Jump to content

Middle


Amadeus
 Share

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

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).

In my opinion MHK's have completely different roles. MLC's are part of the reviewing and revising chamber, they do note have constituents, they should should not be part of government, they should not trying to bring forward legislation. If you want to do that stand to MHK. I expect MLCs to be people who can understand, review and critique legislation both in terms of the legislation itself but how in interacts with other laws etc.  It suits those with a legal or technical background and in my view it was there to bring skills to Tynwlad that many members of Tynwald may not have if they come from more labouring jobs or are low level administrators. Not having a go at any of these professions. I don't have a clue with regard to plumbing, electrics and many other things.

I am never going to stand and get elected for either but if I had to I would want to be an MLC and not an MHK, Any skills I might have I think would be better suited to being an MLC. 

The problem is that many seem to have forgotten that there is meant to be distinction between roles and many just see MLCs as unelected MHKs and many MLC's appear to almost act on that basis. 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

He explains his reasons well though.

Which in a nutshell as far as I can remember are that SP is anti woke. According to Merriam-Webster dictionary’s definition, woke means “aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)". So effectively Robertshaw is stating that SP is against racial and social justice and he is in favour of electing an MHK who is against racial and social justice

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Lost Login said:

Which in a nutshell as far as I can remember are that SP is anti woke. According to Merriam-Webster dictionary’s definition, woke means “aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)". So effectively Robertshaw is stating that SP is against racial and social justice and he is in favour of electing an MHK who is against racial and social justice

 

 

Yes. But it's used as a pejorative by people who suggest that we've gone too far and are now too just. I suspect those people have been dragged kicking and screaming against every social change that's happened since the 70's. You know objected to the equal pay act, thought outlawing racial discrimination in housing was an infringement of landlord's rights, were against equal marriage but weren't homophobic but aren't bothered by these developments now. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/19/2021 at 4:44 PM, 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.

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.

Wasn’t the overhaul and ‘terms of reference’ proposed in the comprehensive Lord Lisvane Report, which was kicked into the long grass by our politicos? 
 

My gripe was both KLB and JPW saw themselves as seeking a mandate, they thought you can’t do much as an MLC. Fair enough, but if you are so confident in your abilities to change, and you think that your definitely going to be elected, then they should have the courage to resign their seats at the point that they announce their candidature. By keeping their seats until they are elected, it’s as though they have harboured doubts that the electorate will vote them in. That is treating the voter as idiots. Voters will vote for candidates with policies that appeal to them, and some will vote based on the Manx elite establishment.
 

Kieran Hanafin has said that he is donating some of his salary to charity if elected (gesture politics but his choice and I do respect), KLB and JPW have hoovered up a nice sum in salary since the last sitting of Tynpotwald and dissolution. Standing for public service is a costly business, and shouldn’t be the preserve of the landed gentry. Whilst others are making sacrifices perhaps it should be level playing field - I understand that current defending MHKs are still receiving a salary as well as those in Ministerial and Departmental positions. Maybe the rules should be changed?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, 2112 said:

, but if you are so confident in your abilities to change, and you think that your definitely going to be elected, then they should have the courage to resign their seats at the point that they announce their candidature.

If they had resigned on that basis then they would have been accused of arrogance.

Nobody should be required to step down from a position when seeking election unless by standing it prevents them undertaking that role. That could be by reasons of time, impartiality etc.

In reality many of those who hold positions within the public sector and who are required to step down once they announce they are standing know very well that they are only stepping down temporarily until after the election as if unsuccessful they will go back to their old job. I used to be naive enough to ask people I knew who were standing  what they would do if they were unelected as I thought they were taking a big risk in packing their jobs in on the off chance and they all said that they would basically just go back to their old jov.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But we're not talking 'any old job here', as Kate Lord-Brenna seems to believe.

Why do you think Victor Kneale, Edgar Mann and Leonard Singer resigned their seats in Legislative Council to stand for House of Keys?

Now there is a huge difference. Kate Lord-Lord Brennan and Jane Poole-Wilson have never faced public election whereas the above had and having been indoctrinated through it, clearly understood the sanctity of Tynwald.   

