Jump to content

Phillip Dearden

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Phillip Dearden

Recent Profile Visitors

5,375 profile views

Phillip Dearden's Achievements


Explorer (4/14)

  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • Very Popular Rare
  • First Post
  • Collaborator Rare

Recent Badges



  1. I knew him in a few roles, including AG. I always found him amenable, affable, sensible and good at his job - also pleasant to be around, a nice guy. A sad loss.
  2. But would he? He would own an IOM property and might intend to live in it indefinitely so it would become his home and he would become IOM resident. However, when does it become his home? When it is available, when he decides it will now be his home or when he commences to live in it? I don't think that this is clear, especially for the Covid-Regs. However, my tentative suggestion, based on tax-cases, is that the property would become his home when he commenced living in it, which would mean it was not his home when he was travelling, so he could not enter the IOM, so he could not become resident.... This interpretation does seem harsh but I think we are talking about a relieving provision which removes a ban on coming to the Island for people who already live here, not a relief for people who are going to live here or who intend to live here or who want to live here ie it is for current residents. This is just a tentative view, I am far from certain on it.
  3. How were they arbitrary? At the time, he could only enter if he was resident. "Resident" is not clearly defined but there are lots of old cases and they all revolve around the place you live. His IOM house was rented out so he could not live there. On what basis could he be IOM resident? I think the officers were very diplomatic. I can understand why Mr B was a bit upset but there was a world-wide pandemic going on which all administrations were struggling to cope with and a lot of us were inconvenienced. If he had got to he house and occupied it, post-tenancy, he would then be living in a home he owned in the Isle of Man and would have a good case for being IOM resident. Whilst this seems an attractive way forward, was it achievable? I think he could not enter the IOM until he was living in the IOM property and so he could not achieve resident status. My reading is that Deemster Corlett was sympathetic that this point was not addressed and thus gave Mr B the benefit of the doubt. To my non-legal trained mind this seems a very generous interpretation.
  4. Is that true in the Isle of Man? In some countries, money can be created by accounting entries (agreed, inflationary) and destroyed by taxation (deflationary). However, the destruction happens because money is (usually) a debt due by the Government and money the Government owes to itself is a big nothing. In the Isle of Man we use UK money. IOM tax transfers a debt due by the UK Govt from individuals and businesses to the IOM Govt. The debt still exists, money has not been destroyed. I can't see that this reduces inflation.
  5. I looked at a similar-ish issue. How do the constituencies compare in their ability to distinguish between candidates. For this I looked at the Standard Deviation of votes in each constituency. The results were as follows; A&M and Glenfaba and Peel come top of the Standard Deviation tables but their results are different. A&M has two clear winners and 5 candidates who got significantly less votes. G&P has one clear winner, one who just beat two fellow contenders and three who were some way off. The lower end of the SD table, ie the constituencies where votes were not widely dispersed includes all four Douglas constituencies and Garf. Looking at the votes here, it does seem that the difference between winning and losing is not so pronounced. 3 of these also had the lowest voter turnout (as % of eligible) – does this suggest less voter engagement or more closely matched candidates? A&M provided more candidates than anyone, a higher proportion of their eligible voters actually voted and this was a repeat of 2016 (ie the highest voter turnout) and the Standard Deviation calculation suggests they are the best at distinguishing between candidates they like and don't like. They seem to be good at this democracy stuff...but not perfect, theirs is the only return of votes not yet available on the Government web-site. Whether the stronger distinction between preferred and less-preferred candidates is as a result of better voter ability to identify the qualities they want or whether it actually reflects a difference in quality of candidates is a good question, to which I don't know the answer.
  6. Agreed. I will update when we get current figures.
