Jump to content

Rob Callister


La Colombe
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, offshoremanxman said:

It’s just piqued my interest this as it’s the first time I’ve seen such public inconsistencies by any person in government claiming they have been mis treated. To me I can’t see why you would be offered a job after you’ve already allegedly accepted another one anyway as claimed. It simply makes no sense. It suggests two alternatives were given at a meeting on Thursday night of which he accepted one - so one role was clearly turned down. 

The Minister roles will all have been negotiated prior to any announcement being made, then the Boards and finally the new Ministers will get to choose who they can work with. The CM is unlikely to care one jot who is or isn't in a department at this stage. Perhaps later, tactically to shut them down.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just wish he wouldn’t take to social media to explain the ins and outs of it all. Its just so damn unprofessional and would have been completely unnecessary if he hadn’t set it all off himself in his ‘unforgivable’ post. Can you imagine Alf Cannon taking to social media to give his personal thoughts  - or any of the others?

Thank god he didn’t get a senior role - we’d never be done. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

I just wish he wouldn’t take to social media to explain the ins and outs of it all. Its just so damn unprofessional and would have been completely unnecessary if he hadn’t set it all off himself in his ‘unforgivable’ post. Can you imagine Alf Cannon taking to social media to give his personal thoughts  - or any of the others?

I actually find the whole Facebook and social media thing fascinating after following the election. The ones who use it the most seem to be the ones who comes across the worst. Josem was a prime example during the election. It doesn’t make sense to raise stuff publicly looking for sympathy if you’re not prepared to then answer the public openly as in this case too. The assumption seems to be that most people on Facebook are morons who are easily fooled (which may actually be true)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, offshoremanxman said:

It just gets stranger now IOM News and Politics have picked it up - but the answer provided is just weird. Why would you turn down a job as you’d already been offered another one? It makes no sense as you never get offered something after you’ve already accepted something else. It suggests he’s was offered the option of two jobs and turned one down (so he clearly turned it down), and that seems to be only immediately after he was told in the evening (at a meeting he didn’t understand the purpose of!) that he wasn’t getting a Minister post according to his own account. So from what he’s said are we to assume that on the evening that he found out he wasn’t being a minister he was offered two alternative options? One of which was turned down? 

519212C1-3782-4137-AD80-DD7CC1027653.jpeg

It certainly does get stranger. I assume it’s inadvertent on his part, but I can’t help but think he’s in essence advocating cronyism here: pick the people that are on your side rather than the best squad. It’s bizarre 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Boards of Canada said:

It certainly does get stranger. I assume it’s inadvertent on his part, but I can’t help but think he’s in essence advocating cronyism here: pick the people that are on your side rather than the best squad. It’s bizarre 

Or by including Hooper and Edge, silence two of the most vocal critics of the last Government.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Boards of Canada said:

It certainly does get stranger. I assume it’s inadvertent on his part, but I can’t help but think he’s in essence advocating cronyism here: pick the people that are on your side rather than the best squad. It’s bizarre 

It does. I’m sorry I shared that screen shot now (I’ve now deleted it) as every idiot in the world now seems to be sharing it on every politics group on Facebook. It does certainly seem to advocate cronyism is expected. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, 747-400 said:

Or by including Hooper and Edge, silence two of the most vocal critics of the last Government.

Like I said, the “best squad” — we may have a different metric for measuring that compared to the CM. 😂

Either way, did Callister eclipse Hooper in terms of performance in the last admin? I certainly don’t think so. Edge? Much for much really so why not keep an enemy close and (what appeared until recently) a sycophant cheering from the sides. 
 

I think with this post he’s revealed why he really voted for Alf, and all the “I listened to the people” before making a decision doesn’t seem to hold water anymore.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

It’s just piqued my interest this as it’s the first time I’ve seen such public inconsistencies by any person in government claiming they have been mis treated. To me I can’t see why you would be offered a job after you’ve already allegedly accepted another one anyway as claimed. It simply makes no sense. It suggests two alternatives were given at a meeting on Thursday night of which he accepted one - so one role was clearly turned down. 

Rob does actually state: ‘I don’t believe the CM treated all MHK’s fairly…………’, and follows with: ‘my comment above does not relate to me personally but to a couple of my colleagues……….’. He doesn’t state that he personally was mistreated.

I agree with what Declan said in his two posts above, particularly the ‘over thinking’ comment. I share Roxanne’s wish too, Social Media (particularly IOMN&P) is not the ideal platform to discuss this.

If I was fecked off, Moulton, MR, Butt and Gef would be the obvious mainstream media outlets that I would use to vent my observations via an interview, not Corrin and Co. Using Social Media takes up so much time in answering messages, and trying to constantly correct people who misinterpret (sometimes ignorantly and often mischievously to make themselves look clever) your explanation. Hell, we see it on MF on a daily basis, I have probably been guilty of it myself.

What I find sociologically amusing is the strategic ‘dipping in and out’ of MF by MHK’s, and ex-CE’s etc., using the odd one line to correct a single point, but they don’t return to answer more pertinent questions - Chris Thomas is an example of this, and we know a few MHK’s past and present follow MF frequently to gauge opinion. However, in fairness for the reasons just stated, I can appreciate that these MHK’s can end up getting bogged down replying to agitators, and probably avoid contentious questions to prevent them looking like a twat!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Boards of Canada said:

..... I can’t help but think he’s in essence advocating cronyism here: pick the people that are on your side rather than the best squad. It’s bizarre 

He didn't waste his last term after all then. He's worked out how IoM Gov generally works. 😂

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What confuses me about Callister's response here is that he's claiming that he turned down the Post Office because he had already accepted another role.  But presumably Cannan would have been aware of this, given that he would have been the person who offered that as well.  So he must have thought he could do both.

And lets face it - this is Rob Callister.  This is the man who was a Departmental Member of three different Departments at once.  Plus Children's Champion, MNH Trustee, loads of other stuff.   There's no committee he doesn't want to sit on; no meeting he doesn't want to nod his way through.  His blog proved that is nothing else.  Why the sudden shyness about multiple roles.

Still, maybe I've got this wrong and it's not a role in government at all.  Maybe he's the new James Bond.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

 

Still, maybe I've got this wrong and it's not a role in government at all.  Maybe he's the new James Bond.

Stonewall have demanded EON Productions cast the next Bond with a LGBT culturally diverse disabled character, so that rules Rob out! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Boards of Canada said:

It certainly does get stranger. I assume it’s inadvertent on his part, but I can’t help but think he’s in essence advocating cronyism here: pick the people that are on your side rather than the best squad. It’s bizarre 

let the squad games commence 

  • Haha 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...