Jump to content
Coronavirus topics renamed and some locked. No new topics. ×
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
Holte End

Comin IQ halved Chris Thomas sacked.

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Andy Onchan said:

But......clipping0.jpg.1ece12023dcbbcc4b959b9f2c476d76e.jpg

We are in a state of emergency, Chris Thomas didn’t have the balls to resign on his principle, instead threw a curve ball at his team to cause confusion and mistrust at a time when the people of the island are feeling vulnerable and need to be able to trust the politicians.     He is a complete plonker of the spineless variety. Good riddance, let hope the voters recall his attempt to take a pay check for a role he didn’t do. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, buncha wankas said:

We are in a state of emergency, Chris Thomas didn’t have the balls to resign on his principle, instead threw a curve ball at his team to cause confusion and mistrust at a time when the people of the island are feeling vulnerable and need to be able to trust the politicians.     He is a complete plonker of the spineless variety. Good riddance, let hope the voters recall his attempt to take a pay check for a role he didn’t do. 

I think the planning issue was the excuse for his demise.

I suspect the the real issue for HM The Chief Minister and his Majordomo was the issue of closing of the borders from which he at least had the gonads to abstain from voting on. Others in Tynwald also had issues with the border closure and related issues, such as expats returning etc. but it was voted through. 

As I said before, he may waffle-on but I think he's no one's jester. And I'm not sure how you can quote him as being spineless, he's been quite the opposite in fact. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Because as has been pointed out numerous times if you sign up to join the council of ministers you are free to argue your point and vote as you wish at a council of ministers meeting but once the council of ministers have agreed a position on a matter a minister is then expected to support that decision.

It is just like virtually any organisation which has some sort of board or committee. If you are part of a board or a committee you are expected to respect the decisions of that board and committee and not oppose them. If you don't like that don't sit on the board or committee.

It would be virtually impossible to run any organisation if those put in positions to run that organisation could simply decided they could ignore what they had as organisers had decided should be done.

What is so hard to understand. If you join the council of ministers you are free to argue and vote as you see fit in those meetings. Outside that you are expected to support the decision reached. If you don't like it don't join the club.

If you accept that Thomas, as a minister, should be allowed to vote as he sees fit at Tynwald if he thinks that is the right course of action, why would it not then be OK for the CM or the council of ministers to ignore a Tynwald vote because they believed that was the right course of action.

 

 

Like the Prom and horse trams you mean !!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lost Login said:

If we run with that analogy, Thomas was not dismissed for disagreeing with others and voting how he saw fit at the council of ministers meeting ( = board meeting in the analogy) At that meeting he would have been acting in what he thought was in the best interest of the Govt/IoM (= company/shareholders in the analogy) A vote was taken and the outcome of that vote would have set the Council of Ministers  (= board of directors in the analogy) agreed position on the matter. The agreed their position by a vote the Council of Ministers  (= board of directors in the analogy would then be expected to implement that decision.

If I as a director of a company remained as a director and effectively did not accept the decision/the policy adopted at a board meeting (= council of ministers meeting in the analogy) and actively opposed it I would expect to be asked to resign or would be removed. That is effectively what has happened to Thomas in the analogy. He could have argued and disagreed as much as he liked within the council of ministers but once a decision has been reached then under the present rules, ministers are expected to respect that decision and act accordingly. He chose not to accept the position agreed at the council of ministers meeting ( = board meeting in the analogy) and to oppose that position.

He knew what he was doing, we are continually told he is an exceptionally clever man, so he effectively resigned but presumably for his own political purposes he insisted that he be pushed rather than jump.

 

 

 

I would disagree about a Director having to resign or be removed by shareholders because they opposed something.  Happens all the time and is simply on record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howard Qualye to change the name from Council of Ministers Comin,

to Barnsh ooillerysmaghtagh Reiltagh of Government or Borg for short, a new collective.

