Jump to content

Middle


Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Keiran Hannifin said:

I personally think JPW will landslide it. I believe she would make a great minister (justice/home affairs) 

She is a Solicitor by Profession, not a Manx Advocate or even been a partner with an establishment firm. Being a Minister is a figurehead and if appointed she will tow the civil service line. It’s a pity that JPW principles aren’t stretched to standing down from her unelected seat. Perhaps she may care to donate the thousands earned since July to a charity. I doubt she would. 
 

Incidentally if she was made Home Affairs Minister then the Police, Prison and Judiciary will become even more Woke and politically correct. 
 

Also by JPWs own admission whilst she has 4 years as an MLC, she hasn’t experience as a MHK. I’m sorry but 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.

Edited by 2112
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, 2112 said:

She is a Solicitor by Profession, not a Manx Advocate or even been a partner with an establishment firm. Being a Minister is a figurehead and if appointed she will tow the civil service line. It’s a pity that JPW principles aren’t stretched to standing down from her unelected seat. Perhaps she may care to donate the thousands earned since July to a charity. I doubt she would. 
 

Incidentally if she was made Home Affairs Minister then the Police, Prison and Judiciary will become even more Woke and politically correct. 
 

Also by JPWs own admission whilst she has 4 years as an MLC, she hasn’t experience as a MHK. I’m sorry but 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.

Jane would excel in a situation of scrutiny, which is why is well thought of throughout tynwald already. She was instrumental in setting up pride. 

She is good in legco, for the same reason that she would be a good minister... And that is she is thorough, polished and is not likely to respond with knee jerk politics. I appreciate its probably not the smartest move to big up my competition too much. 

 

But there is difference in MHKs and Legco... As there is a difference between MHKs and Ministers.

 

JPW has actually already been suggested as CM, which I don't necessarily agree with. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, 2112 said:

Also by JPWs own admission whilst she has 4 years as an MLC, she hasn’t experience as a MHK. I’m sorry but we are told that there is a difference between being an MLC and MHK - or perhaps they are same? 

Well the majority of candidates won't have experience of being either, are you arguing that that should disqualify them?  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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

It was because he wanted someone to speak up against “the woke agenda”, whatever that is. 
 

He did say you came across well, spoke with passion, researched and without notes. It’s just he doesn’t agree with you on many issues. 

  • Like 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

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...