Jump to content

You'll never see a poor farmer


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 194
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

As Phil Gawne, the farmers' friend will tell you, they can't change the huge grants giving to all these landowners because they have to compete with the European subsidies. And of course, we'll all di

If ever there was a list to put on manxleaks then its this one ...I'm pretty sure it would interesting reading ..Is it the case that if you own lots of land then rent it out to tenant farmers - who mo

As a small farmer I can't help but agree with many of the comments on this thread, id be quite delighted to farm without any government support (and the inspections that go with them) id just like one

Posted Images

He is not as near as you get in the current house because his business absolutely depends on handouts from the government.

 

Does it or did it depend or was in a nice little bit of exrta income. You obviously know more than me as I have no idea. I am a small businessman and if there is funding available I would take if I need

 

I actually disagree with your definition as basically you are stating any business that receives grants or assistance from govt is not a business. Just looking at the UK there are numerous large businesses that get assistance to persuade them to set up in a certain part of the UK, help relocate, take on staff. Many transport operations in the UK only run becuase they get a franchise with govt funding. By your definition they are not businesses.

 

If I do though accept your definition, who though would you describe as a business man? Alf Cannan because he has a recruitment business? Robertshaw, Beecroft cos they have links to cleaning businesses?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The MHKs are there to represent our interests. They are not there to run or manage anything.

 

The relevancy or otherwise of academic achievement, business acumen or whatever should have been sorted at the time of election.

 

More important is such as their powers of persuasion, assertion and integrity.

Edited by Wann
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My best friend lives in Cregeen's constituency and I've just been speaking to her...she tells me that originally he worked for his father as a painter and decorator and then became a postman. I haven't verified that though.

She has my deepest sympathy sad.png

Edited by Lisenchuk
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The MHKs are there to represent our interests. They are not there to run or manage anything.

 

The relevancy or otherwise of academic achievement, business acumen or whatever should have been sorted at the time of election.

 

More important is such as their powers of persuasion, assertion and integrity.

 

Quite right. These snide remarks about MHKs' previous professions and the suggestions that they are unfit for politics are not grasping what a politician's role is. It's a subject that is often floating about here at MF and has been dredged up in bucketfuls recently in the thread about Mrs. Burns and her political aspirations. Politicians are our representatives in the workings of government. Though they may be assigned to represent our interests in a particular department they need not be experts in that area. The experts are professional civil servants, often paid more than the MHKs who are there to take their advice and make decisions about what is best for the people.(a system most certainly not without flaws)

 

It is also ironic that the two most oft heard complaints about members of our parliament are that they are insufficiently experienced and that they are paid too much. Masterminds and entrepreneurs aren't going to sign themselves up for such a thankless and poorly paid job as being a Member of the House of Keys, with job security not extending beyond 5 years, and your life opened up to the scrutiny of all. Get real. You are going to have to fork out something a little more than 38k p.a. to attract high level business people and professionals.

 

Do we want a parliament stuffed with high-paid business people and those who have climbed the greasy pole in the finance sector? They may have some experience to offer, and some influence too but, forgive the generalisation, ambitious achievers are usually best at representing their own interests rather than anyone else's. More valuable in a politician are honesty, integrity, and sense of duty.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The MHKs are there to represent our interests. They are not there to run or manage anything.

 

The relevancy or otherwise of academic achievement, business acumen or whatever should have been sorted at the time of election.

 

More important is such as their powers of persuasion, assertion and integrity.

 

Do we want a parliament stuffed with high-paid business people and those who have climbed the greasy pole in the finance sector....More valuable in a politician are honesty, integrity, and sense of duty.

No we don't want a parliament stuffed with individuals like that any more than we want it stuffed with pharmacists, postmen, brain surgeons or astronauts. And indeed the personal qualities you list are indispensable. But what is also needed is the ability to weigh options (the options presented by the civil service for political decision making as you describe); to debate coherently; to explain rationally; to avoid cliche and stereotyping; to rise above petty parochial matters; to have the strength of character to make difficult decisions and stick to them. Our elected members should show the capacity to do this, and to have a track record of competence in their pre-political career, to engender some confidence that they will deliver. Whether that earlier career be "lowly" or not is irrelevant.

 

But the vast majority of our current incumbents manifestly do not possess, and have not demonstrated, any of the qualities I set out here. Listen to a Tynwald debate. The stuttering, halting, confusing, inarticulate mess you will hear would make a bright 9 year old cringe.

 

You are right that high-earning, high-flyers, will turn their backs on politics - unless we pay £100k + as salary, which ain't gonna happen. But we need so much better representation than we have at present. The fault is mine, and yours. We don't encourage people we admire and respect to stand. We don't challenge, at election time, by attending requisition meetings, standing up, questioning assertively, and testing the candidates. We don't stand ourselves. Indeed, some of us don't vote.

 

We allowed, and continue to be complicit in, the lowest common denominator, bargain-basement, third-rate, parliament we are saddled with. What are we going to do about it? f the answer is "nothing", it's us who lose out. Not Houghton, Singer and Cannell.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we want a parliament stuffed with high-paid business people and those who have climbed the greasy pole in the finance sector? They may have some experience to offer, and some influence too but, forgive the generalisation, ambitious achievers are usually best at representing their own interests rather than anyone else's. More valuable in a politician are honesty, integrity, and sense of duty.

