Jump to content

MLC nominations open


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Kopek said:

I think there is a convention that all those who wish to stand will get the 4 backers but not necessarily their votes when it comes to that stage?

I think you're wrong there.

All those who get the required backing will be listed before a vote, not all who wish to stand.

One has to be proposed, seconded, then have the backing of two more MHKs to get on the list.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 683
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You get the impression that Humbles got her support by wandering around Prospect Hill (where presumably she works some of the time), pestering MHKs to back her like a small child getting sponsors for

While people who have worked all their lives are having their assets stripped so that they can afford care, Phil Gawne made sure that his rich landowning mates were able to have a similar deal as UK a

In all fairness, I couldn’t care less whether the proposed/nominated/shoo-in/handed seat MLC was born here or not. What matters to me is they have a brain, able to use it. Have Common Sense and able t

Posted Images

Dilli, the proposing, backing is done before the list is offered to the \keys for statement of intent and subsequent voting procedure.

Of course, eejits , weirdos and MFers would be weeded out and not receive the backers to get to the final voting but any sensible candidate, even those with views that are unpopular with MHKs, would get the nod to go forward.

There is of course.................the voting!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Kopek is suggesting that MHK's may "lend" their support to someone with two or three backers to allow him to make his case publicly. For example, to a candidate endorsed by Liberal Vannin - it would be daft if a party with about 10% MHK of the vote wasn't even allowed to nominate a candidate for MLC. 

Of course that would be the fair and honourable thing to do. I think they'll decide amongst themselves the five they want then those five will be the only ones nomimated.  

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Declan said:

I think Kopek is suggesting that MHK's may "lend" their support to someone with two or three backers to allow him to make his case publicly. For example, to a candidate endorsed by Liberal Vannin - it would be daft if a party with about 10% MHK of the vote wasn't even allowed to nominate a candidate for MLC. 

Of course that would be the fair and honourable thing to do. I think they'll decide amongst themselves the five they want then those five will be the only ones nomimated.  

 

 

It will be a fit up I wish Peter Karran would put his name up for a laugh so we could see how they would manage to rig it so that he didn’t get it. What will happen is Beecroft will be given a parachute out of Keys and possibly Morehouse as well. So that will create only three new vacancies of which Poole-Wilson will get one as at least she’s controllable and they know her. Which will leave two actual vacancies to be filled out of 5 which will probably go to a couple of wealthy farmers like Anderson (maybe Phil Gawne who has nothing else to do but a part time job).  Even Paul Beckett can’t be arsed standing again as it’s a total stitch up despite the number of seats up. 

Edited by thesultanofsheight
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

It will be a fit up I wish Peter Karran would put his name up for a laugh so we could see how they would manage to rig it so that he didn’t get it. What will happen is Beecroft will be given a parachute out of Keys and possibly Morehouse as well. So that will create only three new vacancies of which Poole-Wilson will get one as at least she’s controllable and they know her. Which will leave two actual vacancies to be filled out of 5 which will probably go to a couple of wealthy farmers like Anderson (maybe Phil Gawne who has nothing else to do but a part time job).  Even Paul Beckett can’t be arsed standing again as it’s a total stitch up despite the number of seats up. 

If Moorhouse got in it would be even more of a travesty, how long's he been in Keys, 18 months? Mind, he could dribble on about seagulls and sandwiches all day to his heart's content then.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

If Moorhouse got in it would be even more of a travesty, how long's he been in Keys, 18 months? Mind, he could dribble on about seagulls and sandwiches all day to his heart's content then.

But for whatever misguided reason the establishment wants the useless Mr Gawne back (probably because he is largely useless) and so that would force a bye election. Gawne would see going straight to MLC as a bit of a cop out (not that he probably wouldn’t take it if it was offered) so better boost someone even more useless than he is to MLC after 10 minutes and for him to get all the flack and then Gawne can ride in on a fake bye election where only one candidate stands once the seat is empty. If people can’t see what’s going on here they’re stupider than you give them credit for. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Declan said:

I wouldn’t mind Gawne back in Tynwald but it will need to be via an MHK election. 

Have you come off some serious meds or something?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never really understood the angry squad's antipathy towards him. He certainly made mistakes but every MHK makes mistakes. He got too close to the CS in infrastructure but most ministers do. 

But he was a supporter of modernisation of Tynwald,  and was a voice for libralism and compassion in COMIN during Teare/Robertshaw era.

Had he stood in Rushen rather than Castletown I would have voted for him, and if he won I'd have a better constituency MHK than I do now. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Declan said:

I've never really understood the angry squad's antipathy towards him. He certainly made mistakes but every MHK makes mistakes. He got too close to the CS in infrastructure but most ministers do. 

But he was a supporter of modernisation of Tynwald,  and was a voice for libralism and compassion in COMIN during Teare/Robertshaw era.

Had he stood in Rushen rather than Castletown I would have voted for him, and if he won I'd have a better constituency MHK than I do now. 

While people who have worked all their lives are having their assets stripped so that they can afford care, Phil Gawne made sure that his rich landowning mates were able to have a similar deal as UK and EU landowners - under the guise of care of the countryside.

People must never forget this when they see Phil Gawne. 

The ridiculous Sloc road resurfacing to spend money because it was "there to be spent" before the end of the year (exact quote from Phil Gawne is not much different) pales into insignificance when compare to his Countryside Care Scheme. In oh so many cases - a euphemism for robbing the poor to pay more and more and more to the rich.

Forget the match, forget The Sloc, remember the grants

Edited by Craig King
typo +last sentence
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 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...