Jump to content

Middle


Amadeus
 Share

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Declan said:

Another reason not to vote for you. 
 

I see Robertshaw has declared his support for Stu on Moultan’s channel.  

Unfortunate that they have removed the previous MHKs interests and assets from the gov website. 

As they are both eager to exploit gas off the coast of the Isle of Man and Robertshaw has a financial interest in it, I am not surprised by his decision to cast a vote for stu. 

PERHAPS the fear of being "Woke" is more to do with people not turning a blind eye? 

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

Oh, I'm appreciative of the kind words. 

 

Its just not Lost on me.... Whilst I was reviewing the last 5 years of hansard over the last few months, I also reviews all relevant interests and assets across the entirety of tynwald to see if that was reflected in people's actions.  Just an odd detail to leave out ;)

 

I actually like how outspoken robertshaw is and have cheered him multiple times throughout the last few years. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Declan said:

I see Robertshaw has declared his support for Stu on Moultan’s channel.  

Good to see that Robertshaw was his normal condescending self in that his view appeared to be that the two women MLC members standing to be MHK's would not have been able to be in a position to elected if they had stood initially as an MHK. When challenged about this he did backtrack slightly bur appeared to then suggest that it was only by being an MLC that they would have gained the confidence to stand and would be able to learn or understand  how Tynwald works.

Funny thing is I don't remember Robertshaw ever being an MLC and neither has the candidate he said he would support. Came across as a bit misogynistic to me and in that these women could not possibly get elected and understand Tynwald workings the way he and evidently be believes SP can.  Possibly hardly surprising in that the main reason he could put forward for being in favour of SP in that SP is "anti woke"

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robertshaw rabbiting on about the "the Woke Agenda" (he does it on the ACM one as well) is quite embarrassing.  Anyone who takes that idea seriously is clearly someone who gets their opinions from the ravings of the British media rather than observing the real world.  There's no such thing, just various different interest groups (often themselves quite divided) promoting their own causes separately and seeing them all as some Evil Conspiracy against All We Hold Dear suggests a rather loose grip on reality. 

It's like chuntering on about "Things we're not allowed to say"  while those 'forbidden' things have been appearing on the front pages of national newspapers continuously for years.  The only way you can genuinely believe this nonsense is if you're just repeating it as holy dogma rather than thinking about what the words you are saying actually mean.

Those papers operate by endlessly telling their usually well-off and well-advantaged readers how badly they are being treated and how sorry they should feel for themselves.  Tiny issues are blown up into massive offences and if even tiny ones are lacking, they are invented.   Grown adults really shouldn't take this sort of thing seriously and it's interesting that when people do, they end up sounding like sulky children.

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Robertshaw rabbiting on about the "the Woke Agenda" (he does it on the ACM one as well) is quite embarrassing.  Anyone who takes that idea seriously is clearly someone who gets their opinions from the ravings of the British media rather than observing the real world.  There's no such thing, just various different interest groups (often themselves quite divided) promoting their own causes separately and seeing them all as some Evil Conspiracy against All We Hold Dear suggests a rather loose grip on reality. 

It's like chuntering on about "Things we're not allowed to say"  while those 'forbidden' things have been appearing on the front pages of national newspapers continuously for years.  The only way you can genuinely believe this nonsense is if you're just repeating it as holy dogma rather than thinking about what the words you are saying actually mean.

Those papers operate by endlessly telling their usually well-off and well-advantaged readers how badly they are being treated and how sorry they should feel for themselves.  Tiny issues are blown up into massive offences and if even tiny ones are lacking, they are invented.   Grown adults really shouldn't take this sort of thing seriously and it's interesting that when people do, they end up sounding like sulky children.

That whole monologue was perfect 👌 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, 2112 said:

..we are told that there is a difference between being an MLC and MHK - or perhaps they are same? One thing remains the same, the Gravy Trains depart from the same platform.

 

5 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

In fact a lot of the jobs of MLCs and MHKs are pretty similar (which is why MLCs should be elected by the people as well).  The main difference is that that MLCs aren't supposed to have constituency-related work, but even that seems to be less true as people tend to approach whichever Tynwald member they know for help.

