Jump to content

Dissolution Of Parliament.


Recommended Posts

The Island has been internally self-governing and financing and sorting out its own problems for so long now and with a continuous parliament such that the UK would not have constitutional grounds to interfere unless things were so bad that they resembled Greece or even worse.

 

The UK is ultimately responsible for good governance but only if there were to be some sort of collapse or break down in governance or civil law and order or outrageous corruption.

 

The Island is far from breakdown and it does have a functioning democracy and it is not the UK's problem if the people are apathetic about voting.

 

Even if you did have the worst government possible provided the Civil Service held up and the trains as it were ran on time then the UK could not and would not intervene directly......

 

It might creep up in the dark and breathe down a few necks and scare people into resigning as in the case of a former Chief Minister!...

 

There is some precedent such as the Prime Minister Harold Wilson in 1967 under Operation Sheepskin” sending 300 troops plus police to the Island of Anguilla, which declaring itself independent from federation from the Islands of St Kitts and Nevis, had burnt down Government House.

 

Anyone see the columns of people bearing torches advancing up Glencrutchery Road? On the other hand Sam Barks could lead the way reprising a part from Les Miserables!

 

Likewise there was the breakdown in Northern Ireland in the late 1960s such that the civil power requested military assistance, and which military response is binding by law I believe as compulsory "aid to the civil power" ....but that applies equally to local councils coping with floods, bin-men strikes and foot and mouth as well as governments collapsing.

 

I think that the most recent case of the UK intervening for the sake of "good governance" was in the Turks and Caicos Islands three or so years back.

 

Not only did the Island's British Governor assume direct control but a temporary administration was sent out from the UK to straighten out the administration, sort out corruption and get the finances back in order.

 

The Island is far from that bad and the Lt Governor and his "oppo" the Chief Secretary "our man/person in Mann" have no need to call for direct intervention although I suppose as the Island pays into the defence budget the Lt Governor could call for aid to the civil power in extremis.

 

At the end of the day your are on your own because that is the way you increasingly wanted it post-1945.......Or that's the way Charlie Kerruish wanted it anyway....Enjoy!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OK thanks Barrie - just pop this blindfold on & go & stand by that wall.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 41
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Mal IMO reform of parliament is more important than dissolution. I notice for example that even basic changes such as Freedom of Information are once again dragging heels.   I have a radical view th

Given we are only 9 months into a 5 year HoK and we have a government of all the talents/national unity and there has been no motion of no confidence passed on what basis would the Lord of Mann's repr

It is not even that bad on the island it you step back and think about it. Why is everyone upset with the current bunch? Mainly because they have had to introduce CUTS, something the island should of

There are alot of people on here who are not happy with the way the island is being run and the utter contempt our elected and unelected politicians treat the electorate.The way the ministerial system has evolved and the way policy and decisions involving many millions of pounds can be made behind closed doors to be put through on a nod as everyone is on the gravy train.

Is there a procedure available to the electorate if enough were dissatisfied with the government part way through a term of office to have it dissolved, say by a petition, rather than hanging them from the street lights. The thing is can we afford to have these in charge fo another three years or would the apathy of the electorate put the same old faces back in.

There's many different areas that I personally disagree with and these will bound to differ from others. It therefore follows that it would be highly unlikely if everyone followed suit and that's where the problem lies, 'US'

 

Of course the seven deadly sins reveals itself time and time again - wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy & gluttony and if there's anyone who hasn't 'sampled' at least one of the seven, then can you make yourself known now, as I've no doubt that there's a cult somewhere wishing to join your cause.

 

Politicians being politicians are an easy target as they want to please as many people as possible without committing themselves to a particular principle because as soon as they do, they put themselves onto the radar and tend to get shot down in flames quite rapidly. I certainly wouldn't want their job and if there's anyone here who thinks that they're better than the politicians and once again, I say show yourself now and lets hear your policies.

 

There will always be a 'look after me and I'll look after you brigade' and the old saying 'the better the devil you know, than the devil you don't' probably applies to most cases.

