Jump to content

Quality of MHKs


Gladys
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

10 minutes ago, cissolt said:

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

While Hooper was on the PAC (though not Chair, that's Watterson), Malone doesn't really figure that much in Ranson's evidence, except that she seems to have been as lackadaisical as most of the rest of them about the coming Covid crisis.   The stuff about her colluding with Magson and the 'catty' exchanges didn't come out till the Tribunal.  Of course there may be even more damaging stuff to come out yet.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

While Hooper was on the PAC (though not Chair, that's Watterson), Malone doesn't really figure that much in Ranson's evidence, except that she seems to have been as lackadaisical as most of the rest of them about the coming Covid crisis.   The stuff about her colluding with Magson and the 'catty' exchanges didn't come out till the Tribunal.  Of course there may be even more damaging stuff to come out yet.

Hooper sanctioned the new CEO after the tribunal evidence.    He is worse that Ashford as he gambled on Ranson failing so he could sweep it all under the rug.   He has let his CEO fall on the proverbial sword to protect himself, he did worse than the CEO.

No change on horizon if someone can hear evidence last year and then did nothing when he got the Ministerial role heading a very small department. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, buncha wankas said:

Hooper sanctioned the new CEO after the tribunal evidence.    He is worse that Ashford as he gambled on Ranson failing so he could sweep it all under the rug.   He has let his CEO fall on the proverbial sword to protect himself, he did worse than the CEO.

No change on horizon if someone can hear evidence last year and then did nothing when he got the Ministerial role heading a very small department. 

I don't know if Hooper had much choice over Malone's appointment or not.  One of the problems with the previous set up was that Greenhow and the AG's Office seem to have been laying down the law about what Ministers could or couldn't do.  He may have had no power over the appointment or even its announcement  Malone was already interim CEO when the Tribunal started and the 'catty' texts didn't come out till during the Tribunal (see para 375) - part of the pattern of late disclosure. 

I suspect Hooper was just trying to keep out of the whole thing until the actual publication of the Decision confirmed  everything and then turn up like Fortinbras when the stage was strewn with corpses.  But he couldn't have known about the texts that sank Malone (though there may be a lot more stuff to come out) until January/February and only then through media coverage.

But you're right to implicitly raise the issue of the purpose of DHSC.  It now doesn't do much and much of that it shouldn't be doing as the inspection etc functions have to be done by outsiders or they're simply meaningless box-ticking at best.  The reality is that the whole split between DHSC and Manx Care has to be undone - it was all a tremendous waste of money designed to avoid politicians having to make any uncomfortable decisions and avoid blame and of course it hasn't even done that.

The purchaser/provider split didn't even work in England and was clearly nonsense when there is only one possible provider.  Michael's solution was really only telling MHKs what they wanted to hear - that there was a way to stop all these pesky constituents bothering them to get adequate medical treatment.  Incidentally neither Michael or Foster come particularly well out of the Decision.  Michael basically told Ranson not to make a fuss and discouraged whistleblowing.  Foster should have spotted that what Magson was saying was implausible, but chose not to find out what was going on.  Like MHKs having an easy life was the important thing. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

I don't know if Hooper had much choice over Malone's appointment or not.  One of the problems with the previous set up was that Greenhow and the AG's Office seem to have been laying down the law about what Ministers could or couldn't do.  He may have had no power over the appointment or even its announcement  Malone was already interim CEO when the Tribunal started and the 'catty' texts didn't come out till during the Tribunal (see para 375) - part of the pattern of late disclosure. 

I suspect Hooper was just trying to keep out of the whole thing until the actual publication of the Decision confirmed  everything and then turn up like Fortinbras when the stage was strewn with corpses.  But he couldn't have known about the texts that sank Malone (though there may be a lot more stuff to come out) until January/February and only then through media coverage.

But you're right to implicitly raise the issue of the purpose of DHSC.  It now doesn't do much and much of that it shouldn't be doing as the inspection etc functions have to be done by outsiders or they're simply meaningless box-ticking at best.  The reality is that the whole split between DHSC and Manx Care has to be undone - it was all a tremendous waste of money designed to avoid politicians having to make any uncomfortable decisions and avoid blame and of course it hasn't even done that.

The purchaser/provider split didn't even work in England and was clearly nonsense when there is only one possible provider.  Michael's solution was really only telling MHKs what they wanted to hear - that there was a way to stop all these pesky constituents bothering them to get adequate medical treatment.  Incidentally neither Michael or Foster come particularly well out of the Decision.  Michael basically told Ranson not to make a fuss and discouraged whistleblowing.  Foster should have spotted that what Magson was saying was implausible, but chose not to find out what was going on.  Like MHKs having an easy life was the important thing. 

If Hooper doesn’t have much choice and is just a mouthpiece for Civil Servants. 

(Plus he ignored the evidence given to him in PAC !  He should be shouting as loudly as Robertshaw is doing.  DHSC as a tiny office grouping of 30 people is not ‘fit for purpose’ and should be a sub section of Cabinet as should DoE)
 

Isn’t Hooper just as weak and useless as the public demanded Ashford’s exit for?  Double standards 


 

  • Like 3
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...