These two gals have had an easy taste of the gravy train ego trip and want more, more, more.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Barlow said:

But we're not talking 'any old job here', as Kate Lord-Brenna seems to believe.

Why do you think Victor Kneale, Edgar Mann and Leonard Singer resigned their seats in Legislative Council to stand for House of Keys?

Now there is a huge difference. Kate Lord-Lord Brennan and Jane Poole-Wilson have never faced public election whereas the above had and having been indoctrinated through it, clearly understood the sanctity of Tynwald.   

These two gals have had an easy taste of the gravy train ego trip and want more, more, more.

Whichever way around it is done people find a reason to complain. Standing to be an MHK whilst an MLC you state that JPW and KLB are indoctrinated and are on a " gravy train ego trip"

Stand to be an MLC whilst having been an MHK then people complain it is just a retirement home ex MHKs who will support the Government and who do not want to seek re election because they might loose.

Stand to be an MLC without being an MHK then you have no public mandate. 

Basically whichever way you do it people will have a reason to have a pop.

As for being a "gravy train ego trip" that could apply for anyone standing and I am sure it is for some but it depends how hard you want to work and what you put it. On the one hand you could be past retirement age and simply turn up to sittings, get involved in minimal constituency or committee work and take the money. On the other you could throw your heart into it spending long hours trying to help constituents, on committees, trying to get legislation introduced. 

As for the salaries of £67.5k for a back bencher, £77.6k for a minister and £87.8k  they may seem high if you are on £30k or £40k and the MHK or MLC does not appear to be putting a great deal of effort in. And for many who stand it may represent a big step up in salary and pension. However for the hours that the CM and some Ministers put in, together with the responsibility, stress and abuse that goes with the position that does not seem that high and is a lower salary than a fair percentage in the Isle of Man earn. This tends to be reflected in those who stand as you generally see few business or professional people standing, unless retired, where being an MHK would see a pay cut. I appreciate this election there are a few more.

Finally I do not know about KLB but I expect if she chose to work in the private sector JPW would earn a higher salary working less hours than she would if elected as an MHK. As ever you have good employees well worth the salary and others who swing the lead. I don't thing you can tar all with the same brush

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lost Login said:

Whichever way around it is done people find a reason to complain. Standing to be an MHK whilst an MLC you state that JPW and KLB are indoctrinated and are on a " gravy train ego trip"

Stand to be an MLC whilst having been an MHK then people complain it is just a retirement home ex MHKs who will support the Government and who do not want to seek re election because they might loose.

Stand to be an MLC without being an MHK then you have no public mandate. 

Basically whichever way you do it people will have a reason to have a pop.

 

Exactly. This is fair because LEGCO is undemocratic there is no way to enter it and maintain democratic legitimacy. 

However, if JPW and KLB fail to be re-elected and carry on or unlucky losers fill their positions they'll have even less democratic legitimacy than the rest of LEGCO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Declan said:

Exactly. This is fair because LEGCO is undemocratic there is no way to enter it and maintain democratic legitimacy. 

However, if JPW and KLB fail to be re-elected and carry on or unlucky losers fill their positions they'll have even less democratic legitimacy than the rest of LEGCO. 

I could argue it both ways. MHKs and MLCs should have completely different roles. There are people I would happily see elected as an MHK who I think should not be MLCs and vice versa. Look at KH he might make a great MHK but I think even he would admit that the principle role of an MLC, reviewing and revising legislation, are not his strengths. Somebody like Chris Thomas I think would actually be better suited to being an MLC. 

One rule I would like to see is that if you are an MHK or stand to be an MHK then a full parliamentary term, i,e. 5 years should pass from the date of the election or the date you stand down, whichever is longer, before you can stand as an MLC. If are an existing MLC and are unsuccessful then I think the same basic rule should apply except that you should be able to finish your current term before the mandatory gap period kicks in. The above is part of a raft of rule changes I would like to see brought in re MLCs including they cannot be part of Government and that MLCs stop trying to act as quasi MHKs. 

