Peter Karran's Party

[Declan]

I prefer being able to select the person that I think best reflects my opinions and, if none do so, having the option of persuading someone who does to give it a go - without being afraid that their efforts will be ground into the dust by the steamroller of a party organisation.

 

But with a Party system you choose the party that best represents your views. Is that so hard to understand?

 

At the moment it is hit and hope since most of the candidates publish bland leaflets that all say pretty much the same thing. You have to hope that they're ok. Once in and they turn our to be incompetent liars, like Quintin Gill, there is nothing to hold them in then in check until the next election.

 

With party politics you know what you are voting for. You know who'll be leader, who'll be in Legco, and the broad thrust of Government Policy.

 

Now you don't know anything. Candidates sidestep important issues in their manifestos (how many mentioned an all-Island speed limit last time out?). Or publish sincere sounding beliefs that something should be done (say housing) but don't tell you what. And this suits them because for five years they are accountable to no-one and by the time the next election comes round they can just print up the same blandishments as last time and carry on as before.

[Ripsaw]

[Dug up from the archive]

 

If area #1 has 5 good candidates and area #2 has 2 mediocre candidates, each area having one seat in the house then we end up with one good member and one mediocre member.

 

Should electoral reform remove boundaries so that all members are elected by all voters so that we end up with the best 24 for the positions?

 

If this was the case we could have the five good candidates from (former) area #1 ahead of the mediocres.

[Declan]

But you'd also end up with a few cranks and probably the BNP.

 

People wouldn't tick the boxes of twenty-four candidates out 100+ they'd pick their two or three favourites. This would probably leave 10 candidates comfortably through. The remaining 14 would go to candidates who are able to muster a modicum of support, I can imagine 24th place would see someone elected with only a couple of hundred votes accross the whole Island.

[The Old Git]

lacks the intellectual ability to be an effective politician. He is certainly not a suitable candidate for Chief Minister.

Wake up and smell the coffee guys!

 

I suspect that most people that vote for Peter already know that.

 

I've always used one of my three votes for Peter. Then I use another one of my votes for someone who might make a good Chief Minister, you know, someone like Richard Corkill

[macks]

Has Peter karran said that he would be chief minister if the party had a majority.Surely the party would have to vote for a leader.

Peter has helped my parents in the past and really does go the "extra yard" to help people who are been frustrated by the govenment system.

I always get the impression that he knows his own limitations and would be suprised if he was putting himself forward to be a future chief minister.

Perhaps he is just trying to put forward an alternative to the old boys club that is our current system.

[Lonan3]

But with a Party system you choose the party that best represents your views. Is that so hard to understand?

 

No, it's not at all difficult, thank you, Declan - and please don't be so patronising.

However, trying to find a political party that comes anywhere near to representing my views is a great deal more difficult, given that it's policies have to appeal to the lowest common denomiators in society such as... well, anyone who thinks that the party system really represents them.

 

At the moment it is hit and hope since most of the candidates publish bland leaflets that all say pretty much the same thing. You have to hope that they're ok. Once in and they turn our to be incompetent liars [personal reference omitted] there is nothing to hold them in then in check until the next election.

 

And the difference between electing an incompetent/lying individual and electing an incompetent/lying party [choose from many obvious ones] is what, exactly?

 

With party politics you know what you are voting for. You know who'll be leader, who'll be in Legco, and the broad thrust of Government Policy.

 

So, those who voted for new labour under Tony B Liar last time can be absolutely confident that he'll still be leader at the end of the present term? And no party ever found itself forced by unforeseen circumstances to do a complete U-turn about anything whilst holding the reins of power?

 

Now you don't know anything. Candidates sidestep important issues in their manifestos (how many mentioned an all-Island speed limit last time out?).Or publish sincere sounding beliefs that something should be done (say housing) but don't tell you what. And this suits them because for five years they are accountable to no-one and by the time the next election comes round they can just print up the same blandishments as last time and carry on as before

 

Okay... and the difference between that and the behaviour of an elected party is...?

[Declan]

Are you being delibrately stupid? Or can you not think of a single argument against what I've written?

[Dr Gonzo]

Party politics are OK if you've got a big place to rule. The problem in a lot of, say UK local authorities, is that you get a split vote between Labour & Conservative. Then you get 10 LibDems who get to make all the decisions because their votes hold the balance of power.

Another problem with party politics is the whip. Something shitty happens where you live? Tough, you vote with the party.

On an IoM level, party politics can't work... but then nor can 24 independent candidates voting whichever way they feel like on a whim.

I suppose I'm arguing both ways up my ass - party politics means you don't get much choice on policy, while independents mean you don't get much choice on policy.

Disillusioned voter? Not me... lol

[hboy]

I just cannot understand why anyone would wish this on the Isle of Man.

 

http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php...ndpost&p=146876

 

Peter Karran, IMHO, and evidenced by his own mixed up speeches and pronouncements, lacks the intellectual ability to be an effective politician. He is certainly not a suitable candidate for Chief Minister.

Wake up and smell the coffee guys!

 

You might argue with the grammar BUT you can't dispute the figures. Karran has proved time and time again that he has the guts to raise the questions and keeps on asking until he gets an answer. Nobody has got a straight answer on the MEA figures or background yet so he keeps asking. I don't see many other people asking. Everytime Eddie Teare says anything the rest of the nodding dogs sit there and say nothing in return.

