How did MR carry an untrue story that the Medical Director had been fired for giving evidence to Tynwald PAC

[Anyone]

Apparently not fired. So it will be interesting to see how this pans out ( or spins out ). Seems a bit of a mess really. Maybe the media should ask the good doctor who I would hope knows whether they remain in post.

[Stu Peters]

1 hour ago, Anyone said:

Apparently not fired. So it will be interesting to see how this pans out ( or spins out ). Seems a bit of a mess really. Maybe the media should ask the good doctor who I would hope knows whether they remain in post.

But who might have been forced to sign an NDA.

[AlanShimmin]

MR and DHSC should go double or quits. 

 

If the story is true then DHSC CEO resigns. If it's fake then Manx Radio News Editor resigns. 

[bishbashbosh]

6 hours ago, AlanShimmin said:

MR and DHSC should go double or quits. 

 

If the story is true then DHSC CEO resigns. If it's fake then Manx Radio News Editor resigns. 

There is no news editor… which I imagine might be part of the problem here.

[asitis]

Toxic publicity, great for recruitment !

[code99]

14 hours ago, 747-400 said:

Power to sumons people for starters.

There is no question that the PAC has the authority to summon witnesses to appear in front of the Committee - it is an important part of having a fully functioning publicly accountable democracy, because somebody somehow has to be able to “hold the government to account for its policies and their implementation”. A healthy democracy needs public checks and balances, otherwise we only have a ‘veneer democracy’. The PAC hearings did shed some valuable spotlights on what happens behind the scenes and they did reveal dysfunctional chaos at the most senior levels.

IMHO, the way IOM is allowed to operate is no better than any authoritarian state we currently despise. As soon as people have sunk their teeth into the power, they will try to conceal from a public gaze what they are doing, and they will keep doing this until something goes spectacularly wrong, and after that they will desperately try to silence any whistleblowers.

For many years now the ineptitude of some ‘people in power’ has been inconsequential for the GMP, because the IOMG has had enough money to patch things over. The GMP have therefore been happy enough to largely ignore whatever has happened. But as the saying goes; ‘if something is too good to be true then it cannot last indefinitely’. And so, if things are allowed to be hidden behind impenetrable door, a house of cards will inevitably be built and will in turn tumble down under the weight of its own incompetence and hubris.

[Gladys]

4 minutes ago, code99 said:

There is no question that the PAC has the authority to summon witnesses to appear in front of the Committee - it is an important part of having a fully functioning publicly accountable democracy, because somebody somehow has to be able to “hold the government to account for its policies and their implementation”. A healthy democracy needs public checks and balances, otherwise we only have a ‘veneer democracy’. The PAC hearings did shed some valuable spotlights on what happens behind the scenes and they did reveal dysfunctional chaos at the most senior levels.

IMHO, the way IOM is allowed to operate is no better than any authoritarian state we currently despise. As soon as people have sunk their teeth into the power, they will try to conceal from a public gaze what they are doing, and they will keep doing this until something goes spectacularly wrong, and after that they will desperately try to silence any whistleblowers.

For many years now the ineptitude of some ‘people in power’ has been inconsequential for the GMP, because the IOMG has had enough money to patch things over. The GMP have therefore been happy enough to largely ignore whatever has happened. But as the saying goes; ‘if something is too good to be true then it cannot last indefinitely’. And so, if things are allowed to be hidden behind impenetrable door, a house of cards will inevitably be built and will in turn tumble down under the weight of its own incompetence and hubris.

This 100%.

In light of the persistent and consistent ineptitude across the whole government piece, there is one clarion call and that is for accountability, and not the superficial, nonspecific accountability bandied around at election time, but a process of governance, oversight and review with real teeth, that does see heads roll.  Forget collective responsibility, it is individual responsibility that is required. 

Is there any area of government that has escaped demonstrable ineptitude, failed projects, toxic culture? Education, Infrastructure, Health have all been found wanting, even DEFA has had a few close calls.

At the coal face most areas have committed people wanting to do the best, but the higher up you go it seems the greater chance of incompetence and toxicity. 

If any candidate on your doorstep refers to accountability, just make sure they have specific ideas to deal with it, not some nebulous aspiration. 

[TheTeapot]

It's definitely worse than I thought, and I thought it was bad.

[code99]

Candidates get elected to the HoK, civil servants get appointed to the managerial/executive roles, etc., but there is never any public accountability, then where is democracy? To hide uncomfortable truths is unfortunately human nature and that is exactly why we need committees like the PAC. Long live the PAC!

[Non-Believer]

It's less to do with politicians IMHO and more to do with an out-of-control CS and its culture. Politicians are only the veneer that we ourselves put in front of it. They have little real power or influence, lately proven. They are just puppets on strings.

