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

Douglas East

Recommended Posts

Note to electors: if you really dislike a candidate you may write your comments on the ballot papaer and that paper will be shown to all candidates and officials at the count

 

A mischievous tip if there ever was one! wink.gif

 

On a purely hypothetical note regarding "what's in it for companies" when it comes to sponsoring candidates, remember that we're likely to have a tough few years ahead of us.

 

For instance, we're likely to see a further drop of at least £50 million in our next budget, so belts at the treasury are only going to get tighter and this is likely to effect a number of industries directly. Each year sees a significant amount of the budget going to the construction industry, for example (in previous years anywhere between £85 million and £135 million) - which could be said to provide a very powerful motivation for companies to want people fighting on their behalf in Tynwald.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, apparently because of the Icelandic volcano, there is every chance that you will not make it to a polling station on May 27th. The answer to this is to vote via proxy. ( page 9 of the Indy). I have a couple of questions. Is there a way to find out after the vote, how many votes for someone were by way of proxy and how many were from people who bothered to attend a station? If there are an awful lot of proxy votes, will the returning officers bother to check that the voter WAS actually off the Island on the day of the vote and if not, what can they do to that vote? Will it still count?

This is directed generally by the way, not at any one candidate, as I assume they will all have proxy votes.

 

It is the job of the returning officer to make sure that the rules of the 1995 Representaiom of the People Act are observed and according to section 27 proxy voters must be off the Island during the election

 

Candidates are able to inspect all ballot papers, including proxy votes at the count and may reject papers subject to consensus amongst the candidates

 

In my experience as a candidate of two elections there weren't that many proxy votes and the only ones we were called to validate were spoiled or confusingly marked ballot papers

 

We did not dispute any of the papers in Douglas South in 2001 or 2006

 

Note to electors: if you really dislike a candidate you may write your comments on the ballot papaer and that paper will be shown to all candidates and officials at the count

 

Thanks for the info Cheeky Boy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if this point has already been made, but as an island we are continually referring to our transparency, regulation and due diligence on the funds that pass through. That is in the private sector, it is our stock in trade that we aim for the highest levels of probity in our dealings, certainly in the finance sector. Now, with MET, we have the laughable situation where a political candidate is funded by persons unknown and declaring that as it is a trust he doesn't need to know!

 

Jeez, string the words 'political', 'unknown' and 'source of funds' together and see how that will stack up with OECD, EU etc. etc. At the same time we are shouting about how diligent we are and our triple A rating, ahead as a compliant and co-operative state, but we are quite happy to let a candidate stand for election to Government who publicly declares that he is receiving funding from 'someone', but it doesn't matter who because they will not influence him.

 

Completely shambolic attempt and KW's inability to grasp that very fundamental difficulty renders him unelectable in my eyes. He just has not got any idea about what the IOM is all about.

 

I look forward, should he be elected, to his attempts to open a bank account as he will be a PEP but will be completely unable to verify the source of funds for his campaign. I would love to watch that farce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Completely shambolic attempt and KW's inability to grasp that very fundamental difficulty renders him unelectable in my eyes. He just has not got any idea about what the IOM is all about.

 

Although it's still early days and we're waiting on the manifestos, I think 'clueless' pretty much sums Woodford up as a candidate.

 

I'm sure I'm making too much of it, but there's something about his standing for LegCo and then the House of Keys that makes me uncomfortable. I suppose it gives an impression of him as someone who views the office and status as more important than the actual role, and his recent comments haven't exactly helped counter this image.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if this point has already been made, but as an island we are continually referring to our transparency, regulation and due diligence on the funds that pass through. That is in the private sector, it is our stock in trade that we aim for the highest levels of probity in our dealings, certainly in the finance sector. Now, with MET, we have the laughable situation where a political candidate is funded by persons unknown and declaring that as it is a trust he doesn't need to know!

 

Jeez, string the words 'political', 'unknown' and 'source of funds' together and see how that will stack up with OECD, EU etc. etc. At the same time we are shouting about how diligent we are and our triple A rating, ahead as a compliant and co-operative state, but we are quite happy to let a candidate stand for election to Government who publicly declares that he is receiving funding from 'someone', but it doesn't matter who because they will not influence him.

 

Completely shambolic attempt and KW's inability to grasp that very fundamental difficulty renders him unelectable in my eyes. He just has not got any idea about what the IOM is all about.

 

I look forward, should he be elected, to his attempts to open a bank account as he will be a PEP but will be completely unable to verify the source of funds for his campaign. I would love to watch that farce.

 

I disagree, KW may not know the source of funds into the Trust, but the Trustees etc will. Presumably it may be run by a trustees licended by the FSC as TSP.

 

KW therefore knows where the funds he has received have come from, the MET, and presumably who the trustees are. As it is a blind trust he presumably does not know who it is funded. This is not a great deal different from receiving money from a company, in that you will know the directors, know the company but in general do you know where the money it pays you actually comes from?

