Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

432 Excellent

About maynragh

  • Rank
    MF Addicted

Recent Profile Visitors

1,223 profile views
  1. Isn't that the paradox? I wouldn't dispute your assessment, but it doesn't tally with what then happens upon election. If you have self belief why does it disappear when it comes to taking on challenges after election? Does the delusion then transform in to a belief that you are actually 'making a difference'?
  2. That widespread misunderstanding is clearly a large part of the problem.
  3. And there was me thinking she looked like the best of the bunch. I'm clearly out of touch.
  4. I'm not sure. If we apply this to the hypothetical situation of a MHK actually getting their hands dirty, and take the current situation at Nobles as an example, I cannot see an automatic necessity to specifically lead individual components - there will be (should be) people who's job that is under direction from those who are supposed to be following / creating policy. Leaving aside whether we agree with it or not for a second, there is a plan for change in place. If we assume that plan is going to involve a certain amount of reorganisation of the structures the key task is the reorganisation itself (working out how and telling people either their job is changing or their job is going), and then ensuring those new structures function properly. The specific leadership of those new structures falls to those who's job it is to do so, not to the person who's directed it to be so. Of course I take the point that there is a certain amount of skill in getting people 'on side' to make changes, but if the people we elect don't have those skills why are we electing them?
  5. maynragh

    Jurby Motordrome

    Difficulties were mostly due to issues with those involved and driving people away, not financial as I understood it. It's a common problem. Volunteer organisations can work brilliantly if they're lucky enough to strike the right balance, but it only takes a single trouble maker to really tear things apart. I would guess most of the smaller motorsport clubs have a reasonable bank balance (clubs generally publish their accounts so you can check), probably enough to actually make improvements at somewhere like Jurby if it were invested collectively. However none of them seem willing to invest even on their own formats never mind together. I've never figured out why.
  6. maynragh

    Jurby Motordrome

    Greed and Ego apparently. Amazingly and thankfully ARA seems to have pulled through for now (was at the point of collapse according to the info they put out on FB last year), and JMML have been sent packing by the DOI, which by the sounds of it was the correct thing to do. Hopefully ARA will re-tender and win it, as even though a voluntary 'club' enterprise is still vulnerable and won't have the funds for massive improvements, it is a lot better for those who want to use it than it would be in the hands of people who wanted to squeeze the life out of it. Having it run by a non-profit club is actually the best option for everyone concerned, including the tax payer. A coalition of clubs would be best of all, but that would take a lot of effort to orchestrate. The DOI could make it happen, but again I'm dreaming of people actually making decisions.
  7. That's sort of the point. In the hypothetical scenario I have a MHK who unusually is keen to get involved, more unusually has some understanding of what is required to achieve an improvement, and even more unusually has the backing of 'government' to do so. The very fact that they are NOT part of the 'them and us' dynamic should potentially be a huge advantage, but as it is seems to be quite the reverse. It's all just seems too convenient an excuse to not achieve anything, but I guess the real guilty party is the electorate for accepting as fact an impediment that doesn't exist.
  8. Glad I asked this now. Two points... 1. Several have posted that they believe MHKs do NOT have the legal power to make real world decisions relating to government actions. As far as the government published code of conduct (link posted above) is concerned they DO / CAN have this power if CoMin / Ministers grant it to them - there is no stated limit to what can be actioned so long as it is backed by CoMin. So the idea that a MHK could not say make the decision to make certain staff 'redundant' or do away with some activity is incorrect. Either we are missing some other caveat information, or the apparently widely held understanding of their limitations is wrong? Wouldn't that explain an awful lot in terms of our selection of the 'wrong' candidates? 2. Some comments to the effect that MHKs shouldn't have such powers as they are not qualified to make such decisions. This is probably closer to the truth of the matter I guess, with MHKs choosing not to get involved with decisions for fear of making mistakes - and so we all end up grousing on MF about how the place is run by unaccountable civil servants. There are even more problems with this idea. If MHKs are not qualified to get involved with decisions what is the point in having them? Who chooses the senior people who will be making the decisions if MHKs aren't to be trusted? You can see where this is going... 3. As an aside I do not accept the idea that someone who has worked at the coalface is unable to comprehend the complexity of the management structure above them. There is simply no logic to that. What magical powers do the managers have that the coalface cannot comprehend? Qualifications in smoke and mirrors?
  9. The point is legally they do have the power. The fact so many people state that they don't is a concern isn't it? Means we're all accepting an untruth. A form of mass brainwashing? As an aside, I saw that one of his cars came up for sale recently. Hope whoever bought it checked the boot and under the carpets :-)
  10. This was my point. It doesn't just apply to Nobles either - NSC, Promenade, Education, Enterprise. In so many areas where the Government appears to be failing it seems (from the outside at least) to be for the want of someone at the top who has the guts and authority to make decisions. And yet that never seems to be challenged much at election time. The standard perception presented seems to be that MHKs 'cannot' be too heavily involved. Clearly however they can if they choose to - both choose individually (to make decisions and make changes) and collectively (to authorise such changes) to actually deal with something in a 'hands on' manner. Why don't they?
  11. Can you explain that logic? From my perspective the biggest thing the recent report got wrong was largely ignoring what was happening, or what was expected to happen at the coal face. If we ignore any personal objection we may have to this particular individual, the idea that 'a nurse' doesn't have a good idea of whats wrong or what can be improved seems a bit odd.
  12. Surprisingly this document seems to indicate that the authority can be given to actually make decisions / changes in a role such as that outlined in the news article above, so should the question therefore be why are they not given authority (the assumption made by @Roger Mexico & @english zloty), rather than can they be given such powers? Or maybe why do they not want to be given it? 4.13 ...When, having been given all the relevant information and advice, the Minister has taken a decision, it is the duty of civil servants (subject to the requirements of the Code of Conduct for Public Servants 2009) to loyally to carry out that decision with precisely the same energy and good will, whether they agree with it or not. 4.15 Where any Departmental Member (or other person) has been authorised by a Minister to exercise any functions of the Department by virtue of Section 3 (2) of the Government Departments Act 1987, civil servants shall in relation to those functions and subject to the limitation of any instructions from the Minister, be responsible to that Member as though he or she were the Minister. Section 4.30 goes on to break down some 'practical aspects' and from my initial reading I cannot see much limitation as to what could be done. So is the ultimate problem that the politicians don't want to make the decisions they have the power to make?
  13. https://hr.gov.im/media/1189/the-government-code-february-2017.pdf Thank you. A good place to start reading.
  14. https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/barber-tasked-with-improving-culture-within-health/ I saw this news story crop up over in the Nobles Hospital thread (the story is very thin on details of how the stated objective will actually be achieved), and I saw the comment from Roger on the same point... So... If we created a hypothetical situation and assumed for the sake of discussion that an MHK had some real skills (imagination required here), wanted to get stuck in (a lot of imagination) and had the backing of the Government to 'get stuff done' (pure fantasy I know), how much could they achieve dealing with a real situation hands on within the current framework - in areas like Nobles, or the Promenade, or the NSC, or the Teacher's pay issue for example? What is the limit of their authority? Can they hire & fire, can they get involved with contracts and negotiations, can they instruct department staff or is that all outside their authority - what is the legal limit? I've tried googling but I can't really find a clear answer.
  15. Assuming that the impression is reasonable, it seems reasonable to ask why these families do not have more impact on the political landscape. Could the fact that they don't indicate that the figure is misleading?
  • Create New...