Jump to content

Phillip Dearden

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Phillip Dearden

  1. 3 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

    Just when you thought it was safe to put away the calculators, more number crunching from me I'm afraid.

    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.



  2. 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.



  3. 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.


  4. 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.


  5. 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.



    • Thanks 1


    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.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  7. 1 hour ago, 2112 said:

    I thought our tough financial rules were supposed to put a stop to this, Benefificial Ownership Rules, Moneyval. Know your Customer. Operating a company on the IOM you have to jump through more hoops than a tin of spaghetti hoops. You can’t open a bank account without reams of documentation. Perhaps it’s easier to impose red tape upon the residents and overseas investors can invest without restrictions. 

    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.


  8. 8 hours ago, Boris Johnson said:


    I really don't think so.

    The election of MHKs makes no difference, they follow their CS 

    The "low" tax model is not a long term thing, I give it 5-8 years max and then what?

    Look at the Shellfish industry, screwed because of Brexit, it wont be the only thing, they are showing up now because they sell fresh items.

    Post Brexit and Covid the world is resetting, we need to too.

    We need to plead and I mean plead on bended knee for the UK to intervene and take us over.


    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?




    • Like 2
  9. 1 hour ago, Ann said:

    John your questions are understandable and I could offer potentially helpful information if you start a suitable thread in good faith.

    In the meantime, I can point out that you might have revealed misconceptions, e.g. "racism" is a politically motivated word for "ethnocentrism," the term used by academics and which is very high among Jews and low among Europeans. The adaptive value of ethnocentrism is addressed in the academic literature, including that of Prof. MacDonald.

    Also, you might want to look at the important differences between fascism and nationalism, including the German version that we know as National Socialism.  

    John, as in my reply to Kevster, I am trying to answer your questions constructively -- not to try make you, Kevster or anyone else here look foolish.  As you might have noticed, I've been consistently polite toward other commenters, despite the crude attempts to discredit me, including ad hominem attack -- used by unsophisticated people when they lack a factual argument.

    I'm here for altruistic reasons, not for ego, companionship or as a substitute for real life. If you were not sincere in your creation of this thread, and you do not actually want people to share relevant information, let us know and we can end the pretence.

    If you see fit to continue this thread in a spirit of mutual respect for the benefit of all readers, I suggest that we stick to the thread topic and that you apply your moderating powers to those who are trying to sabotage the learning process.


    You throw out links and you make vague references but you consistently do not say what it is you believe or what you are trying to persuade us of. Until you actually make some kind of point no-one can either disagree or agree with you.

    As yet, all you have done is link us to some non-mainstream commentators and all that tells us is that there are some non-standard thinkers posting stuff on the internet.

    What is the point?


    • Like 2
    • Sad 1
  10. 20 minutes ago, Uhtred said:

    Moderators - is it perhaps time's up for 'Ann'?

    I think its better that these discussions are out in the open.

    Also, we/I/you don't want to be accused of shutting down debate.

    Having said that, Ann still avoids telling us what she thinks and keeps producing links to non-mainstream thinking without telling us what her aim is. That's not really much of a debate, is it?


    • Like 4
  11. 12 hours ago, Anyone said:

    I don’t think it matters that much who is CM. Economies tend to thrive in spite of , not because of government. In general government is an impediment to progress so the less  of it the better. What they tend to do best is of little benefit to anyone. What do they do best ? Basically lie , botch a lot of things , blame anyone and grovel for a gong.

    I don't think this is right.

    I do agree that a dumb government can ruin the environment so that commercial business cannot function eg Venezuala or Zimbabwe. However, successful economies need wealth creating businesses (for us Financial Services and Gaming and a small contribution from manufacturing) and these need a suitable environment which means transport links, property rights, educated workforce, legal and technological infrastructure, employment law, stable money supply and exchange rate, low crime and so on - these all require a functioning government. 

    Thus, a thriving economy is a partnership between businesses which produce wealth and government which creates the right environment for the businesses to thrive. I am not suggesting that the Isle of Man is perfect, far from it, I can think of many unresolved issues but the fact that the economy has done well for many years must mean that this partnership has been reasonably successful.


    • Like 2
  12. 4 hours ago, philwebs said:

    Here is a long article on the human condition. I doubt is most of you will have the patience to read and consider it:

    Why Do Some People Support Tyranny While Others Defy It?

    "There is a fundamental question that haunts the pages of history and it is one that has never been addressed in a satisfactory manner. There are many schools of thought on why and how tyranny rises in any given society"


    If you know we are too impatient to read the article, perhaps you could summarise for us in a sentence or two.

    Given that the WHO believe that 204m people have caught the bug and 4.4m have died with or from it, is it really tyranny to offer a vaccine against it?

    Perhaps I don't understand the meaning of tyranny?


