Jump to content

And They're Off!


Donald Trumps
 Share

How would you vote  

117 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, thesultanofsheight said:

With Kate gone it’s a party with one MHK in it so its not really an effective party as the one MHK left might as well be an independent. It’s not really worked that effectively since it was set up. 

But they'll have two MHK's if MJ gets in.

 

As MJ is the chairman does that make him Hoop's boss?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

It seems that even within Parties people think that only they should be allowed to represent the area.  It's all about individual egos banding together rather than people collectively trying to advance particular policies or viewpoints.  Hence the lack of interest in political activity between elections or in local politics.

To be fair, LV have put more than one candidate up in a multi-seat constituency once: 2011 had both Peter Karran and Zac Hall standing (successfully) in Onchan, though that might be because Karran was almost guaranteed to get in whether Hall stood or not.

Speaking of Zac Hall, I do wonder if Liberal Vannin suffer from the fact that so many of its candidates have quit or been kicked out of the party. Hall got kicked out, Malarky and Edge quit, and Chris Thomas ran as an LV candidate for only one election (in 2011) before then standing as an independent.  That's more than  the number of MHKs who've got in an stuck with the party (Karran, Costain, and Hooper).

Then there's the problem that they don't seem to have many candidates who are willing to stick it out past one election. Of the eighteen they've fielded over the past three elections, only four (Pat Ayres, Kate Costain, Nigel Dobson, and Peter Karran) have stood for more than one election, and only one (Costain) has stood in all three (and that might only be because she was successful on her second try). That's not to be too critical of LV though. I'm more wondering if their experience suggests another problem standing in the way of party politics on the Island: a general difficulty when it comes building up a critical mass of candidates who are willing to stay at the sharp end of party politics for the long run.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, VinnieK said:

To be fair, LV have put more than one candidate up in a multi-seat constituency once: 2011 had both Peter Karran and Zac Hall standing (successfully) in Onchan, though that might be because Karran was almost guaranteed to get in whether Hall stood or not.

Speaking of Zac Hall, I do wonder if Liberal Vannin suffer from the fact that so many of its candidates have quit or been kicked out of the party. Hall got kicked out, Malarky and Edge quit, and Chris Thomas ran as an LV candidate for only one election (in 2011) before then standing as an independent.  That's more than  the number of MHKs who've got in an stuck with the party (Karran, Costain, and Hooper).

Then there's the problem that they don't seem to have many candidates who are willing to stick it out past one election. Of the eighteen they've fielded over the past three elections, only four (Pat Ayres, Kate Costain, Nigel Dobson, and Peter Karran) have stood for more than one election, and only one (Costain) has stood in all three (and that might only be because she was successful on her second try). That's not to be too critical of LV though. I'm more wondering if their experience suggests another problem standing in the way of party politics on the Island: a general difficulty when it comes building up a critical mass of candidates who are willing to stay at the sharp end of party politics for the long run.

But even in Onchan in 2011 they only put up two candidates in a three member seat - you really need to put up a full slate to maximise the vote properly.  If Karran could bring in the unknown Hall on his coat-tails ahead of both other sitting MHKs, then they should have been able to do the same with a third candidate.

I agree that a lot of the problem is around what you might call candidate development.  The only exception I can think of is Hooper (who you missed off your list) who stood for LibVan in 2011 for Ramsey, then got elected to the Town Commissioners in 2012 and 2016 before becoming MHK in the Autumn.  It would be a completely normal political history in the UK, but here stands out as unusual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

I agree that a lot of the problem is around what you might call candidate development.  The only exception I can think of is Hooper (who you missed off your list) who stood for LibVan in 2011 for Ramsey, then got elected to the Town Commissioners in 2012 and 2016 before becoming MHK in the Autumn.  It would be a completely normal political history in the UK, but here stands out as unusual.

Didn't Hooper stand as an independent in 2011?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think 8 ( and counting ) candidates is the problem. At least in the UK when the Monster Raving Looney Party put up a candidate you know you should not really vote for them. Although some of their policies are more coherent that the current Tory Party!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, VinnieK said:

To be fair, LV have put more than one candidate up in a multi-seat constituency once: 2011 had both Peter Karran and Zac Hall standing (successfully) in Onchan, though that might be because Karran was almost guaranteed to get in whether Hall stood or not.

Speaking of Zac Hall, I do wonder if Liberal Vannin suffer from the fact that so many of its candidates have quit or been kicked out of the party. Hall got kicked out, Malarky and Edge quit, and Chris Thomas ran as an LV candidate for only one election (in 2011) before then standing as an independent.  That's more than  the number of MHKs who've got in an stuck with the party (Karran, Costain, and Hooper).

Then there's the problem that they don't seem to have many candidates who are willing to stick it out past one election. Of the eighteen they've fielded over the past three elections, only four (Pat Ayres, Kate Costain, Nigel Dobson, and Peter Karran) have stood for more than one election, and only one (Costain) has stood in all three (and that might only be because she was successful on her second try). That's not to be too critical of LV though. I'm more wondering if their experience suggests another problem standing in the way of party politics on the Island: a general difficulty when it comes building up a critical mass of candidates who are willing to stay at the sharp end of party politics for the long run.

