Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
Sign in to follow this  
Donald Trumps

Year Of Our Island

Recommended Posts

58 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Totally agree. Tynwald determines policy and finances. All members must be equal in Tynwald. LegCo and Keys are just legislative branches.

Theres no reason, in scrutinising and passing legislation that a second chamber, however elected, has only delaying powers and that there is a mechanism to resolve a dispute.

What we are seeing in suggestions to scrap LegCo, stop members from being Ministers, pay them less, is just a power bid by the Keys. Unfortunately Lisvane appeared not to grasp any of this. The Keys don’t want a popularly elected Council. It challenges their perceived supremacy, legitimacy and power base.

It all overlooks that our government system is institutionally corrupt, in the sense that most Tynwald members are on the government payroll with pay supplements for belonging to departments or board or statutory bodies or agencies. Whatever the reality it doesn’t give the impression of independence of scrutiny, transparency and holding to account.

A party political or common platform group at elections would help. So would limiting each department to one political member, the minister. All the select and other committees should be appointed by, and membership come from, Tynwald excluding CoMin, so that CoMin loses its patronage.

Its important not to fall into the trap of constituting LegCo as the opposition. That’s not it’s purpose. Down that route is disaster. I often read, here and elsewhere, suggestions that we have too many members in Tynwald. To have sufficient pool of talent to elect a Chief Minister and CoMin and the Chair and members of each Standing, Select or other Committee to allow proper scrutiny, there is a need for a decent number.

My favoured solution is 8 x 4 seat constituencies, with one member from each being allocated to LegCo after each election. Could even be done by lot.

in case of dispute between Keys & Council voting on the legislation should be by Tynwald, say twice in 6 months, with a special majority, That could be 2/3, ie 22 votes or 3/4, ie 24 votes. You could require at least 2, or 3 LegCo to be included in the majority.

It may well have been posted before, if it has apologies but why is there  a requirement or need for 30+ MHK/MLC's?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all, JW states a need for a decent number. My question is why he thinks 30+ is that number. Reading and comprehension seems beyond you I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Neil Down said:

Not at all, JW states a need for a decent number. My question is why he thinks 30+ is that number. 

Because you need a Government and Ministers and at a minimum that will take up 7-9 people.  But you then need at least as many backbenchers/opposition to keep a check on them (or they just override everything) plus officials like the Speaker, Committee Chairs and so on and just allowing for some of those elected to be completely unfit.  30 is a minimum really and probably 40 would be better.

It's also worth saying that members of Tynwald individually aren't that expensive, because the cost of running it will be dominated by fixed overheads.  So reducing the number of Tynwald members doesn't save that much and the lack of scrutiny that then happens may mean that you lose a lot more elsewhere.  Of course this means that those who wish to run the government without any democratic control will do their best to claim reducing the numbers is a good thing, rather than looking at other ways of saving.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Neil Down said:

Not at all, JW states a need for a decent number. My question is why he thinks 30+ is that number. Reading and comprehension seems beyond you I think.

I deliberately didn’t want to specify a number. That can be the subject of discusssion, once the principle is understood and accepted.

Theres Chief Minister +7-8 so say 9, there’s the speaker, the president of Tynwald, and then the other ( bought ) place men who would head up Post, MUA, OFT, etc. 

Thats 15, may be more.

The size of an opposition isn’t important. But having a number of “free” MoT to form a majority of the various policy, standing, shadowing, select, scrutiny committees, requires a sufficient number. Chairman + 2, even with each member serving on 2 or 3.

Likewise in examining legislation you need sufficient numbers to counter the CoMin/Board chair block vote. Back benchers. 

Of course there may be scope for some amalgamation and streamlining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheTeapot said:

There is no point in talking to you.

You don’t talk, you try to be clever and fail spectacularly every time...:flowers:

Share this post


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

I deliberately didn’t want to specify a number. That can be the subject of discusssion, once the principle is understood and accepted.

Theres Chief Minister +7-8 so say 9, there’s the speaker, the president of Tynwald, and then the other ( bought ) place men who would head up Post, MUA, OFT, etc. 

Thats 15, may be more.

The size of an opposition isn’t important. But having a number of “free” MoT to form a majority of the various policy, standing, shadowing, select, scrutiny committees, requires a sufficient number. Chairman + 2, even with each member serving on 2 or 3.

Likewise in examining legislation you need sufficient numbers to counter the CoMin/Board chair block vote. Back benchers. 

Of course there may be scope for some amalgamation and streamlining.

Thanks John, I agree. Let’s get to a starting point and then work it from there. Streamlining would have to be a priority whatever the outcome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Far too many MHKs and MLCs.    Three MLCs with knowledge of law would be sufficient to scrutinise, which is why they are there.   Fifteen MHKs would be sufficient and would have a workload large enough to concentrate their minds on important matters.   The proof of there being not enough to keep them occupied is the time the spend asking stupid questions regarding goats, wallabies, seagulls and nit picking when they have had answers given to them already, going over and over the ground either means they are thick as the proverbial, which is certainly true of a couple of them or are grandstanding which is equally annoying and impresses no one at all.    

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, hissingsid said:

Far too many MHKs and MLCs.    Three MLCs with knowledge of law would be sufficient to scrutinise, which is why they are there.   Fifteen MHKs would be sufficient and would have a workload large enough to concentrate their minds on important matters.   The proof of there being not enough to keep them occupied is the time the spend asking stupid questions regarding goats, wallabies, seagulls and nit picking when they have had answers given to them already, going over and over the ground either means they are thick as the proverbial, which is certainly true of a couple of them or are grandstanding which is equally annoying and impresses no one at all.    

Unfortunately, it seems to be impressing a few...

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Henry David Thoreau: "that government is best which governs least."

Far too many of them. We need to reduce the size of the civil service by at least 33% and Tynwald by at least 50%. Anything else is outside of affordability.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/13/2019 at 11:52 AM, Donald Trumps said:

Mr Quayle has promised to stand down when Brexit is over

Has he? Publicly? I've missed that. Got a link?

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, maynragh said:

Has he? Publicly? I've missed that. Got a link?

I challenge him to deny it

  • Sad 1

Share this post


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

I challenge him to deny it

I think he said something like he won’t stand again provided there are no serious repercussions from Brexit as he would view it as job done or something like that. It was a George Bush style “mission accomplished” sort of statement. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I think he said something like he won’t stand again provided there are no serious repercussions from Brexit as he would view it as job done or something like that. It was a George Bush style “mission accomplished” sort of statement. 

Translated as: “Even a dimwit like me is able to appreciate the genuine astonishment across the Island that Tynwald would select such a profoundly limited buffoon as myself as Chief Minister. As this calamitous situation is highly unlikely to reoccur, I’ll get the hell out rather than lose spectacularly next time, with the consequential adverse effect on my limitless ego. In fact, the voters of Middle will have wised-up too, so I’m off to sit back and collect my vast landowner subsidies”. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×