Edited by Lost Login

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buster Lewin is offering to pay £15 pw for the placement of banners on Douglas properties

?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree, KW may not know the source of funds into the Trust, but the Trustees etc will. Presumably it may be run by a trustees licended by the FSC as TSP.

 

KW knows where the funds have come from and presumably who the trustees are. As it is a blind trust he presumably oes not know who it is funded. This is not a great deal different from receiving money from a company, in that you will know the directors, know the company but in general do you know where the money it pays you actually comes from?

 

Interesting. Yet he states

Source: - http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/Ive-got-nothing-to-hide.6265016.jp

Neither does he know who is involved in the trust, nor does he wish to know, he maintains.

 

'I know of no company or individual that is involved in the trust,' he said.

 

So unless the article is misquoting him or just plain making it up, he knows not who is involved in this trust and has clearly stated so in the public arena.

 

Does this strike anyone as having some vague similarities (in the trusting nature and good faith displayed by him in accepting

(provision of) glossy election posters that have been put up around the constituency and newspapers adverts.

..... Also a small campaign team and an election office.

) with those cases that pop around the world from time to time about hapless yet trusting british travellers who agree to carry bags or parcels or 'gifts' through customs from people they don't actually know and then are gobsmacked that their trust has been betrayed when they find out it's heroin or something else naughty?

 

Innocents abroad and all that.

 

Not of course that I am in anyway implying/suggesting that the candidate in this case is condoning or committing anything illegal at all. Or indeed the MET - whoever they are.

 

eta Still no answer to the e mail referred to in Post 357 29 April 2010 - 06:39 AM

Perhaps the 'small campaign team' might get around to that at some point.

Edited by - Paul -

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if this point has already been made, but as an island we are continually referring to our transparency, regulation and due diligence on the funds that pass through. That is in the private sector, it is our stock in trade that we aim for the highest levels of probity in our dealings, certainly in the finance sector. Now, with MET, we have the laughable situation where a political candidate is funded by persons unknown and declaring that as it is a trust he doesn't need to know!

 

Jeez, string the words 'political', 'unknown' and 'source of funds' together and see how that will stack up with OECD, EU etc. etc. At the same time we are shouting about how diligent we are and our triple A rating, ahead as a compliant and co-operative state, but we are quite happy to let a candidate stand for election to Government who publicly declares that he is receiving funding from 'someone', but it doesn't matter who because they will not influence him.

 

Completely shambolic attempt and KW's inability to grasp that very fundamental difficulty renders him unelectable in my eyes. He just has not got any idea about what the IOM is all about.

 

I look forward, should he be elected, to his attempts to open a bank account as he will be a PEP but will be completely unable to verify the source of funds for his campaign. I would love to watch that farce.

 

I disagree, KW may not know the source of funds into the Trust, but the Trustees etc will. Presumably it may be run by a trustees licended by the FSC as TSP.

 

KW knows where the funds have come from and presumably who the trustees are. As it is a blind trust he presumably oes not know who it is funded. This is not a great deal different from receiving money from a company, in that you will know the directors, know the company but in general do you know where the money it pays you actually comes from?

When you are funded by a company the source of funds would usually be from the activities of the company (unless you are referring to the 'moneypot' type of company rather than a trading company) and it is open to the recipient to make enquiries of the company directors, then decide whether or not you are satisfied with their answer. To display disinterest in understanding the source of funding by a candidate in the political arena is surely against all precepts of transparency in government? Why should there not be transparency and why is the importance of that concept so utterly lost on KW?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had this link mailed to me http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=57023&c

Pub Bitch

 

17 May, 2008

 

By Pub Bitch

 

What price a celebrity chef??? And other whimsical bits and bobs

 

Feeding his ego

 

Top marks to the BII and John Mac for another sterling annual lunch at the Grosvenor House hotel in London last week. No marks at all, though, go to the event’s guest speaker, ‘celebrity chef’ Kevin Woodford. Woodford kicked off his self-publicity session… sorry, speech, with a two-minute film about himself, presumably for the benefit of the hundreds of people in the room who’d managed to avoid the TV dross that is Ready Steady Cook.

 

He then droned on and on about his own achievements, occasionally chipping in with some rather dubious comments, like the one about the food we’d just had being something one would be familiar with “at 38,000 feet”, and describing an apprentice once in his charge who suffered from something akin to Parkinson’s disease as being an ideal candidate for the job of cocktail shaker.

 

Such quips met with virtual silence, and after what felt like a week the man finally sat down. Thankfully, BII stalwart Phil Dixon had had the room in stitches earlier in the proceedings, plus his insight and enthusiasm for the pub trade is what such an event cries out for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When you are funded by a company the source of funds would usually be from the activities of the company (unless you are referring to the 'moneypot' type of company rather than a trading company) and it is open to the recipient to make enquiries of the company directors, then decide whether or not you are satisfied with their answer. To display disinterest in understanding the source of funding by a candidate in the political arena is surely against all precepts of transparency in government? Why should there not be transparency and why is the importance of that concept so utterly lost on KW?