 

Ah yes, Bandwagon Billy's bait and switch. How can we forget... Those were the early days of LibVan. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Amadeus said:

Ah yes, Bandwagon Billy's bait and switch. How can we forget... Those were the early days of LibVan. 

The troubling thing is that it doesn't look that different now.

Bill Malarkey left in 2007 saying "I was told what I could do and what I could not do", with specific reference to being instructed to vote against the budget, while Julie Edge left in 2017 saying 'I have been put in an impossible position by the party leader with her instruction that I cannot ask questions on Department of Health and Social Care issues that the people of Onchan request me to ask'.

Regardless of whether the claims in either or both explanations are true or not, it's not a great look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, VinnieK said:

The troubling thing is that it doesn't look that different now.

Bill Malarkey left in 2007 saying "I was told what I could do and what I could not do", with specific reference to being instructed to vote against the budget, while Julie Edge left in 2017 saying 'I have been put in an impossible position by the party leader with her instruction that I cannot ask questions on Department of Health and Social Care issues that the people of Onchan request me to ask'.

Regardless of whether the claims in either or both explanations are true or not, it's not a great look.

it's a fundamental problem with party politics, where do the loyalties lie and where does the policy change drive come from?

You could potentailly vote someone in and then people living in a different town who are not elected representatives but party members start dictating policy for the MHK to vote on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Rhumsaa said:

it's a fundamental problem with party politics, where do the loyalties lie and where does the policy change drive come from?

You could potentailly vote someone in and then people living in a different town who are not elected representatives but party members start dictating policy for the MHK to vote on.

That's pretty much the story of the collapse of Labour in Scotland. 

Of course, the other side of things is that rebellious MHKs have little reason to stick with a party if they disagree with this bit of policy or that aspect of how the organization is run. Unlike in the UK, party membership isn't a prerequisite for a government job, and the parties here don't command the kind of massive centralized and local resources their MPs and candidates are dependent on for election (and nor are such resources even needed when campaigning for election on the Island). 

In other words, there's not much carrot, and the stick's not that big either.

For those and other reasons, perhaps strong party politics are always going to have a relatively limited role to play on the Island—at the very most sharing any power they get with independents and other parties. I can't say I'd be that disappointed if that turned out to be the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, woolley said:

People have regularly formed parties in the UK, but the FPTP system means it is really hard to translate support into seats, UKIP and the Brexit Party being recent examples, so then they lose their initial momentum. If you can reach a tipping point though, it works heavily in your favour, as with the SNP. Looking at recent Scottish representation in Westminster, one could be forgiven for thinking that Scotland was overwhelmingly behind the SNP and its separatist pro-EU agenda, yet over a million Scots voted Leave in the Brexit referendum in 2016 and less than a million voted for the SNP in the general election the following year. They did put on 20% more in 2019.

I see no difference here regarding agreement and compliance to what happens in the UK. There are plenty of instances there of people crossing the floor and joining a different party and whole breakaway groups like the "gang of four" who formed the SDP in the 80s and more recently the Soubry/Umunnah crew that formed Change. So there really isn't any power to enforce agreement and compliance in the UK either.

To me, it seems that if there is such a groundswell of Manx public opinion that is sick to the back teeth of the way our politics operates, there should be very little difficulty in gathering a group of say 20 people who could formulate and articulate a way forward that could emerge from an election with at least the 13 seats needed for a majority. Far easier and less expensive to mount such a challenge for power here than in the UK, where you need to organise many hundreds across a huge country to even have a crack at it. The fact that it doesn't happen says to me that it isn't wanted by enough people here. Quite right too, in my view.

You’re saying the majority of people are happy with the current output of our political system. On the one hand I see the logic in that there is not a lot of government opposing political activism relatively speaking, which leads in to the point you have made about people not forming political parties. 

On the other hand the government’s own social attitude surveys show relatively low (and falling) satisfaction with parliament & government in general. So why are people not more active? Is it because their dissatisfaction is still relatively low compared to their actual discomfort? Dissatisfied enough to whinge, not uncomfortable enough to get off your ass. Probably.

More importantly anyone who would actually make the effort is  faced with the reality of deciding how they’re going to do it. Anyone who wants to change anything and looks at the history of political parties (and our system of government in general) with basic logic will understand that forming a political party is not likely to help them achieve it. As already discussed, traditional independant candidates can perpetually avoid responsibility and know that they cannot actually deliver anything - so they can promise anything! Parties cannot match that. 

If it was a simple as you’ve made out (just gather a group of like minded people) it would have happened already. 

Personally I don’t think people are happy with the political system here, and I don’t think parties are the solution either. Not because of the practical problems of gathering and holding a group together, but because a party simply replicates the problem we already have - where people are forced to accept unnecessary political compromises in order to hold power. There is no logic to that either. 

All politics is compromise. But it makes no sense to accept compromise simply to maintain the hold on power of one group of people. That’s not logical. The perpetual conflict it generates is simply inefficient.  

  • Like 3
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...