The Legislative Council has evolved into something that is unrecognisable from what it was 50+ years ago, certainly 100 years ago.

I think the last couple of MLC elections and the recent actions of Jane Poole-Wilson and Kate Lord-Brennan are showing that perhaps the Legislative Council has evolved into a needless anachronism. 

It looks like both deserters will be successful in their MHK aspirations. I wonder how many unsuccessful candidates will be nominated for the vacant LegCo seats, and I wonder how many other largely unknown hopefuls there are looking for a seat in the First Class carriage of the gravy train.

The Legislative Council needs an overhaul and a Terms of Reference' drawing up, including the contentious matter of resigning to stand for election to the lower House.

Edited by Barlow
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Barlow said:

The Legislative Council has evolved into something that is unrecognisable from what it was 50+ years ago, certainly 100 years ago.

I think the last couple of MLC elections and the recent actions of Jane Poole-Wilson and Kate Lord-Brennan are showing that perhaps the Legislative Council has evolved into a needless anachronism. 

It looks like both deserters will be successful in their MHK aspirations. I wonder how many unsuccessful candidates will be nominated for the vacant LegCo seats, and I wonder how many other largely unknown hopefuls there are looking for a seat in the First Class carriage of the gravy train.

It's changed completely from what it was ten years ago, never mind anything else.  The only thing that remains constant is people saying that what happens to be the situation at the moment is the way it always has been and has always supposed to be.  Those in the longest continuous parliament seem to have the shortest continuous political memory.

It's worth saying that things seem to have changed legally since 2016 and someone standing for the Keys no longer seems to have to resign from a government job until they have actually been elected.  Obviously that means MLCs don't have to either. 

Standing for public election for one chamber of parliament while being a member of another one is actually quite common in a lot of countries - it happens all the time in Ireland for instance.  It's just that we tend to look at Westminster as the way things ought to be done and for historical reasons it hasn't happened much there.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would be wrong for an unlucky loser to get into LEGCO and MLCs who stand and don’t get a mandate should resign. Unless, I suppose, the 12 third place candidates are all nominated and The Keys choose the best to be LEGCO. But you cannot make that process in the hoof. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

Robertshaw rabbiting on about the "the Woke Agenda" (he does it on the ACM one as well) is quite embarrassing.  Anyone who takes that idea seriously is clearly someone who gets their opinions from the ravings of the British media rather than observing the real world.  There's no such thing, just various different interest groups (often themselves quite divided) promoting their own causes separately and seeing them all as some Evil Conspiracy against All We Hold Dear suggests a rather loose grip on reality. 

It's like chuntering on about "Things we're not allowed to say"  while those 'forbidden' things have been appearing on the front pages of national newspapers continuously for years.  The only way you can genuinely believe this nonsense is if you're just repeating it as holy dogma rather than thinking about what the words you are saying actually mean.

Those papers operate by endlessly telling their usually well-off and well-advantaged readers how badly they are being treated and how sorry they should feel for themselves.  Tiny issues are blown up into massive offences and if even tiny ones are lacking, they are invented.   Grown adults really shouldn't take this sort of thing seriously and it's interesting that when people do, they end up sounding like sulky children.

My god that was a good read. 100% on the button there RM. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Declan said:

I think it would be wrong for an unlucky loser to get into LEGCO and MLCs who stand and don’t get a mandate should resign. Unless, I suppose, the 12 third place candidates are all nominated and The Keys choose the best to be LEGCO. But you cannot make that process in the hoof. 

You could argue that those who fail to get elected should still have the chance - not least because the choice of candidates in some constituencies is a lot better than others.  What I do think is bad is what was suggested by Robertshaw on Moulton's constituency review for ACM which was that MHKs who lost their seats (ie Cregeen) should be put in to fill the vacancies if MLCs were elected to the Keys[1].

(The thinking was that the likes of Cregeen would be useful because they would know how things worked.  Which would be a first).

 

[1]  If Poole-Wilson and/or Lord-Brennan are elected, anyone elected in their place as MLC will only serve till February 2023 and then stand for re-election.

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...