Jump to content

Newbies assessment -


Uhtred
 Share

Recommended Posts

This week's tortuous tosh in Tynwald - especially the undiluted hogwash from Moorhouse - has caused me to reflect on the dirty dozen newbies foisted on us by democracy just over a year ago. Unless I missed it, and apologies if I did, there wasn't any analysis of their "year 1" contributions to advancing the Island on MF. So as the (approaching) end of a calendar year is as good a time as any for assessment, here goes. This is a difficult task however; one would have thought that the pretty remarkable state of affairs of a full 50% of the elected chamber being new to the game would have meant that they'd be out of the traps fast, ceaselessly  clamouring  for attention and advancing their well thought through political visions. Not a bit of it. With one or two notable exceptions they instead seem to be engaged in a competition to evaporate from public consciousness. Anyway, feel free to agree, howl down or ignore this:

Allinson - Probably the only success story. Seems balanced, articulate and free from the usual self-obsession. The advancement of his private members Bill on abortion modernisation is a genuine (overdue and vital) attempt to improve the current situation of women on the Island. Possible future CM. Light years ahead of Quayle already.

Ashford - Embraced the cosy Tynwald establishment within 7 seconds of arrival. More polished than most of the others but psychologically incapable of challenging government.

Baker - Limited comment on limited issues. Comes across as a prat. Underwhelming. Not a great speaker. (Is not alone in any of those categories and is less of a worry than some names below).

Bettinson - Apart from a foray around the edges of the Manx Gas issue I can't think of anything to comment on. One of the leaders of the "I've actually disappeared" club. Colourless.

Callister - Oh dear. That blog. And all the rest. Disaster. No credibility. Which is a shame, because he's the only one challenging Beecroft and someone has to. Just a pity it's him.

Caine - Bettinson 2. Hardly in evidence. Did speak up for Allinson's abortion Bill (I think) so wins a point there. In representing Garff she has 2 strong points; 1. She isn't Rodan. 2. She isn't Perkins.

Corlett - The runaway winner of the "Where the hell did they go" trophy. Possibly a figment of our collective imagination. Ask for the salary back.

Edge - has that gift of making the credulous believe she's addressing vital topics whilst actually evidencing no talent and quite a lot of stupidity. In that respect is a reminder of the early David Cretney.

Hooper - Classic LibVanner. Full of bull. Those of my Ramsey friends who voted for him are very disillusioned, very quickly. Seems to now be seeking late entry to the "Where've they gone" club.

Moorhouse - Apparently borderline certifiable. Classic illustration that people with no common sense can still get a degree at a decent university. Should be deeply embarrassed but probably isn't.

Perkins - Commercial sector apologist. Prat. Looks like a mid-70s Third Division footballer, is actually an early 21st century Fourth Division politician. Sorry Garff, he's got to go.

Shmmins - Commercial sector apologist. Most notable thing about him is the superfluous "S" at the end of his name. Polled more votes than Quayle of course. Think about that.

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, slinkydevil said:

Wasted two of my votes. Caine and Perkins, sorry folks. Looked good on paper.

I admire your honesty. You're half-way to redemption already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the risk of being accused of being an establishment shill I do wonder sometimes if some MHK's are busy doing a lot of good work but just don't shout about it in Tynwald or in the media

I agree with most of what Uhtred is saying, I've not spoken to many MHK's but the few I have do seem genuine and I suspect that it's a steep learning curve to tackle the architecture of the civil service and established departments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Tarne said:

I did warn you all about Hooper... 

I think he's doing ok, he's actually looking into things and paying attention

For me, and I've said it all along, the real test is when he stops being the Peter Karran role and has to receive questioning.

Edited by Rhumsaa
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, woolley said:

Interesting assessment, Uhtred. Does the commercial sector need apologists?

Whether it does or not, Perkins and Shimmins appear to wish to fulfil that role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rhumsaa said:

I think he's doing ok, he's actually looking into things and paying attention

For me, and I've said it all along, the real test is when he stops being the Peter Karran role and has to receive questioning.

"The Peter Karran role" -  I like that phrase, conjures the image of a tit that just asked questions and never did anything! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Rhumsaa said:

 I do wonder sometimes if some MHK's are busy doing a lot of good work but just don't shout about it in Tynwald or in the media

 I suspect that it's a steep learning curve to tackle the architecture of the civil service and established departments.

Both of those are (I would guess) perfectly fair comments, and in the case of the former I hope it's true. Perhaps it is, and that's what prompts the positive ratings you refer to. It's naïve politics though to do something positive and not publicise it to at least some degree!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Uhtred said:

Both of those are (I would guess) perfectly fair comments, and in the case of the former I hope it's true. Perhaps it is, and that's what prompts the positive ratings you refer to. It's naïve politics though to do something positive and not publicise it to at least some degree!

Donald Trumps spoke of positive ratings - I'm unaware of others opinions, just have my own. I think that a weakness with dedicating time to FB groups or the like is you are trying to promote yourself to people who won't actually vote for you.

I agree that part of the job is to tell people about what you're doing, obviously the backlash Rob Callister receives shows the difficulty of that balancing act.

Partly though I think it depends on where the MHK has been shoved, they may be in a department beavering away on projects that aren't media worthy or having to learn a completely new area. Also if others are asking lots of questions then they may feel there's no point adding more noise.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...