MLCs including they cannot be part of Government and that MLCs stop trying to act as quasi MHKs. Whether we need two houses I remain uncertain. One the one hand I think that it would simply be better to have one house of 36 MHKs but equally I can see the merit of being having an upper chamber whose sole role to review and revise legislation without having any other considerations. If we could attract and elect the right mix to be MHKs we should not require MLCs but when you look at those elected as MHKs whilst many might be great at constituency level etc not many strike me as people who would be comfortable or confident at reading and understanding detailed legislation. Look at Chris Robertshaw who appears to like to think of himself as one of the more sophisticated and intellectual MHKs and then look at the landlord bill he tried to introduce which clearly demonstrated that he was out of his depth when actually reading and understanding the actual legislation no matter how good or bad the actual policy was.
  8. Whichever way around it is done people find a reason to complain. Standing to be an MHK whilst an MLC you state that JPW and KLB are indoctrinated and are on a " gravy train ego trip" Stand to be an MLC whilst having been an MHK then people complain it is just a retirement home ex MHKs who will support the Government and who do not want to seek re election because they might loose. Stand to be an MLC without being an MHK then you have no public mandate. Basically whichever way you do it people will have a reason to have a pop. As for being a "gravy train ego trip" that could apply for anyone standing and I am sure it is for some but it depends how hard you want to work and what you put it. On the one hand you could be past retirement age and simply turn up to sittings, get involved in minimal constituency or committee work and take the money. On the other you could throw your heart into it spending long hours trying to help constituents, on committees, trying to get legislation introduced. As for the salaries of £67.5k for a back bencher, £77.6k for a minister and £87.8k they may seem high if you are on £30k or £40k and the MHK or MLC does not appear to be putting a great deal of effort in. And for many who stand it may represent a big step up in salary and pension. However for the hours that the CM and some Ministers put in, together with the responsibility, stress and abuse that goes with the position that does not seem that high and is a lower salary than a fair percentage in the Isle of Man earn. This tends to be reflected in those who stand as you generally see few business or professional people standing, unless retired, where being an MHK would see a pay cut. I appreciate this election there are a few more. Finally I do not know about KLB but I expect if she chose to work in the private sector JPW would earn a higher salary working less hours than she would if elected as an MHK. As ever you have good employees well worth the salary and others who swing the lead. I don't thing you can tar all with the same brush
  9. If they had resigned on that basis then they would have been accused of arrogance. Nobody should be required to step down from a position when seeking election unless by standing it prevents them undertaking that role. That could be by reasons of time, impartiality etc. In reality many of those who hold positions within the public sector and who are required to step down once they announce they are standing know very well that they are only stepping down temporarily until after the election as if unsuccessful they will go back to their old job. I used to be naive enough to ask people I knew who were standing what they would do if they were unelected as I thought they were taking a big risk in packing their jobs in on the off chance and they all said that they would basically just go back to their old jov.
  10. Which in a nutshell as far as I can remember are that SP is anti woke. According to Merriam-Webster dictionary’s definition, woke means “aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)". So effectively Robertshaw is stating that SP is against racial and social justice and he is in favour of electing an MHK who is against racial and social justice
  11. In my opinion MHK's have completely different roles. MLC's are part of the reviewing and revising chamber, they do note have constituents, they should should not be part of government, they should not trying to bring forward legislation. If you want to do that stand to MHK. I expect MLCs to be people who can understand, review and critique legislation both in terms of the legislation itself but how in interacts with other laws etc. It suits those with a legal or technical background and in my view it was there to bring skills to Tynwlad that many members of Tynwald may not have if they come from more labouring jobs or are low level administrators. Not having a go at any of these professions. I don't have a clue with regard to plumbing, electrics and many other things. I am never going to stand and get elected for either but if I had to I would want to be an MLC and not an MHK, Any skills I might have I think would be better suited to being an MLC. The problem is that many seem to have forgotten that there is meant to be distinction between roles and many just see MLCs as unelected MHKs and many MLC's appear to almost act on that basis.