 

Presumably KW knows who the trustees are or ar least one of them as they would have approached him. The money is not just turning up in his account. Presumably he has confidence in the integrity of the trusteees.

 

I would like to know more about MET, who its trustees are and what its ams are. But equally if I was in Kw's position and I had met the trustees and I had confidence in them then yes purely out of curiosity I would like to know who was funding. But equally if it was explained by those professional trustees it was a philanthropic blind trust deliberately set up so that only the trustees were aware of the donations as they were trying to prevent allegations about political interference I might very well be prepared to accept that.

 

You say KW displays disinterest in understanding the source of funds, he may well do, but equally he may have reassured of the position by the trustees.

 

I am sorry but in this case I understand why we would like to know who is funding MET equally I understand why it may be perfectly aceptable that the recipient is not aware of who is funding the trust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree, KW may not know the source of funds into the Trust, but the Trustees etc will. Presumably it may be run by a trustees licended by the FSC as TSP.

 

KW knows where the funds have come from and presumably who the trustees are. As it is a blind trust he presumably oes not know who it is funded. This is not a great deal different from receiving money from a company, in that you will know the directors, know the company but in general do you know where the money it pays you actually comes from?

 

Interesting. Yet he states

Source: - http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/Ive-got-nothing-to-hide.6265016.jp

Neither does he know who is involved in the trust, nor does he wish to know, he maintains.

 

'I know of no company or individual that is involved in the trust,' he said.

 

Sorry I should have made myself clear in saying that he knows where the funds have come from that he has received, i.e from the MET. I did not mean to imply he knew where the funding of the trust came from

 

So unless the article is misquoting him or just plain making it up, he knows not who is involved in this trust and has clearly stated so in the public arena.

 

 

 

He clearly has some knowledge of the trust even if only of the trustees who approached him. I took his statement to mean he had no knowledge of who set up or funded the trust. My understanding could obviously be wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is fine if the money is being received in his personal capacity and not to fund a political campaign. Take an extreme example, say a candidate's political platform is anti-vivisection and then he finds that the trust is funded by donations form large concerns involved in animal experimentation; he won't look too clever and the people who voted for him will not be happy that they have been misled. The political arena demands absolute transparency; standards which go beyond the usual finance sector regulation, if you do not know the source funding you then how can you meet those standards.

 

Do the trustees have to be regulated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ravabelli

Just watched ManxTube

Impressed that KW worked alongside David Blunkett as a College Vice President.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is fine if the money is being received in his personal capacity and not to fund a political campaign. Take an extreme example, say a candidate's political platform is anti-vivisection and then he finds that the trust is funded by donations form large concerns involved in animal experimentation; he won't look too clever and the people who voted for him will not be happy that they have been misled. The political arena demands absolute transparency; standards which go beyond the usual finance sector regulation, if you do not know the source funding you then how can you meet those standards.

 

Do the trustees have to be regulated?

 

No they do not but if doing professionally etc then yes. I would hope therefore hope they are and equally if the MET is going to exist I would like that to be a requirement.

 

I note your example above and that is the candidates risk. However it would also show that the candidate has not let the funding sway their opinion. He has voted "against" the funders.

 

Using the same example what happens if it was only public, and the candidate changed his mind, or say the candidate was neutral and voted to support vivisection. Would the allegation not be that they might have been "bought".

 

I do not like the idea of companies, unions, wealthy individuals etc funding politicians or political parties but I have to admit if it is going to happen I much prefer it being done by a "blind" trust so a politicuian or political party is less likely to be influenced. Whether it can be done in reality is a different matter and If a politician in the IoM is being funded by an outside source I much prefer they are not aware who is funding than they are aware and feel that they are some sort of obligation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With reference to the potential dangers that can come out of lack of transparency in matters Parliamentary / Political.

 

http://www.gov.im/cso/crown/mountmurray.xml

 

 

Pointing out the particular paragraphs that reference a certain Mr Gary Spence as illustrative of the sometimes important need to know who it is that is acting in a given situation, who such individuals are acting for, and who it is that is being acted upon and why. Ignorance is not always bliss.

 

Upon consideration of the Mount Murry documentation alone, as an example of how a singular lack of transparency in political matters can prove to be a cause of significant problems politically as well as others equally serious. Would it not be prudent to know as much as possible about any organisation, and the people involved within it that are funding political any candidate for election? Should it be foremost in the minds of an electorate to know if the candidate is fully aware of and prepared to reveal the fullest possible information regarding who or what is or has provided funding for their political ambitions? Is it not a fundamental requirement that all candidates have and can prove to have "clean hands" in that regard?

 

If a candidate is unable or unwilling to provide that necessary information then the significant question must be why not?

 

If the people involved in such an organisation as that providing funding and facilities to any political candidate are unable or unwilling to provide that necessary information again then why not?

 

 

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

George Satayana.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...