Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
La Colombe

Rob Callister

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

Thanks John that’s really helpful - and that’s from the moment candidature is declared but we’re not in election time yet so what’s to stop a stupid amount being spent on expenses now in advance to significantly boost profile before the next election corridor? I think it’s still unfair for any candidate to be buying targeted social media ads to deliberately enhance their social media profile at any time. You have to question for what purpose is it being done, how much is it costing, and is it being paid by the taxpayer? 

But anyone can do it between elections. And no it isn’t being paid for by taxpayers, at least no directly.

Whats the difference between a sitting MHK paying out of his salary or the additional lump sum towards expenses, or a public employee out of his salary/wages, or me out of what I receive out of legal aid or mobility allowance?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

1. Really. As a new account you are qualified to spot paranoia are you? 

2. Indeed as from the deliberate bickering and antagonism displayed already you’re not really new account are you? 

Is that an accusation of sock puppetry?

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, John Wright said:

But anyone can do it between elections. And no it isn’t being paid for by taxpayers, at least no directly.

Whats the difference between a sitting MHK paying out of his salary or the additional lump sum towards expenses, or a public employee out of his salary/wages, or me out of what I receive out of legal aid or mobility allowance?

Thats what I thought. Thanks. Although I’d argue on the second point as their salary and expenses are being paid by us. If a good chunk of that is being used to buy into an enhanced media profile to sell back to those currently funding your lifestyle then personally I think that is highly questionable/wrong - for any sitting MHK - and that the amount spent should be required to be publicly declared. That’s all I’m saying, 

Edited by thesultanofsheight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Is that an accusation of sock puppetry?

No it isn’t clearly. My understanding is that sock puppetry is having two or more accounts at the same time - not coming back with a new account having been banned under an old one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

No it isn’t clearly. My understanding is that sock puppetry is having two or more accounts at the same time - not coming back with a new account having been banned under an old one. 

Please report, using report function, with details, moderators can then investigate. 

It amounts to the same thing in either scenario, and,  to stop paranoid accusations with no foundation getting out of hand, can carry a suspension.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've looked at the forum for quite a while and never posted.  I take it being a new poster is allowed?

You don't need to examine many of your posts to understand your agenda/angle.

You don't like challenge.  Which isn't the best approach when you post in the manner you do.

John Wright also seems to think you are wrong.  Largely because you are.

Just because people work for the government in some capacity doesn't make their spending habits beholden to us as taxpayers.  Plenty of government employees smoke, eat shite food, waste money etc.  Are you suggesting we opine on what they spend on too?

As far as Callister goes - he's about 50, no kids, and I assume with his wife's salary they are probably a 100k per annum household. With no kids.  He rarely seems to drink. Doesn't smoke to my knowledge.  So probably has disposable.  It's up to him what he does with it surely?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

As far as Callister goes - he's about 50, no kids, and I assume with his wife's salary they are probably a 100k per annum household. With no kids.  He rarely seems to drink. Doesn't smoke to my knowledge.  So probably has disposable.  It's up to him what he does with it surely?

If Quayle, as a millionaire, suddenly started blitzing Facebook with bought for ads saying how ace he is I’m sure there would equally be some sort of public outcry (probably on IOM News and Politics) not dissimilar to the above. It amounts to the same. It’s buying publicity with money that’s been given to you by the same taxpayers you are trying to impress. And expenses are there to assist you to support services to your constituents. Not to buy ads to big up yourself online. As I said this is nothing to do with Callister directly but his silly self funded Facebook antics exemplify the point perfectly - there should be rules on disclosure of bought for social media spend even outside of election corridors. 

Edited by thesultanofsheight
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

 

John Wright also seems to think you are wrong.  

 

I’ve posted nothing to indicate my thoughts either way. I remain open minded, awaiting evidence.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quayle can spend his money how he likes.  As I said what right is it of yours or mine to dictate just because they are employees of government?

In your example of Qauyle - he has enough money that any media advertising wouldn't be a scratch on what he has.  He isn't rich because he got paid an MHK salary.   

Any MHK could get loads of free publicity.  It isn't difficult.  Is that an issue too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, John Wright said:

I’ve posted nothing to indicate my thoughts either way. I remain open minded, awaiting evidence.

Ok. You've challenged his view.  As I have.  There is no evidence really which is why I challenged it.

We can't go dictating what people who receive income from government spend their money on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

Quayle can spend his money how he likes.  As I said what right is it of yours or mine to dictate just because they are employees of government?

Not if it’s to buy public office he can’t as I’m sure he and others already appreciate otherwise they’d have done it and resorted to these sort of awful bought for publicity Facebook stunts as well. But they haven’t bought good publicity for themselves online (which they could easily do if they tried as they have the resources) despite being slated in the mainstream public media almost every week for being awful. That’s why I’m suggesting Tynwald needs to have at least a disclosure requirement on bought for media spend outside of election times. Trump effectively bought the White House you clearly see no issue with that either. As usual Callister seems to be the idiot trailblazer raising all these issues for debate through his attention seeking online behaviour and, as I said above, expenses aren’t there to give you the means to big up yourself and your profile online - they’re there to help you support services to support your constituents.

Edited by thesultanofsheight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hang on - you're comparing Donald Trump being voted in as U S President ( when the country was largely in a mess and what got him in was a largely disenfranchised country) and a manx politician using social media?

So if a iom politician uses social media and the internet to publicise themselves by using some savvy (say he has a mate who's handy with SEO etc) at no cost that's ok?

Should they also be disclosing what else they spend their money on so we can sense check it?  

This is small time politics in a tiny island.  If RC or anyone else is going to get elected it wont be because they bombarded you with paid or unpaid social media content.  If anything it'll have the mob like you feeling the opposite.  I'm no fan of RC but there is 70 odd pages here and your agenda is spewed all over them.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

I'm no fan of RC but there is 70 odd pages here and your agenda is spewed all over them.

It’s odd that the first thing someone who has made 6 posts on a forum would do is read one specific 70 page thread right the way through. As a private citizen I don’t have an agenda and I think it’s clear that I’m one of many who has commented in this thread from time to time and, as I have said four times at least now, my issue is a much wider issue than Mr Callister and his paid for attention seeking. As I have consistently made clear. Although as I have said he exemplifies the situation on paid for content perfectly. A politician paying for paid for social media content about themselves is just wrong in my book - and the costs of buying the content should be fully and publicly disclosed. Whoever does it, and whether it’s at an election or not. 

Edited by thesultanofsheight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, thesultanofsheight said:

The issue of paid for content in general raises too many issues for me. Not least disclosure of spend. Say an existing MHK, any MHK, stands for election next time round and spends all their £7,500 expenses on heavily sponsored social media content (which they can do as they do not need to produce receipts for anything) whereas a new candidate with no expenses funds behind them could not compete to reach the same audience as they don’t have the cash to spend to promote themselves. It’s just thoroughly wrong in my book to allow people to secure paid for content as it puts them at a clear advantage over other candidates. It’s simply not a fair fight get once money is involved and puts new candidates at a disadvantage (unless they’re rich and can buy similar coverage) over sitting candidates with expense allowances. I think Tynwald needs to ASAP create very clear rules and disclosure requirements around this sort of stuff before every idiot resorts to these sort of desperation tactics with expenses money that we fund. 

Ah, general election spending is a different matter - they should all be limited to a total print/online media budget for the duration of perhaps £5,000.00 each

Edited by Donald Trumps

Share this post


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...