Jump to content

Manx Forum's MHKs - We Need You to do What's Right


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

If we had party politics with the opposition screaming foul from across the chamber, things may have been better.  Who have we got to hold the politicians to account? Absolutely no-one.  And who is there to give unbiased guidance to them in this dire situation?  Absolutely no-one.  Everyone who you would expect to fulfill that role is tainted by this.  The only man is the Lt Gov (ie the UK) and do we really want that intervention?

No hearing a word from Labour or that other Lib Van political group, embarrassing how quiet they are on everything 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, cissolt said:

Cretney would also have been silent on the issue.

Ashford regurgitating the lie that Dr Ranson had mental health issues in order to prevent her from attending a meeting is disgusting.  

As I said it’s mental health awareness day and this is how our governemt acts. A deathly wall of silence on this tribunal and Ashfords behaviour. And not even any backbenchers with the balls to speak out publicly (possibly with the exception of Glover and Thomas).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Declan said:

Surely sub judice element only applies to the non-disclosure of documents and the redress / remediation of Dr Ranson's claim which the tribunal is still to determine. The findings of the tribunal aren't covered by sub judice - they've been published and commented on widely. 

I would ask who this "sub judice" claim is coming from - the people who wrongly suggested Dr Ranson shouldn't give evidence to PAC because of sub judice for her tribunal, OR that PAC subsequently shouldn't publish that information? Again wrong.

Well in England: Both statutory and common law contempt of court are concerned with the possibility that a juror, witness or lay judge may be influenced by material which is published about active legal proceedings.  But that only really applies to civil and (especially) criminal courts and tribunals are different (for example witnesses seem to be dealt with differently) and members of tribunals (unlike say jurors or even magistrates) should be expected not to be influenced by public opinion.  It's the same situation when cases are appealed - that doesn't suddenly inhibit discussion because judges are expected to be impartial and there will be no new witness allowed.  Unless there's something very limited and specific (and we should told if so) to claim sub judice looks like nonsense.

So who is claiming this?  Well politicians who have their own interest in keeping things quiet and maybe the AG's Chambers.  But they are also not impartial in this case because it is them who are being accused of not giving full disclosure.  Some of this may be the fault of witnesses not giving them stuff, but some will be held by government.  As they are effectively working for the same employer, it doesn't look good.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the UK , if 200 and something labour MPs cannot usurp the 300 plus tories, then little chance of party politics having any effect on the Island? What could we hope for? 6 to 8 party MHKs , if they couldn't get the CM role they could easily be side lined by the establishment. EG. the Dlas leader vote!!!

Is there a mechanism to have a vote of no confidence in an individual MHK? Especially as Ashford in not now the Health minister.

It would be hard for the Keys or Tynwald to vote no confidence in one of their own whom they personally know.

MFs only hope is that Cannan sees him as an embarrassment to his Admin and asks or insists that he steps down? Resigning his seat is a matter for the North Dlas voters.

Conspiracy theory, if Cannan would like a second term as CM it would be useful  to remove the opposition, this could be such a time? This could let C Thomas into the fray but he is not universally liked, so he could go to the Treasury in place of Ashford.

How to hold the lot of them to account? MR could hire John Humphrys or Nick Robinson as chief interrogators?

Call in the UK? Absolutely not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Kopek said:

Is there a mechanism to have a vote of no confidence in an individual MHK? Especially as Ashford in not now the Health minister.

No, it's in the chief minister only. He can be removed by a simple majority of Keys Members. 

Also there's no recall mechanism. We're stuck with this lot.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kopek said:

In the UK , if 200 and something labour MPs cannot usurp the 300 plus tories, then little chance of party politics having any effect on the Island? What could we hope for? 6 to 8 party MHKs , if they couldn't get the CM role they could easily be side lined by the establishment. EG. the Dlas leader vote!!!

Is there a mechanism to have a vote of no confidence in an individual MHK? Especially as Ashford in not now the Health minister.

It would be hard for the Keys or Tynwald to vote no confidence in one of their own whom they personally know.

MFs only hope is that Cannan sees him as an embarrassment to his Admin and asks or insists that he steps down? Resigning his seat is a matter for the North Dlas voters.

Conspiracy theory, if Cannan would like a second term as CM it would be useful  to remove the opposition, this could be such a time? This could let C Thomas into the fray but he is not universally liked, so he could go to the Treasury in place of Ashford.

