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.

Perhaps it’s possible that the decision to increase the offered salary wasn’t taken “automatically” but because candidates of the right calibre were not coming forward on the basis of the salary originally offered. And if the perception is that “the previous incumbent and his deputy left because the employer refused to provide the resources to do the job properly” how would offering the same salary change that perception?

Last May discussing the conduct of the Ranson litigation and calling for the enquiry into it Claire Christian was referring to the DHSC’s “high-handed, malicious, insulting and oppressive manner during the course of the litigation”. John Wannenburgh said the appeals were a “vindictive pursuit” carried out at the “behest of a savage out-for-revenge system”. Claire Christian asked at least 5 times “Why is this independent enquiry so important?” during the course of her speech. And when the findings of the Wright report were considered today did either have a single word to say about it? Tim Glover at least had the good grace to apologise for some of the things he had said.

I agreed with all of the post until this part. The IOM’s climate change policies will not in themselves make a difference but I see the point being that it is becoming the expected norm for a western liberal economy to have envirommental policies which contribute to countering climate change, in much the same way they are expected to have policies covering a range of other matters. And if the Island is serious about attracting foreign investment it will be expected. If you tell a multi-national wishing to build a head office here that a great benefit is that the building will not need to meet the environmental standards they would expect in the UK or Europe they will think it’s a bit weird and that their company policies will require their building to meet certain environmental standards. So I would look at it as part and parcel of aspiring to become a modern economy.

Fantastic point, why not pop into police HQ and tell them this. I’m sure they could do with some tips from Manx Forums on how to investigate a murder

I’m not sure I agree with the premise of the question here. Knowing the cost can have an effect on public opinion on visits such as these. And I don’t mean by that that royal visits should be opposed as a kneejerk reaction, but that more thought be given to the substance and purpose of the visits in light of the cost (even if they are less frequent or we wait longer for them). And I don’t take the view that public opinion is irrelevant - during my lifetime the royal family have adapted to changes in public opinion in various ways.

Paid for by the taxpayer

Yes, she may only be here for a few hours but they are not

There are references here to the cost of the trip being a few sausage rolls and Manx queenies with bacon. As I understand it, for these visits the entire cost of the security operation is paid for by the IOM, including all special protection and police officers from the UK, vetting and advance planning. For a 2-3 day visit I can see it, for a few hours, I question it.

I have always been by inclination generally supportive of the monarchy and am by no means a republican, no doubt as a result of respect for QEII’s reign. I also appreciate that with the King suffering from cancer it is not easy for the Queen to undertake longer visits and wish them both well. But nevertheless the likely cost of this, which will be borne by the Isle of Man, does surely seem disproportionate for what looks like being a flying visit for a few hours.

The other one does attend public meetings in the consituency