 

You might not like the guy but he IS effective opposition, he's not a lapdog, and he is prepared to challenge authority. I actually think he likes the "villiage idiot" tag because he knows he'll never be CM, he knows he'll never be a Minister but he can and will persistently be a pain in the ass to those who think they are not accountable for their actions - and you do need people like him in government. He should at least be tolerated for that alone

[lisner]

I quite agree with the lad Rog when on the thread about voting 'yea' or 'nay' for Peter Karran:

With the present very high percentage of charlatans in Manx government Karran is essential.

 

How anyone could vote ‘no’ with the present situation defeats me.

 

Manx Radio gave each MHK an hour or so 'Mannin Line' slot before the last election. All the Politicians told us how wonderful and nice they were and why people should vote them back into the big House.

 

I just remember Peter Karran saying of himself - and I am sure with a bit of a smile on his face - that he was like the gardener of the house, you know, going down to the potting shed and getting his hands dirty!

 

One of the main reasons people don't like to vote is the thought that they had input into getting someone elected who might turn out to be a wrong'un - so easiest not to vote at all.

 

I know that I would have no problem whatsoever with my conscience voting Peter Karran back in.

 

( . . . . not so sure about Chief Minister but I don't have to worry about that do I !! )

[crazyorhythm]

"GER" "GER" "GER" Give it loads Peter!!!

 

You can "COUNT" on my vote......

[Ripsaw]

You might not like the guy but he IS effective opposition, he's not a lapdog, and he is prepared to challenge authority... {snip} ...he can and will persistently be a pain in the ass to those who think they are not accountable for their actions - and you do need people like him in government. He should at least be tolerated for that alone

I do like the guy, and one of the reasons why I don't favour Party Politics is that we have in place a system that allows all who wish to question or argue with proposals to do so.

 

I don't want to elect a person under the 'Representation of the People Act' and then see him/her not stand up in debates because he/she has a party spokesperson to speak on their, and thus my, behalf.

 

Peter excels at being a 'pain in the ass' because he is prepared to stand up and question, something that too many others could do but for whatever reason chose not to.

 

Wasn't it Peter that pushed for the Mount Murray enquiry? A couple of million pounds to come to the conclusion that many of the faults could and should have been picked up much earlier in time. When the decision by Treasury/Tourism was taken to 'support' Mount Murray as a Tourism Village it would have been debated in Tynwald, and then approved.

 

That was the time to not only scrutinise the scheme before it was introduced but to insist on a level of supervision and to impose responsibility for the implimentation and ongoing supervision. The same can be said for the the MEA saga and the Childcare system. All reletively basic schemes that carried a lot of responsibility and yet went unnoticed and unsupervised until it was too late to do anything other than panic, blame everyone else and then move on to the next incident with no, or few lessons learnt.

 

I'm glad that Peter in in the House of Keys, I only wish that there were others prepared to represent with their hearts as well as their heads, and they would allow Peter more time sitting down as they were taking part in proper debates.

 

It's true that most initiatives [sic] come via CoMin and they are constantly applying pressure for more non CoMin members to toe the line with their soundbite that to disagree is to rock the stability of good governence. All members have the oppotunity to question initiatives at the time of introduction, even if they agree with most of the proposal it will be a rare day when 100% of the members agree with 100% of the plan.

 

We don't need an opposition party, we need members prepared to do a bit of background research and then speak up for what they allegedy believe in. Too many are happy to turn up and agree with propositions based only on the fact that if it goes wrong 'it isn't my problem'.

 

In my opinion all members carry blame for any cock ups as they all contribute to the final wording and implimentations even if it is by sitting back and saying nothing.

[lisner]

Many do sit back and say nothing, perhaps a couple of "hear hears" thrown in or a slowly shaken head, but they ALL have to vote, except when they choose to be absent at vote time, which does happen.

 

I have witnessed strong and well researched motions being debated and then a couple of sleepyheaded nodding donkeys stick their hand up at the end to vote it out.

 

'tis all in the votes folks.

[haX0red_Account]

with Rog/lisner on this; how anyone can credibly say PK can't make a chief minister I don't know given recent history. Any minister has rough edges, people grow into the role and I think he'd be OK, certainly no worse in the face of it and one of the few people capable of avoiding the perception of being tainted.

[Gladys]

No offence to PK, but is he really a credible for CM? Yes, he is a terrier on certain issues and continuing without a portfolio will allow him to do just that. But CM? No, I'm sorry he just is not the right stuff!

 

Sure, the previous incumbents may not have been the right stuff either, but PK just doesn't have 'statesmanship'.

 

I also have to agree with some earlier posters about his quest for unearthing the truth; if a P&L was prepared on how much the continual questioning has cost and how much it has saved, would we be in surplus? I think not.

 

On the MEA, for example, on MR's Sunday Opinion, Roger Watterson asked PK which way did he vote on the original bond as that would seem to be the source of much of the difficulties now. PK confirmed he voted for it.

 

It is great having 20:20 hindsight, but much more valuable to be able to foresee and forestall these debacles than crying foul AFTER they have happened. PK is a great auditor, but probably not a great forward thinker.