Greed on the other hand, gets on my t**s and putting my trust in some people is like dangling my leg into shark infested water.

 

Ok, that's my part rant over, I've had my say, someone will reply and hopefully we'll come to some agreement of one type or another.

 

 

ps hissingsid, censorship and Spermann, your Juan thread has gone over the page again and no-one has entered anything since 07.17pm yesterday.. Slacking guys

Edited by manxy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully Forum folks will become involved in the Chief Ministers offer of 'consultation' with the people during the forthcoming debate on the 'scope' report

 

We've a form of government that has no real system of policy creation so it's up to us (& others) to make our opinions felt during this consultation

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given we are only 9 months into a 5 year HoK and we have a government of all the talents/national unity and there has been no motion of no confidence passed on what basis would the Lord of Mann's representative exercise such a power, assuming he had one? Just because a few people on here say hevshould. That isn't constitutional Monarchy, thats absolute monarchy.

 

Our parliamentary system has fixed 5 year terms (originally 7 from 1866 to WW1), before the 1980's we didn't have a Chief Minister, just boards appointed by the Governor and an advisory ExCo. The Governor has never needed or exercised the power suggested by OP.

 

Presumably if AB lost a vote of confidence he woud resign, there would be another CM election and only if Tynwald could not agree on a CM and a ministerial team would it be a possibility for the outgoing CM to ask the Governor to disolve the HoK

 

The whole scenario highlights the need to develop parties and an opposition within our democratic system, to develop policy hold the government to account and to propose, and with enough support,. pass a no confidence motions

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, John's right, and I've been saying the same thing for years. Nothing will change until we stop trying to sidestep the necessary and only route to a more capable and democratic Tynwald. Parties have been the bogeyman of Manx politics for generations and too many of us have bought into the myths and shibboleths peddled by those who neither want them or understand the role of party politics in modern democracies. The most valuable role they could play in a Manx context is in the pre-selection and development of good candidates long before the election. The range and depth of knowledge and opinion on this forum alone tells me that there are people out there who given the structure and support of a democratic party could really raise the bar of Manx politics. The only obstacle is that folk wisdom is still of the opinion that parties are fundamentally undemocratic and wholly unsuitable in a Manx context. That view will still take some shifting, backed as it is by the current narrow distribution of real influence, wealth, power and decision making behind our traditional arrangements.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the balance that the elected representative must strike, but once elected they're under no compulsion to act other than by their own conscience and counsel. An independent MHK would surely have a view to their re-election, but a party member would also face the possibility of deselection. The case of Zac Hall in Onchan raised all these questions while only months into the current administration.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Our parliamentary system has fixed 5 year terms (originally 7 from 1866 to WW1), before the 1980's we didn't have a Chief Minister, just boards appointed by the Governor and an advisory ExCo. The Governor has never needed or exercised the power suggested by OP.

 

Only the first two general elections were actually at the 7 year interval. Up to 1913 the other intervals ranged from 4 years to 6 years. The Governor did dissolve the Keys during this period.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Parties have been the bogeyman of Manx politics for generations and too many of us have bought into the myths and shibboleths peddled by those who neither want them or understand the role of party politics in modern democracies. The most valuable role they could play in a Manx context is in the pre-selection and development of good candidates long before the election.

 

As in LibVan and the Manx Labour Party?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not even that bad on the island it you step back and think about it. Why is everyone upset with the current bunch? Mainly because they have had to introduce CUTS, something the island should of being doing for the last 20 years but put off because we were flush with money.

 

The economy is not even in recession, its slowed but it is still growing. I think the biggest gripe most have, and it is the same in lots of countries, is that because banks are now not lending more than people can really afford to top up their mortgage.(plus house prices are stagnant)

 

With that "free money" people have either paid off their maxed out credit cards or bought a new car, now that cant happen lots think that they are skint, when infact all that has happened is that they have been forced to live within their means.

 

They have lost the Feel Good factor that comes with having a disposable income of about half their actual income, that is the problem.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's not that - it's just that a political system that allows no room for policy formulation & has to put it out to committees of old duffers just defies credulity

  • Like 1
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...