Whether we need two houses I remain uncertain. One the one hand I think that it would simply be better to have one house of 36 MHKs but equally I can see the merit of being having an upper chamber whose sole role to review and revise legislation without having any other considerations. If we could attract and elect the right mix to be MHKs we should not require MLCs but when you look at those elected as MHKs whilst many might be great at constituency level etc not many strike me as people who would be comfortable or confident at reading and understanding detailed legislation. Look at Chris Robertshaw who appears to like to think of himself as one of the more sophisticated and intellectual MHKs and then look at the landlord bill he tried to introduce which clearly demonstrated that he was out of his depth when actually reading and understanding the actual legislation no matter how good or bad the actual policy was.

 

   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Lost Login said:

I could argue it both ways. MHKs and MLCs should have completely different roles. There are people I would happily see elected as an MHK who I think should not be MLCs and vice versa. Look at KH he might make a great MHK but I think even he would admit that the principle role of an MLC, reviewing and revising legislation, are not his strengths. Somebody like Chris Thomas I think would actually be better suited to being an MLC. 

One rule I would like to see is that if you are an MHK or stand to be an MHK then a full parliamentary term, i,e. 5 years should pass from the date of the election or the date you stand down, whichever is longer, before you can stand as an MLC. If are an existing MLC and are unsuccessful then I think the same basic rule should apply except that you should be able to finish your current term before the mandatory gap period kicks in. The above is part of a raft of rule changes I would like to see brought in re MLCs including they cannot be part of Government and that MLCs stop trying to act as quasi MHKs. 

Whether we need two houses I remain uncertain. One the one hand I think that it would simply be better to have one house of 36 MHKs but equally I can see the merit of being having an upper chamber whose sole role to review and revise legislation without having any other considerations. If we could attract and elect the right mix to be MHKs we should not require MLCs but when you look at those elected as MHKs whilst many might be great at constituency level etc not many strike me as people who would be comfortable or confident at reading and understanding detailed legislation. Look at Chris Robertshaw who appears to like to think of himself as one of the more sophisticated and intellectual MHKs and then look at the landlord bill he tried to introduce which clearly demonstrated that he was out of his depth when actually reading and understanding the actual legislation no matter how good or bad the actual policy was.

 

   


You just have not got a clue as to the contribution Chris Thomas makes to Manx politics

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, SleepyJoe said:


You just have not got a clue as to the contribution Chris Thomas makes to Manx politics

Pray tell, although I would suggest that if you are a politician and some of the electorate have not got a clue as to what you have contributed that is a bit of a failing as politician.

I presume that you are suggesting that his contributions have been very positive rather than negative and he has tweaked a few things here and there but the Government is criticised for its performance over the last 5 years. For much of that time CT was Minister for Policy & Reform. I think it is very hard to argue on one hand that a Minister has made a great positive contribution and on the other hand the Government has been useless.

My views of CT are only my opinions and others, like you, may hold completely different views. My views my be ill founded but whilst I accept that CT is a very clever individual I have never held him in the sort of reverence others do. He has some experience in the private sector but he appear to have spent a large section of his working life pre politics in Academia. To me he comes across as a person who can talk a good game without necessarily playing a good game.  I used to listen to his interviews on Manx Radio and whilst they sounded very impressive when you drilled down into the actual contents often they did not stand up to scrutiny or there was surprisingly little.

Now as I said I may be wrong in my views and when CT is re-elected I hope he proves me wrong just like if SP got elected I hope his performance as an MHK rams my opinions about him back down my throat. 

Actions speak louder than words and for far to long we have seen far to many words, although I do give this current government a bit of latitude as I think whoever was in this time around Brexit and then Covid would have dominated their time. 

Finally I would say that I don't think I have been totally negative about CT. I think he has many very useful skills which would be great in a leadership team but I just don't see him as a leader and I would want to him to be reviewing and assessing legislation or proposals rather than having to deal with a constituent complaining about dog poor in the locality or more mundane matters.

 

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...