How we rid ourselves of this tumour is another question and it's still growing. A new tranche of IT being recruited for Cabinet Office I'm told a couple of days ago.

[ubbiali]

45 minutes ago, Gladys said:

This 100%.

In light of the persistent and consistent ineptitude across the whole government piece, there is one clarion call and that is for accountability, and not the superficial, nonspecific accountability bandied around at election time, but a process of governance, oversight and review with real teeth, that does see heads roll.  Forget collective responsibility, it is individual responsibility that is required. 

Is there any area of government that has escaped demonstrable ineptitude, failed projects, toxic culture? Education, Infrastructure, Health have all been found wanting, even DEFA has had a few close calls.

At the coal face most areas have committed people wanting to do the best, but the higher up you go it seems the greater chance of incompetence and toxicity. 

If any candidate on your doorstep refers to accountability, just make sure they have specific ideas to deal with it, not some nebulous aspiration. 

which is why the Comin system will never be fit for purpose in the IOM

[747-400]

37 minutes ago, code99 said:

Candidates get elected to the HoK, civil servants get appointed to the managerial/executive roles, etc., but there is never any public accountability, then where is democracy? To hide uncomfortable truths is unfortunately human nature and that is exactly why we need committees like the PAC. Long live the PAC!

Fully support what you say (here and above) and the need for scutiny.

However, I would prefer an independent PAC. This is arguably the most important HoK committee and has just taken evidence on a topic with high public interest. Having listened to most of the sessions, I was frankly embarassed by a lot of the questioning, interruptions, and jokes amongst themselves. There is clearly a lot of subjectivity and axes to grind by some of the PAC members. 

An independent committee would comprise professional people, with the ability to probe and remain objective.

The Manx public deserve better. 

 

Edited August 15, 2021 by 747-400
typo

[747-400]

43 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

We’ve had a unique chance in the last two years to see what we’re really dealing with behind the scenes. The default setting is complete totalitarianism, smearing and bullying. Last week an FOI confirmed we gaoled over 70 people under emergency laws. These are not people who want a debate or engagement. They want and demand total compliance with what they’ve decided. We also saw how they’ll even try to smear someone who was trying to help them out with their testing response. Or how they’ll try to sack someone who was basically trying to protect the public just to preserve their reputations and own jobs. Effectively we’ve had a once in a lifetime chance to have a peak behind the curtain and it really isn’t a pretty scene at all. In fact you’d swear some of them are literally unhinged.

People need to remember this when they vote for any candidate that’s standing again. Especially Ashford and his MBE. Acquired on the back of all the above tactics.

Who is they though? Top CS? If so, it this typical culture in other jurisdictions. If we had CEOs in role for decades I might understand, but Ms Magson is relatively new and only interim. Apparently very good at her job. But we see she came in for a lot of criticism in papers released last week. 

[AlanShimmin]

33 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

It's less to do with politicians IMHO and more to do with an out-of-control CS and its culture. Politicians are only the veneer that we ourselves put in front of it. They have little real power or influence, lately proven. They are just puppets on strings.

How we rid ourselves of this tumour is another question and it's still growing. A new tranche of IT being recruited for Cabinet Office I'm told a couple of days ago.

No CS contract should be open ended. They should have a maximum limit of 5 years on an employment contract after which time they reapply. It should run in sync with the election cycle 2.5 years out. 

MHKs are capable of getting rid of civil servants (well Ministers are). They just have to carefully restructure the department so the role in question becomes obsolete. 

[buncha wankas]

1 hour ago, code99 said:

There is no question that the PAC has the authority to summon witnesses to appear in front of the Committee - it is an important part of having a fully functioning publicly accountable democracy, because somebody somehow has to be able to “hold the government to account for its policies and their implementation”. A healthy democracy needs public checks and balances, otherwise we only have a ‘veneer democracy’. The PAC hearings did shed some valuable spotlights on what happens behind the scenes and they did reveal dysfunctional chaos at the most senior levels.

IMHO, the way IOM is allowed to operate is no better than any authoritarian state we currently despise. As soon as people have sunk their teeth into the power, they will try to conceal from a public gaze what they are doing, and they will keep doing this until something goes spectacularly wrong, and after that they will desperately try to silence any whistleblowers.

For many years now the ineptitude of some ‘people in power’ has been inconsequential for the GMP, because the IOMG has had enough money to patch things over. The GMP have therefore been happy enough to largely ignore whatever has happened. But as the saying goes; ‘if something is too good to be true then it cannot last indefinitely’. And so, if things are allowed to be hidden behind impenetrable door, a house of cards will inevitably be built and will in turn tumble down under the weight of its own incompetence and hubris.

Well said yessir