So where did it all go so horribly wrong...

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The MHKs are there to represent our interests. They are not there to run or manage anything.

 

The relevancy or otherwise of academic achievement, business acumen or whatever should have been sorted at the time of election.

 

More important is such as their powers of persuasion, assertion and integrity.

 

Quite right. These snide remarks about MHKs' previous professions and the suggestions that they are unfit for politics are not grasping what a politician's role is. It's a subject that is often floating about here at MF and has been dredged up in bucketfuls recently in the thread about Mrs. Burns and her political aspirations. Politicians are our representatives in the workings of government. Though they may be assigned to represent our interests in a particular department they need not be experts in that area. The experts are professional civil servants, often paid more than the MHKs who are there to take their advice and make decisions about what is best for the people.(a system most certainly not without flaws)

 

It is also ironic that the two most oft heard complaints about members of our parliament are that they are insufficiently experienced and that they are paid too much. Masterminds and entrepreneurs aren't going to sign themselves up for such a thankless and poorly paid job as being a Member of the House of Keys, with job security not extending beyond 5 years, and your life opened up to the scrutiny of all. Get real. You are going to have to fork out something a little more than 38k p.a. to attract high level business people and professionals.

 

Do we want a parliament stuffed with high-paid business people and those who have climbed the greasy pole in the finance sector? They may have some experience to offer, and some influence too but, forgive the generalisation, ambitious achievers are usually best at representing their own interests rather than anyone else's. More valuable in a politician are honesty, integrity, and sense of duty.

 

Whilst I broadly agree with your post,I would also add that a strong principle of fairness and equity in policy and implementation is of great importance.

 

The lack of this principle is the key to much of the anger and contempt the electorate display for the current administration.

Edited by Lisenchuk
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The MHKs are there to represent our interests. They are not there to run or manage anything.

 

The relevancy or otherwise of academic achievement, business acumen or whatever should have been sorted at the time of election.

 

More important is such as their powers of persuasion, assertion and integrity.

Do we want a parliament stuffed with high-paid business people and those who have climbed the greasy pole in the finance sector....More valuable in a politician are honesty, integrity, and sense of duty.

No we don't want a parliament stuffed with individuals like that any more than we want it stuffed with pharmacists, postmen, brain surgeons or astronauts. And indeed the personal qualities you list are indispensable. But what is also needed is the ability to weigh options (the options presented by the civil service for political decision making as you describe); to debate coherently; to explain rationally; to avoid cliche and stereotyping; to rise above petty parochial matters; to have the strength of character to make difficult decisions and stick to them. Our elected members should show the capacity to do this, and to have a track record of competence in their pre-political career, to engender some confidence that they will deliver. Whether that earlier career be "lowly" or not is irrelevant.

 

But the vast majority of our current incumbents manifestly do not possess, and have not demonstrated, any of the qualities I set out here. Listen to a Tynwald debate. The stuttering, halting, confusing, inarticulate mess you will hear would make a bright 9 year old cringe.

 

You are right that high-earning, high-flyers, will turn their backs on politics - unless we pay £100k + as salary, which ain't gonna happen. But we need so much better representation than we have at present. The fault is mine, and yours. We don't encourage people we admire and respect to stand. We don't challenge, at election time, by attending requisition meetings, standing up, questioning assertively, and testing the candidates. We don't stand ourselves. Indeed, some of us don't vote.

 

We allowed, and continue to be complicit in, the lowest common denominator, bargain-basement, third-rate, parliament we are saddled with. What are we going to do about it? f the answer is "nothing", it's us who lose out. Not Houghton, Singer and Cannell.

 

 

I did ask forgiveness for making a generalisation about people in business! I was just making the point that those who have been "successful" in business or in their professional career do not necessarily possess the qualities that are important in a politician. It is worth saying that a higher than normal proportion of high-achievers display psychopathic traits like lack of empathy, self-aggrandisement, and impulsiveness. Studies on this have identified problems that this can bring to an organisation. Call it a prejudice on my part if you like but I would be very wary of a system that used career success as a measure of fitness for politics. This is only to say to those who clamour for candidates with more business experience to be careful what you wish for.

 

Anyway, I agree with you. Politics has problems with voter turnout (the same as in many other developed countries) and participation generally. The turnout here in 2011 was around 60%, roughly the same as the UK in 2010. We doubtless share in some of the same problems, and we need to look at these first of all.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest issue I have is the fact that our national representatives are only validly elected at the level of a local Councillor.

 

This on top of not having party political system only goes to weaken their validity as national Govt further. So what have the current shower done to improve the national democratic status of Keys candidates?.......Taps fingers waiting for inevitable NOTHING! answer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately the most important quality an aspiring politician needs is electability. Otherwise they're NEVER going to make it in politics. Frankly I just can't see some FS reptile in a suit convincing the electorate that they're going to look out for the voter's best interests ahead of their own. Having said that a lot of the current incumbents did just that...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately the most important quality an aspiring politician needs is electability..

Dead right. The fault is ours for settling for such poor qualities that we deem to satisfy the definition of electable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhtred, it isn't always the case that we elect people with poor qualities at the start of their term,but more often than not they allow themselves to be compromised by other forces in Tynwald and the Civil Service.

 

We need a definable contract with representatives that could spell by election for them if they don't acceptably adhere to the role of public representation.

  • 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...