Jump to content

Howard Quayle is our next chief minister


Recommended Posts

is there any actual proof that half didn't vote?

 

It's a bit under half - 53.1% - of registered voters actually voted, though that figure doesn't include spoilt votes, the alterations in Ayre and Michael and any other cock-ups they are desperately trying to keep quiet. The figure is down from 57.1% in 2011 and is a good bit lower than UK elections, but is similar to the sort of turnout for the devolved assemblies. As I showed in an earlier post the drop in turnout from 2011 varies a lot between constituency, partly based on how (un)enticing the candidates are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 702
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The emotions being expressed at Quayles appointment were pretty much predictable even if the current backlash is a bit unpleasant. When the public overwhelmingly supported the two candidates who polle

If you can be arsed, go back through this forum looking at threads on such things as VAT, MEA, Pinewood, Public Sector Pensions etc, and other notably polarising manx political figures.   You'll not

I dont know why Beecroft stood. She wasn't ever getting in and all it did was dilute the vote for Cannan.

Posted Images

If I had been voting it would have been for Cannan.

 

However, it would not have been without reservation. It is easier to shout from the sidelines than it is to be in government. I have said before that Alf does have a knack of supporting both sides of an argument to draw support from the full spectrum of views.. That is not so easy when you are in office, and his manifesto was no more decisive than anyone else's in reality. All generalisations.

 

Maybe, we were supporting him because he positioned himself as more anti-the-status-quo than the others. Whether that would have translated into any radical departure from the policies and ways of the past by a Cannan led government at this stage we will now never know - we might at some future stage of course - but personally, I doubt that it would have done.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What 30% or more?

 

 

According to the remuneration and allowances page:

 

Additional sums payable to certain office-holders
The following additional sums are payable, calculated on the basis of the basic salary mentioned above:
Chief Minister 80%
President of Tynwald 50%
Speaker of the House of Keys 60%
Minister 50%
Member of the Treasury 40%
Member of a Department (or Departments) other than the Treasury 30%
Chairman of the Civil Service Commission 40%
Chairman of the Planning Committee 10%
Chairman of the Isle of Man Post Office 10%
Chairman of the Manx Utilities Authority 10%
Chairman of the Isle of Man Office of Fair Trading 10%

 

 

That's based on the basic salary which will be over £40k this time.
Edited to inert that important k.
Edited by Roger Mexico
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

He did not get a majority in the Keys.

 

But because of a dirty backstage deal amongst Legco he got in anyway. They should have abstained until one candidate had a majority in the keys. They didn't wait until the will of the keys was known and imposed their will instead.

 

What sort of majority in the keys.. Would you have found 13 v 11 or 12 v 11 if somebody abstained. Would that majority be acceptable if the one getting the narrow majority was a few behind in the first round as then you have a CM who was less people's first choice than we currently have. I don't disagree with you that it would have been preferable that one person got a substantial majority but as it turned out I think unless there was a another round with new candidates one of whom got a substantial majority it could be open to criticism. The issue was there was no clear front runner and as you say I am not convinced either was considerably better than the other, I just hope that Cannan agrees to a position as a Minister, gets a reasonably heavyweight position and is given some head room with which to work.

 

I agree with Declan. For this to be fully credible there needed to be a clear majority of Keys votes before LegCo became decisive in the outcome.

You mention abstainers. Can they do that when voting for a Chief Minister?

Link to post
Share on other sites

HQ may not have had a majority in the Keys but he did have as many as the other two put together. What would you have LegCo do? Did they not follow the largest grouping in the Keys? We may not like that politically, but it's factual.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HQ may not have had a majority in the Keys but he did have as many as the other two put together. What would you have LegCo do? Did they not follow the largest grouping in the Keys? We may not like that politically, but it's factual.

I would have LegCo wait until it had no option but to decide the outcome.

 

Instead Legco overruled a democratically elected quorum at the first opportunity that presented itself.

 

Totally shit. Imho of course...

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

What sort of majority in the keys.. Would you have found 13 v 11 or 12 v 11 if somebody abstained.

 

Actually the rules are pretty clear, it's a majority of those present and voting - and this includes spoilt votes. So if it was restricted to the Keys (as it ought to be until LegCo are elected) 13-11 and 12-11 would both be fine. But 12-12 isn't.