  13. 12 hours ago, Ann said:


    The Nuremberg Code (1947), published in British Medical Journal No 7070 Volume 313: Page 1448, 7 December 1996

    Gladys did you see this link (and quote) posted earlier? Did you listen to any of the lawyers and doctors (video links provided earlier) discussing the basis for the legal action now underway in various parts of the world?

    Naturally details of such case preparations are initially confidential. However for an idea of general public interest in this subject, look at viewing figures under the Anna de Buisseret video -- they are moving like jabbers' bowels.

    You are still not telling us what your message is?

    The links are very interesting but I can't tell if you are trying to highlight that a small minority of the world believes in some very peculiar ideas or if you believe that we are being fooled and need to think again.

    If the former, your work is done. If the latter, you need to tell us what you think is happening and why and we can then ponder and consider as we see fit.

    To just throw out links is wasting everyone's time.


  14. 4 hours ago, Ann said:


    Most Highly Educated Americans Are Also the Most Vaccine Hesitant

    "... the highest hesitancy was among those holding a PhD.”

    Who wudda thought hey? The most intellectually curious and informed people are those most likely to know about the type of research findings to which I linked in this thread? Boggles the mind I tell ya.

    Perhaps the "get vaxxed!" types on this thread can enlighten us.

    What do you think about vaccination against Covid-19?

  15. 9 hours ago, Ann said:

    Why I support informed choice and consent

    I referred to relevant material earlier in this thread, including:

    a) Blood clots (common, not rare) and disability / death caused by COVID vaccines.



    b) Legal action against those responsible for (a). Senior UK lawyer Anna de Buisseret and her team are among many legal / medical experts involved in legal action against those who have violated our rights. For an idea of the legal tsunami approaching the "jabbers" and their handlers, listen to the lawyers in this video:


    I apologise if I am being obtuse and thank you for your "snippets" but I am still not clear what message you wish to convey? What are you trying to say to us?

    • Like 2
  16. 16 minutes ago, The Phantom said:

    Nothing on Flightradar - military? 

    There are two.

    One looks like a USMC V-22 Osprey and one looks like a Beechcraft Texan Trainer.

    Both were practicing landing-runs, the Osprey also hovered over the runway.

    I think they were from RAF Valley but only because its close and they usually are.


    • Like 1
  17. 9 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

    Well presumably he'd have had to call it something else if it was more restrictive.

    Thinking about it, despite one's initial reaction, the rise of the internet has probably reduced this sort of nonsense.  It's true that everyone is more aware of the loonies, but in part this is because people are now able to say: "Look at these loonies! ".

    This sort of nonsense has certainly been around for a long time - cults aren't a new thing and any Victorian paper will be full of ads for all sort of pseudo-scientific nonsense.  The internet may help spread such things, but it also gives people the tools to debunk them.


    Tim doesn't regret creating the WWW but he has spotted that it has the potential to cause polarised views.

    Isn't this the main point re the conspiracy promoters? There were always a minority with unusual and extreme views but they were isolated and easily dismissed. Now they can communicate with other like-minded people and the groups thus formed, reinforce each other's views.

    At the same time, their views are exposed to comment and opprobrium from the rest of the world.

    I am amazed at how many people can adopt views that are contrary to evidence that is easily available.



    • Like 1
  18. 16 hours ago, Gladys said:

    It is very complex, as most tax rules are because when a loophole is found it is plugged, then another loophole, plugged and so on until you have, literally, volumes of rules, and lots of exceptions and exemptions. 

    What you describe is something that non-doms would do before becoming UK tax resident, the difficulty is to preserve the non-dom status (I know of one such client who decided to buy a burial plot in London which had all the advisers face palming at all their hard work in establishing a complex structure ruined in one stroke!).    

    A UK taxpayer may buy property here, not for tax reasons but because it is a good investment or suits them for some other reason. 


    Gladys makes a point and then provides the example that proves the point in so many ways.

    For normal UK domiciliaries, sheltering assets from tax in offshore companies has largely, not been effective for many years. There were small areas where an advantage was possible by putting a UK property in an offshore company. Over the last 10 years those opportunities have been closed down one at a time and in some cases, the structures previously used would now involve more tax than would be charged without the offshore structure.

    For example, offshore companies are now subject to CGT on the sale of UK property (previously non-residents were not generally subject to CGT) and where a non-dom (or trust he/she has created) holds a company which holds UK domestic property,  IHT is still chargeable (used to be treated as foreign asset, shares, so that IHT not in point).

    There are gaps/loopholes but they are few and far between and, where there is doubt, the Courts these days are not sympathetic to aggressive schemes.

    In general, much less scope than there used to be.


    • Thanks 1
  19. 16 hours ago, code99 said:


    Thank you for clarifying. I thought if a non-UK property was purchased by a UK resident via a non-UK company which is held in an offshore/non-UK domiciled trust, then the actual asset i.e. non-UK property is not subject to IHT...sorry my fault.

    No need to apologise. The rules are complex and not widely appreciated.

    I devoted half a career to fixing the messes people got into as a result of making simplistic assumptions.


  • Create New...