How to hold the lot of them to account? MR could hire John Humphrys or Nick Robinson as chief interrogators?

Call in the UK? Absolutely not.

So, you think the press should hold them accountable? That will do nothing other than more shuffling, red faces and lessons learnt.

Call in the UK is the only option, in my view. Who else is not conflicted or tainted by this shameful, shameful situation? They are even calling sub judice to halt political discussion.  If you think that is acceptable, God help us, the electorate really have got the politicians they deserve. 

  • Like 3
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well now they’ve lost the sub judice argument, it will be ‘Tynwald privilege’ or ‘Official Secret’ next - the usual shite excuses trotted out when they don't want to impart information to the public, hoping people go “Oh. OK then” once again … 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is where the English press are so good at provoking a pressure on an MP and keeping it going as to make it necessary for the person stand down!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gladys, if you listen to Radio 4, as I'm sure you do, you will know that their interrogation of politicians can keep a 'story' alive way beyond that which the parties would like.

UK takeover??? We Manx and those who have lived here for some years will value out independence and would be very loath to allow any interference from outside.

Our   political independence is our pride, I'm surprised you should give that up as you propose!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Kopek said:

Gladys, if you listen to Radio 4, as I'm sure you do, you will know that their interrogation of politicians can keep a 'story' alive way beyond that which the parties would like.

UK takeover??? We Manx and those who have lived here for some years will value out independence and would be very loath to allow any interference from outside.

Our   political independence is our pride, I'm surprised you should give that up as you propose!

Yes, but we need some decisive action, not  a mailing by journos.

It really pains me about calling in the UK, but look at what we have.  A government that is throughly tainted, a whole week before the CM makes a statement (was the decision such a surprise, did no one think to prepare for a 'disappointment'?), a statement from the minister that he won't resign (may not be your choice, mate) and then to top it all off, warn off all MHKs on a dubious sub judice call.

If you don't think these things are evidence of a wholly broken system, God help us. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Non-Believer said:

Because over the years under the ministerial system and the rest of #clubtynwald benefits that is precisely what they have become.

No political opposition, an "owned" national broadcaster and a weak media. Coupled with a fawning and self-serving civil service (certainly in its upper ranges) and an indifferent electorate which have contributed to and given us this situation.

This is almost certainly the biggest challenge the system has faced, even greater than Richard Corkill. How it deals with it is now going to be important because much of the electorate is now awake.

But how has that happened?

I worked in the civil service for a couple of years in the 80s just after I graduated.  Maybe my view is biased but govt and politicians seemed to do a good job then and there were competent Manx people in senior positions.

My impression (I've lived in the UK for nearly 40 years now) is that things were pretty good up to and including when Miles Walker was CM - and it went downhill thereafter.

The problem is that the system has got itself into a mess that is almost impossible to get out of.  Who wants to rock the boat?  (Or gravy train... )

The other problem which I've pointed out before in this thread (or the airport or DOI threads) is who keeps on appointing inadequate candidates (eg Spake et al) to important jobs?  (And other posters have questioned this too).

Ironic that someone non-Manx who appears to be very competent at her job is one of the few senior public servants to get binned!  Is that to make the others look better?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

Thing is, he is the only MHK to speak out, all the rest are stifled without even questioning if the stifling is correct. 

 

That's what I don't understand.  You get told you can't ask a question 'cos it's sub judice - or whatever - and nobody seems to challenge it on the grounds that that must be bollocks.  (Or if it's not bollocks, explain why!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talking about people resigning, has any MHK other than Victor Kneale ever resigned on a point of principle?

(IIRC he resigned when I was in the civil service early 80s over whether people appointments to LegCo should be elected.  He thought they should be elected?  I can't remember the detail)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ghost Ship said:

That's what I don't understand.  You get told you can't ask a question 'cos it's sub judice - or whatever - and nobody seems to challenge it on the grounds that that must be bollocks.  (Or if it's not bollocks, explain why!)

'Cos it's Latin, so must be right. 

It is just shutting down the system so everyone can scurry round to come up with some platitudes, reassurance and allow the broken system to restart as if nothing had happened. 

I say it again, who is there at the right level and in the right place to get a hold of this who isn't tainted by it? 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
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...