  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


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

I would disagree about a Director having to resign or be removed by shareholders because they opposed something.  Happens all the time and is simply on record.

That might be at the board level but once the board have approved you would expect them to support. If as a director you can not support as you believe it is not in the best interest of the company then presumably you will try and get shareholders to call a shareholders meeting or you resign. If you do the former then I expect you will not last long as a director.

The company analogy is not perfect but it is probably the best. Directors disagreeing at board level may not be that unusual and it would be recorded in the minutes. The idea that directors continue to oppose and would vote against the board at a shareholders meeting is not something I believe happens all the time.

Whatever the organisation you are running you want to have a relatively harmonious leadership all pulling in the same directions. Discussions, disputes and debates in private are fine, in public they start to cause major issues.  

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it's easy to understand what they say but of course that doesn't make it right!It is right and proper that if a member  disagrees with the collective they have a right to let the public know how they voted and to sway the vote.

You may of course stick to your point of view but it is not a democratic way of government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, doc.fixit said:

but it is not a democratic way of government.

It may not be but it appears to be the basic model that operates in most "democracies" as nobody appears yet to have come up with a better option. If you are part of the "executive" you support the executive and if you cannot you resign or get sacked.   

My issue in these cases is that generally there is something else behind the scenes driving it because if it was purely a matter of conscience the honourable way would be to explain your position and then resign before voting. That provides a level of flexibility for being brought back at a later date. Voting in a way that you know will get you sacked is just trying to attract attention. Thomas new that voting the way he did would result in him being sacked. As an alternative he could have resigned saying he could support measures being introduced or continuing on a temporary measure under the emergency powers which would have meant he probably easily have been reappointed once those are finished.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing about Tynpotwald is "collective responsibility" goes straight out the window when the blame game kicks off for the latest round of fuck-ups....

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris Thomas said in interviews that there was information he was privy to which wasn't advised to public or other members before vote on planning. mainly this as that all interested parties for pending planning applications were asked were they in favour of removing the verbal representation at planning meetings, they all said NO but the s was ignored by officers and CoMin when deciding on motion.

so it was an attempt to stifle debate and CT and Tynwald voted it down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, P.K. said:

The thing about Tynpotwald is "collective responsibility" goes straight out the window when the blame game kicks off for the latest round of fuck-ups....

On the contrary, it means that anything that goes wrong is somehow everyone's fault and that is exactly the same as it being nobody's fault and therefore nobody is responsible.  We've seen this several times in the past when reports have been produced making clear who was responsible for some disaster and the CoMin block vote in Tynwald modifies the conclusions so that there are no consequences for the guilty.

Collective irresponsibility might be a better description though.   

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/27/2020 at 10:48 PM, the stinking enigma said:

What actually is the point of having a council of ministers anyway? Why not just have one person deciding what's what? 

The elector!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/28/2020 at 12:26 AM, James Hampton said:

Am I being overly cynical... my first thought being that now is a very good time to step away from this particular vessel, which may be about to face a very difficult run into the election that is on the horizon?  

I was beginning to think no one would mention it. . . . . 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/28/2020 at 1:47 AM, Zorg said:

Tynwald needs to pass a vote of no confidence in CoMin in order to get rid of Quayle.

Quayle would be forced to resign, a new CoMin will then be formed and a new Chief Minister appointed.

TJ!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Golfer said:

Chris Thomas said in interviews that there was information he was privy to which wasn't advised to public or other members before vote on planning. mainly this as that all interested parties for pending planning applications were asked were they in favour of removing the verbal representation at planning meetings, they all said NO but the s was ignored by officers and CoMin when deciding on motion.

so it was an attempt to stifle debate and CT and Tynwald voted it down.

Did Thomas actually state why he was going to vote No in Tynwald, surely if he did it would be getting quoted.  When Hansard comes out it will show what he said about why he voted no, it will be on record if he did. 

  • Like 1

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...