  12. He does with regard to himself. Noticeable that the thing he credited JPW for he brought back to himself.
  13. Good to see that Robertshaw was his normal condescending self in that his view appeared to be that the two women MLC members standing to be MHK's would not have been able to be in a position to elected if they had stood initially as an MHK. When challenged about this he did backtrack slightly bur appeared to then suggest that it was only by being an MLC that they would have gained the confidence to stand and would be able to learn or understand how Tynwald works. Funny thing is I don't remember Robertshaw ever being an MLC and neither has the candidate he said he would support. Came across as a bit misogynistic to me and in that these women could not possibly get elected and understand Tynwald workings the way he and evidently be believes SP can. Possibly hardly surprising in that the main reason he could put forward for being in favour of SP in that SP is "anti woke"
  14. I don't think so as I think many of his generation are set in their views and don't necessarily want to understand. Like many others who hold racist and bigoted views they deliberately find something in a matter or misconstrue something so that they can try and argue that their views are not coloured with racism. It is very clear that taking a knee and stating support for BLM is, in general, not stating support for a political group that goes under that banner but is basically expressing support for the idea that Black Lives also Matter because it is apparent that many consider that there is an element in the population that view white lives matter more than black lives. Maybe they should rebrand themselves as BLAM so that those who want to argue against the premise can not put forward the argument that other lives also matter to deliberately try water down the message. It is the same way SP and others argue against the phrase white privilege. They deliberate misconstrue and argue that they or many white people are not privileged. I am sure that it has been explained to SP on numerous occasions that white does not mean that all white people are in a privileged position and others are not but that, generally, where a white person and a black person are in a similar position the white person will be treated better. It is rather like those with racist views starting a sentence "I am not racist but......" SP is bright enough, I think, to understand the issue but as he does not agree with he looks for ways to discredit in a way that he can argue is not down to racism. I am against racists but I would almost have more respect for those that stood up publicly and admitted they are than those who try to find a reason or argue that they are not I expect that SP, and many others who hold similar views, in their own minds are not racist as they view that term basically relates to a person who hates another just because of the colour of their skin. In my view the term has moved on and the views that SP expresses now fall within the realms of racism.
  15. I disagree. As Declan said "There’s only two people in that debate that have even researched and thought about the issues. Hanif-x and Jane Poole-Wilson.". In my view they are therefore the only two worthy of consideration for my vote. Whether I actually vote for either, both or neither will depend on whether their views and opinions broadly accord with mine. If SP had come across as fresh air or appeared to be the only candidate who had done any research etc I would still not vote for as I would not vote for a person I consider who is a bigot with racist views and who will ignore science, experts etc if he happens to hold a contrary view
  16. If you want to vote for a person that many, including myself, view as a racist bigot or would prefer to ignore science and experts that is your prerogative. As for JPW I hold a different opinion to you. In my opinion she has undertaken the role of the MLC in the way it is meant to be performed. It is the reviewing and revising chamber. It is not to be a quasi MHK getting involved in local constituency issues or being part of Government. There is an argument over whether we should have MLCs but whilst we have I would prefer that they stick to their roles. If she is elected then you are one of her constituents but until then you merely live in the same constituency just as I do. I have had issues which I have sort help with whilst she has been an MLC but I approached the MHKs and not her as I recognise they have different roles. Whether an MLC should resign whilst they stand if they don't get elected is a matter of opinion. Possibly there should be some set rules. There are those I would argue they should and others no but that is purely based on who they are. In my view I don't think they should provided they can carry on with their duties whilst campaigning. If JPW does not elected I would like her to stay in place as an MLC as I prefer that the role of an MLC is taken by an individual who does not treat the role as a quasi unelected MHK or a an MHK who sees it a cushy retirement number. Ensuring MLCs do not take up Government roles is far more important to me than whether an MLC resigns if they seek election as an MHK
  17. Agree on last point. On first is his expertise theoretical or practical?
  18. I have posted before that I don't think CT is a leader. He is somebody who you would want in the backroom of your leadership group but not out front. Ultimately whoever gets elected will will end up with a set of Government policies based on horse trading in that members will only agree to become ministers if they see certain things introduced or are agreeable to the overall Government's policies. If anybody thinks that prior to AC agreeing to be Treasury minister he and HQ did not thrash out, with a few of their supporters, some basic government framework they are probably deluded. Similarly on going I expect AC has had a fairly major input. Because of that horse trading I don't think that it is likely that are we will ever see a particular progressive and reforming Government as Government policy is agreed by negotiation and committee. The CM is effectively the figure head representing where the majority interests of the group lie. The chances of any would be chief minister being able to implement their own plan is, I expect, pretty small. You either compromise or don't get elected.
  19. With the dumbing down of Manx Radio, I have really missed the one on one interviews that they used to do when candidates could be challenged. Maybe they have done them and I have not heard but they are not anywhere obvious. I used to be in favour of the funding of Manx Radio for its speech based news and other programs but morning mandate has gone, Sunday opinion and mandate have gone to be replaced by essentially generic music shows.