 

The members of LegCo ought to know this because the rules for electing them are even stricter - there have to be 13 votes in favour.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought this headline wad a joke but these idiots really have put him in charge. What the hell were they thinking? Please please please come to your senses and get the no confidence vote in quickly.this man couldn't run the hospital shop let alone an island going bankrupt

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What sort of majority in the keys.. Would you have found 13 v 11 or 12 v 11 if somebody abstained.

 

Actually the rules are pretty clear, it's a majority of those present and voting - and this includes spoilt votes. So if it was restricted to the Keys (as it ought to be until LegCo are elected) 13-11 and 12-11 would both be fine. But 12-12 isn't.

 

The members of LegCo ought to know this because the rules for electing them are even stricter - there have to be 13 votes in favour.

 

 

I appreciate that but I struggle to see why somebody who manages to squeak a narrow majority with a few 2nd preference votes has any more than the person got 50% of the first preferences. I am not saying either is right.

 

What we have is a CM who in the HoK when the names were put forward won the most votes and whose total was the same as the other two candidates. Maybe there should have been another round with new nominations but there was not and on the basis that the person elected got the most votes, got the same number as his opponents combined, got the same number of first preference votes as his nearest challenger got 1st & 2nd preference votes I don't see this affront to democracy.

 

If the rules provide whilst I would prefer somebody to win with a substantial majority I have no problem with it being the person with the most votes. That is how it works in most elections. Being the cynic though if HQ had won with a substantial majority there would have been complaints it was a stich up behind closed doors. I appreciate that it is not the case for everybody but I get the feeling that many are complaining just because they don't like HG, If Alf had been elected on the same basis they would have had no issues

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

HQ may not have had a majority in the Keys but he did have as many as the other two put together. What would you have LegCo do? Did they not follow the largest grouping in the Keys? We may not like that politically, but it's factual.

I would have LegCo wait until it had no option but to decide the outcome.

 

Instead Legco overruled a democratically elected quorum at the first opportunity that presented itself.

 

Totally shit. Imho of course...

 

 

Who did they over rule? They voted with the person who got the most votes, the same number as challengers combined. Now if the rules state that it is a requirement that the CM must have a majority in the HoK it is different but if not whether Legco decided to back on mass the first person to get a majority or the one who got the most votes that was there prerogative. We may not like it and we may believe the rules need to be changed in future years but I don't think they overruled anybody

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

For me it wouldn't be any more acceptable if it were any of the 3 that won it this way. The LegCo being the decisive factor when the initial result is not solid is especially more inflammatory considering many in there have reneged on their previously elected roles and deliberately dodged the electorate.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

For me it wouldn't be any more acceptable if it were any of the 3 that won it this way. The LegCo being the decisive factor when the initial result is not solid is especially more inflammatory considering many in there have reneged on their previously elected roles and deliberately dodged the electorate.

The person who was elected got a third more votes than the person who came second. Had as many votes as his two competitors combined. Had as first preference votes as many votes as the person who came second had 1st & 2nd preference votes combined if we presume that LVP would have gone for Cannan. They might not have. I seems that could be argued as pretty solid.

 

I understand where you are coming from but I just struggle to see this vote as a complete disgrace and wrong as some suggest. I don't think either argument is cut and dried.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

But that's not the process. The Chief Minister is supposed to command a majority. Otherwise every proposal he makes is in danger of being overturned. The point of the Chief Minister vote is to decide the direction the Island is going in, my not obtaining majority support there's the danger of being pulled from pillar to post.

 

Please keep in mind that the proposal put to and passed by the Keys last year was only the Keys should vote and the successful candidate needed 13 votes. It was passed unanimously - even Quayle voted for it.

 

This was rejected by Legco - who wanted their vote to stay, because Lord Lisvane might suggest something different. Lord Lisvane then suggested only Keys elections. The majority of successful candidates at the last election support the implementation of Lisvane.

 

So the rules that should be in place, and would have been but for Legco shenanigans, would have been a second ballot. This is what the previous elected house wanted, what Lord Lisvane wanted, what the current elected house say they want.

  • Like 5
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...