Thomas Dalby

Still the whataboutery argument. There is no reason why the distinct question of whether an appointee of a religious body should be entitled to legislate has to be conflated with the question of how elections to LegCo should be reformed. I doubt you would currently get consensus even among the anti-politicians here on how Legco should be reformed (or abolished). Personally I would be for wider reforms to Legco. I suspect some of the politicians voting to remove the Bishop’s vote would, and those who do not I would not regard as hypocrites because they are two distinct questions. But the idea that you can’t make one simple reform for which there may be support without making others for which there is not I do not find attractive. But the door is still wide open for anyone wishing to justify a religious appointee legislating for us because they support the idea per se

Why can we not just address the question of whether a religious appointee should have the right to legislate on its own merits without having to link it to other reforms? I suspect because those who have an emotional attachment to tradition and the church hope that by trying to bring in other issues it can be deflected into the long grass.

Ok understood, but I can’t see it making any difference to the case for removing the Bishop’s vote, which is based on principle and has no bearing on the particular incumbent - to make an obvious point, it was instigated without any knowledge of who would be appointed next. If the camp wishing to retain the Bishop’s vote are intending to present it as a personal attack on the Bishop’s gender or colour then it is just one more irrelevant argument to be wheeled out, along with “what about reforming x” and “it’s a distraction from more important things”. The argument they always seem curiously shy about actually espousing is one based on religion

Why?

Why?

Or even better, you could write down how you would govern the Isle of Man in a manifesto, give up the internet alias and see how many people vote for it. Scary thought isn’t it?

How on earth do you get to this? It’s a Private Member’s Bill and he’s against it

I see what you did there

From what I’ve seen of Hooper I would be surprised if he wouldn’t be in favour of more radical constitutional change if he felt it had a chance of succeeding - it might even be possible that he wants to try and effect a change which he feels can be done without too much time and political capital being spent on it. But in any case I don’t understand why the Bishop’s vote can’t be considered as a question on its own terms without having to be linked to other reform of Comin, or having a directly elected Chief Minister or whatever it is that people always throw in - it raises a very distinct question in its own right. A lot of the opposition to abolishing the Bishop’s vote just looks like whataboutery.

People can accuse anyone they disagree with of “virtue-signalling” but if it is intended to imply that the views are not genuinely held I would be surprised, as it is not a surefire vote winner in most constituencies. I find the arguments of those voting to abolish the Bishop’s vote rather more rational than most of the arguments to retain it, which tend more towards populism, emotion and sentimental waffle - eg Julie Edge saying that the Bishop “represents all faiths”.

I wouldn’t be so sure on that conclusion that this will reflect badly on the IOM. Philippe Auclair, who I think broke the story publicly; “The decisiveness of the Isle of Man authorities in this matter is in stark contrast with the laissez-faire of neighbouring jurisdictions”

@PhilippeAuclair on X …

The door’s always open if you have a comment on point to make

Which is still less than Jersey. What should they be paying to attract good candidates?

Well if there has been difficulty finding good candidates partly as a result of a perception that the office is under-resourced then offering a candidate a salary which is not commensurate with what they might expect would probably not help correcting that perception to someone considering applying.