  20. I think KH has done well in the interviews and debates and whilst I would not want Keys made up of too many like KH I have come around to the view that a different voice like his maybe good on the back benches. You also get the impression that he is standing because he believes in what he is standing for and not because it is simply a nice salary. As a Middle voter the debates etc have changed my initial views, but not in the case of Fowler & Peters. Fowler is not going to be in the running so it is a case of whether I vote for who I consider the best candidate or candidates or for those who might be running neck and neck with Peters for the seats to try and ensure he is not elected. I have issues with Peters opinions and politics, but even if I did not, I am reluctant to vote for any person who stands when past retirement age. They have less interest in the future of the Isle of Man and it does look like the individual is looking for a retirement income. At the start of the election I thought that the two ladies would be elected but now I am less sure. I think that Peters will challenge one of them. AL has, in my view, not come across well in the debates and whilst she may do reasonably well in Marown Middle covers a big area. The voting demographics are against KH, unless he can get younger voters out so I don't expect KH to challenge but equally not to be disgraced either.
  21. Not a clue but as I expect the Speaker is far busier than the IoM Chief Minister, and I expect that many will view him as more important, I doubt if HQ turned up uninvited. I think over the years LH has been quite supportive of the Crown Dependencies, this year he arranged that the Manx flag be flown at the House of Parliament on Tynwald Day, so it might only have been to say thanks in a two minute meeting. Maybe it would be better to actually know the answer before slagging HQ for the matter rather than slagging him off first and then thinking about latter which appears to be the default position of many. Once we actually have a few facts then criticism may be justified. Similarly Michael Gove in the past had responsibility for the Crown Dependencies when he was at the justice department and he has, in the past, represented the UK Government meetings with the IoM Government. Now I cannot stand the Gove but if a toadying up to him helps in the relationship between the UK Govt and the IoM then I won't criticise.
  22. I had presumed that the meetings were all pressed into when he was at Westminster for the select committee hearing. If he has gone again for no obvious reason then i would agree with the criticism, if not the vitriol. I have to admit that as some seem on this site appear to have almost a pathological dislike for HQ I do tend to read comments with regard to him with a degree of scepticism. There are a few people who the forum appear to almost treat as a pariah or a demigod and one nothing positive can be posted about and for the other nothing negative. Just to add as an Edit, the alternatives last time to HQ as CM were Alf C and Kate B. The latter was never going to be elected so try and imagine what it would have been like with Alf as CM. I don't really think you are looking at a markedly better option, especially because as Treasury minister Alf will have had a huge amount of influence in respect of the recent government.
  23. Or is he simply doing the job that he is still being paid to do? Presumably the meeting at which he and the CM's from Guernsey and Jersey attended at Westminster was not called by him. Like him or not you would expect whoever is CM to attend and represent the IoM. Similarly whilst down pressing and selling the case for the IoM and building IoM Government relations is part of the CM is required to do. I appreciate that on Manx Forums the default position is to be basically anti anything HQ does, and has been from day 1 as they did not want him as CM but it seems petty to simply slag off for doing the job of CM. Yes criticise where he has done things badly and got wrong, but this simply seems a chance to have a bitch purely because an element dislike HQ.
  24. In what period? If it is since the first was appointed, which I think was Miles Walker, then I suggest you have a very short memory. From those that I remember I think the Government of Bell & Teare acting as double act was by far the worst. Apart from their attitude they did nothing but kick difficult decisions down the road and take no action to address. You could argue the current administration has done similar but Bell & Teare did not have to address Brexit and Teare at the same point. Under Brown we had the VAT loss following his boatsful speech at, I think, the Mansion House. Corkill got removed. Walker and Gelling probably did OK but they had full coffers and no real issues or problems to address as far as I can remember. You could argue the rot started with them as they let terms & conditions including pensions run out of control and if they had addressed we would not have the current problems. Quite simply I think that each incumbent has probably left the office with the IoM not really in a better place than when they came into office. Some of that may be looking at with hindsight in terms of Walker and Gelling as the chickens only started to come home to roost after they had left office
  25. I appreciate that you appear to be a big supporter of Mr Thomas but having scan read his manifesto I would not describe it as particularly progressive. It made many of the same general points that many other candidates make and which are hard to disagree with. The main point of difference appears to he wants the ministerial team to be offered for approval and for a system to be developed for the public to vote on alternative policy. That though should really be a matter for discussion on the Douglas Central thread and not the Middle thread.
×
×
  • Create New...