Jump to content

Quality of MHKs


Gladys
 Share

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

No. I think the bureaucrats have historically done far too much sweeping bad news under the carpet. I think the combination of a new administration keen to address issues where the public (understandably) has little confidence and the publication of the tribunal have caused a sea change. There will be more revelations and more blood letting and hopefully a new ethos will flourish as a result. I know of a number of people who gave up whistleblowing or claiming workplace bullying because they were intimidated or simply didn't have the resources.

Thanks Stu, I appreciate the reply.  You confirm my suspicions that we have seen the ugly tip of the iceberg and government has been forced to act. 

I look forward to the blood letting.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stu Peters said:

No. I think the bureaucrats have historically done far too much sweeping bad news under the carpet. I think the combination of a new administration keen to address issues where the public (understandably) has little confidence and the publication of the tribunal have caused a sea change. There will be more revelations and more blood letting and hopefully a new ethos will flourish as a result. I know of a number of people who gave up whistleblowing or claiming workplace bullying because they were intimidated or simply didn't have the resources.


Do you think it would have happened without publication of the Tribunal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, SleepyJoe said:

Do you think it would have happened without publication of the Tribunal?

Put quite simply, no. But Govt had no control over the publication of the Tribunal's findings and now has to accept and act on the fallout.

Now consider all the other with-holdings, refusals and reactions that it still engages in, even on FOI requests, where it does have control. The commissioned Reports that it buries.

As @cissolt has posted above - the tip of the iceberg.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The saying is “if it’s not broken don’t fix it” and I think it is definitely broken. 
party politics is the way forward or it should be tried as it’s not working how it is.

I didn’t vote this time round as it was the same people in my area that didn’t add anything the last time round. But I would of voted if I was able to vote for a person in a different area as I agreed to their views and what they wanted to change. Where if you have parties then you could have a person in each area with the same view and vote for them and hopefully they keep to their word and the best party gets in.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SleepyJoe said:


Do you think it would have happened without publication of the Tribunal?

It's a question that doesn't make much sense, because the Tribunal always seems to publish their decisions if they can.  The better question is whether it would have happened without the publicity about not just the actual tribunal, but also the pre-tribunal hearings and before that.  Once that happened, blanket coverage of the result was guaranteed.

What I do think is true is that this all wouldn't have happened without the General Election.  Previously similar embarrassments would be shrugged off by the untouchable, assuming that their politician-shields would let them continue in return for an easy life.  But four Ministers lost their seats (and Skelly and Quayle would have gone too if they stood) and similarly inclined MHKs such as Perkins also went.  It meant a new CoMin who could no longer be relied on to do the bidding of the Chief Secretary.  Cannan may have wanted to keep things as they were[1], but even if he did most of the rest of CoMin wouldn't let him - too many of them were infuriated by too many things that had happened with DHSC in the past and wanted change.

I suspect Greenhow tried to block and slow down any action when discussions were taking place after the decision came out on Wednesday (Thursday's CoMin must have been interesting) and that is why he had to go and quickly.  Moulton's rumour of him being presented with a 'sign-here' on Monday morning has plausibility.

The wording of the Decision also meant that it was easy to get rid of both Malone and Conie and there was enough there to make Ashford's going inevitable[2] - and his behaviour since has only convinced nearly everyone it was the right thing.

 

[1]  The fact he didn't make Callister a Minister might suggest he had some leanings to reform, though there may have been other reasons that contributed to that, including Allinson wanting DfE and the farce over the scoreboard.

[2]  Also can you imagine having to sit in a meeting with Ashford every week when he droned on in his self-important way, not saying very much useful.  It must have made his CoMin colleagues less supportive. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

In my opinion Tynwald should be for exchanging ideas, representing the people and debating the important issues of the day. They are paid to express opinions on the big issues. I respect Joney, Tim Johnson, Alex Allinson, Daphne Caine, John Wannenburg and Chris Thomas because I think they work hard and I kind of know what they stand for, even though I don't necessarily agree with them. I respect Stu for setting out his opinions, if not his work rate. There's always a place in politics for the hail-fellow-well-met, which you get in spades with Juan Watterson, and a bit with Sarah Maltby and Tim Crookall, and a place for the honest brokers who meticulously weigh up what they hear, eg; Lawrie Hooper and Rob Callister. To be honest, I'm not sure what skills most of the rest have or what they stand for beside looking after numero uno and being the big I Am - and one or two of those are jaw droppingly dull individuals. Still, that's a better mix than you get in most parliaments. 

Edited by Freggyragh
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Freggyragh said:

In my opinion Tynwald should be for exchanging ideas, representing the people and debating the important issues of the day. They are paid to express opinions on the big issues. I respect Joney, Tim Johnson, Alex Allinson, Daphne Caine, John Wannenburg and Chris Thomas because I think they work hard and I kind of know what they stand for, even though I don't necessarily agree with them. I respect Stu for setting out his opinions, if not his work rate. There's always a place in politics for the hail-fellow-well-met, which you get in spades with Juan Watterson, and a bit with Sarah Maltby and Tim Crookall, and a place for the honest brokers who meticulously weigh up what they hear, eg; Lawrie Hooper and Rob Callister. To be honest, I'm not sure what skills most of the rest have or what they stand for beside looking after numero uno and being the big I Am - and one or two of those are jaw droppingly dull individuals. Still, that's a better mix than you get in most parliaments. 

You lost me at Rob Callister being an honest broker. He is a self serving, pompous buffoon.  High on his own ego and grovelling for scraps from Alfs plate.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, cissolt said:

You lost me at Rob Callister being an honest broker. He is a self serving, pompous buffoon.  High on his own ego and grovelling for scraps from Alfs plate.

Hmmm, on second thoughts maybe I was being a bit generous there. 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Stu Peters said:

No. I think the bureaucrats have historically done far too much sweeping bad news under the carpet. I think the combination of a new administration keen to address issues where the public (understandably) has little confidence and the publication of the tribunal have caused a sea change. There will be more revelations and more blood letting and hopefully a new ethos will flourish as a result. I know of a number of people who gave up whistleblowing or claiming workplace bullying because they were intimidated or simply didn't have the resources.

Drain that swamp!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Steve_Christian said:

And you know this how? 

I assume as he was head of the PAC for Dr Ransons testimony and was hailing the appointment of Malone, even after hearing of her involvement.

  • 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...