  7. What Declan has done is rank candidates by % of votes available ie Registered Voters. This does have merit but all of these analyses have some kind of bias and in this case the top rankings are occupied by candidates in the Constiuencies where voter turnout is greater ie the non-Douglas Towns. The Ticks show Prior.Sitting MHKS. The preponderance of ticks at the top shows how existing MHKs tend to do better than new entrants. Messrs Crowther and Quine get into the top 20 on this list but did not get elected - they were close. If vote-ability was a relevant factor, Alf C and Juan W might think they had a shot at CM. [Just an observation, I think the role should go to whoever can get an effective team working together] The lower ticks are the MHKS who did not get re-elected and I think this reflects the difficulty of taking on a difficult job (Comin/Minister) . That is what they are there for but sometimes it does not make you look good.
  8. In the ranking by % of votes obtained, all but two of the top 16 were prior MHKs or MLCs. This does suggest prior experience is a big help. I would expect this, the incumbents have access to information and have gained appropriate experience. Sarah Maltby and Tim Glover did well to break into this group. Peel was tight, both Ray Harmer and Trevor Cowin were not far behind Tim Crookall. Geoffrey Boot was.
  9. Thank you for your kind comment. I don't know.
  10. It does not look as if the voters were desperate for change. Most of the previous MHKs who stood, were voted back in. All (2) of the current MLCs who stood were elected. 3 constituencies voted all of their existing MHKs back in and one (Peel) voted for former MLCs/MHKs. 8 Novice (only in the sense that they were not previously MHK/MLCs, I ams ure they have great experience otherwise) were elected out of 33. This suggests that once in, the candidate has an advantage at elections. However, MHKs who had been MLCs did not fare as well. This might reflect higher profile and the spotlight that then gets applied to tricky matters.
  11. Roger ranked candidates by proportion of votes obtained in constituency. I think this makes sense. A far blunter analysis would be to rank by Number of Votes, this ignores size of constituency and number of candidates and so is a very unrefined statistic. However, it does have some power as the number of people you have persuaded to vote for you is some measure of your electability. If you accept this number has some value, then the following table may be useful; I suspect it is very comforting to Juan W to know he got more votes than anyone else. It is also an incredible result that Kate Lord-B, a new candidate got the second greatest amount of votes. If you thought volume of votes and being a recent member of Comin counted towards Chief Minister qualification, then Alf C would be feeling quite happy. Note, 9 of the top ten were prior MHKs or MLCs which raises the question as to whether being a sitting member is an advantage. I will look at this next.
  12. Who Voted? There is a bit of a pattern here, ranking the constituencies by voter turnout produces three groups. The rural towns vote the most, the areas on the periphery of Douglas (Middle, Douglas S and Onchan) are mid-table and central Douglas votes the least. I attach 2016 results which are similar. There are movements within groups but the broad picture is similar. Ayre and Michael are the best voters! (In terms of exercising their right to vote, no comment on who they select intended). The numbers registered to vote vary quite a lot. This caused me to look at the changes in voter numbers. From Jan 2017 to April 2021, this is the growth in the number of eligible voters. This is quite a lot of growth and, as you can see, some areas have grown a lot faster than others.
  13. That article refers to properties on the IOM. Not IOM companies or IOM Bank Accounts. I think that if a property was acquired they would have to use an advocate and the advocate would have to be happy with the source of funds used to buy the properties. It is also possible that the article has left out details so that IOM companies or bank accounts were used. I can confirm that opening bank accounts for companies with non-resident owners does involve a lot of jumping through hoops.
  14. You still have not told us what you think.
  15. 2 big points here need addressing. 1. The economy is based on our tax position (agreed) and will therefore fail in 8 years. What happens in 2029 that spells curtains for the IOM? 2. How does joining the UK help. given that the economy is based on our tax position, becoming part of the UK will have a big and negative effect. We would become like a Hebridean Island, a few hundred crofters and some sheep. I do not deny that that the world is changing and that the advantages of being based in the IOM are under constant challenge and some of those advantages are chipped away at regularly. This does mean new types of business are needed and the Government needs to become more efficient but that was always the case. Perhaps you are BJ?
  • Create New...