Peter Karran's Party

[lisner]

True, but it would be worth having Peter Karan just for the possibility of this thought:

 

As has been stated on the forum before, I really want to see Jeremy Paxman come to the Island and interview Peter Karran.

 

Paxman will then have met his match. That furrowed brow, the bemused unbelieving eyes, the forefinger rubbing he chin.

 

Part Politics is not alien to the Isle of Man. Prior to the World War 2, just about every MHK was tagged as being Conservative, Labour, Liberal or Progressive (so the APG is not a new idea). I think to be Independent was perhaps seen as being wishy washy.

 

There was never a majority although there were about ten Conservatives in the election of 1924 and there was only a handful of Independents then.

 

After the war it seems just about every MHK was an Independent although there were a half dozen or so M.P.P.A. - Manx People's Party Association.

[Lonan3]

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

 

Although I normally enjoy your posts I cannot understand why, in this instance, you appear to be deliberately obtuse.

Party politics are incapable of being democratic - especially the ridiculous 'first-past-the-post' kind that exists in the UK Parliament.

As parties become more successful, so they move further away from those who elected them and, ultimately, become totally absorbed in the retention of power (Blair's NuLabour; Thatcher's Castrati etc).

I am not claiming that we have anything like a perfect system - only that we have one that is infinitely better for the purposes of a small island than the one you appear to propose.

If the aim of an upper chamber that is elected by universal suffrage is realised, the other matters become dependent on the ability of the electorate to make informed and intelligent choices.

At least they don't have to be restricted to a choice between the candidates chosen for them by the party apparatchiks, who are almost impossible to oppose because of their ability to sway the votes with expensive propaganda.

[Ushtey]

I just wonder why the parties/pressure groups only appear in the run up to the elections.

 

If they're such a good idea, why can't they be formed mid term, surely they are still a reflection of MHK's true beliefs, so they can join at that time without fear of being tainted by accusations of simply joining them to get more publicity or as another form of canvassing.

 

If I formed a political party though, I'd want to make sure it had the power of veto on all spending, then ensure everyone else gets blamed when things go wrong, but be sure it is in a prime position to get the credit for spotting these things and promising to find a way to solve it. Now THAT's good politics!

 

A shame there aren't any parties or Departments who fit that bill, their candidates would be bound to get plenty of votes.

[Ripsaw]

I just wonder why the parties/pressure groups only appear in the run up to the elections.

 

If they're such a good idea, why can't they be formed mid term, surely they are still a reflection of MHK's true beliefs, so they can join at that time without fear of being tainted by accusations of simply joining them to get more publicity or as another form of canvassing.

Perhaps because it is in the run up to elections that more minds are focused irrespective of what calamities have happened in the preceding 3 or 4 years.

 

To suggest setting up a new political party 12 months after an election with a view to formulating strategy and a common manifesto would mean writing and rewriting the paper numerous times as time passed and situations evolved.

 

If you or I are insensed enough about a certain situation midterm we have avenues to take to make our voices heard (I'm hearing voices as I type this ).

 

It is when we are in the run up to the 'big day' that like minded souls are more likely to come together and start addressing if things need to be changed and how best to carry them though. Did you (Steve) know for certain that you were going to stand as a candidate 24 months ago and if so would you have been willing to start forming alliances with others who may also stand or may not?

 

Peter has timed his announcement about right (in my opinion) as those newbies who have been umming and ahhhhhing for the past 4 years are now finalising where they stand on certain issues. There are no doubt a few more candidates still to declare their position and if they are worshipers of that which is known as 'Peter' then the election is far away enough to weigh up the pros and cons of alliance but close enough to not be forgotten when the real campaigning starts next month.

 

If I formed a political party though, I'd want to make sure it had the power of veto on all spending, then ensure everyone else gets blamed when things go wrong, but be sure it is in a prime position to get the credit for spotting these things and promising to find a way to solve it. Now THAT's good politics!

 

A shame there aren't any parties or Departments who fit that bill, their candidates would be bound to get plenty of votes.

I'm sure I detected a slight hint of sarcasm in those paragraphs, but I'll humour you with a couple of thoughts just in case

 

I don't believe in party politics in the case of the Isle of Man. Once Ministers are selected for CoMin it doesn't leave enough members to have a party of more than 2 or maybe 3 at a push.

 

As I said elsewhere there is nothing to stop all individuals making their feelings known on a given subject at a given time. There is also nothing to stop any one member agreeing with any given member on one subject, but disagreeing with them on another.

 

Every individual has a different perspective and every perspective has a right to be aired. Party politics (in my opinion) generally remove that freedom to one extent or another.

[lisner]

It is when we are in the run up to the 'big day'

 

Nope, same day, same sh*te. As the saying goes.

 

Few people - certainly less than half, are really bothered.

 

ps.

Sorry to clip such a small part of you rather good post Ripsaw.

I just cut to the thrust.

[Ushtey]

Ripsaw, I have to say that is one of the clearest posts on this subject I've read for quite a while, and one I generally agree with.

 

Did you (Steve) know for certain that you were going to stand as a candidate 24 months ago and if so would you have been willing to start forming alliances with others who may also stand or may not?

 

Not for certain, but it was about then that I began to seriously discuss the possibility with others that I may stand. One particular conversation that followed the lines of "Look at this, I can do a better job than some of that lot"....."Go on then", does spring to mind. Then again, I'm not a great believer of party politics over here, so I haven't spent my time forming alliances, just prioritised looking at what my chances of getting elected might be, then worry about the alliegances on Nov 24th.

[LoneWolf]

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

 

It isnt a question of his grammar. Its about his ability. We have a parliamentary system and, with the best will in the world, Peter Karran lacks the necessary debating skills to be an effective member of parliament.

The evidence is there for you to read in Hansard. Contrary to your assertion he is not effective opposition.

He cannot be effective opposition because he is not equipped with the necessary skill set to be an effective politician.

[hboy]

It isnt a question of his grammar. Its about his ability. We have a parliamentary system and, with the best will in the world, Peter Karran lacks the necessary debating skills to be an effective member of parliament.

The evidence is there for you to read in Hansard. Contrary to your assertion he is not effective opposition.

He cannot be effective opposition because he is not equipped with the necessary skill set to be an effective politician.

 

Methinks you do protest too much.

 

What has debating to do with being a politician in the IOM? There is no debate and if your not a Minister there is little opinion that counts either.

 

He obviously communicates well with his constituency otherwise he would not be one of the most long standing MHK's sitting. In a democracy that is all that counts.

[LoneWolf]

Methinks you do protest too much.

Take my word for it. I am not a closet Peter Karran admirer!

What has debating to do with being a politician in the IOM? There is no debate and if your not a Minister there is little opinion that counts either.

Well ..if you dont believe in a parliamentary system ..

The fact is we do have a parliament and members are supposed to debate and vote on whatever might be the political issue of the day. I agree the Ministerial system has eroded the authority of Parliamant but not to the extent it is irrelevent. Not yet anyhow.

He obviously communicates well with his constituency otherwise he would not be one of the most long standing MHK's sitting. In a democracy that is all that counts.

 

You are wrong. Its not all that counts. A politician working inside a parliamentary system has to be able to contribute to and understand parliamentary debates. If a member is to be effective it might help if he or she has the ability to make compelling arguments and carry debates.

[hboy]

You are wrong. Its not all that counts. A politician working inside a parliamentary system has to be able to contribute to and understand parliamentary debates. If a member is to be effective it might help if he or she has the ability to make compelling arguments and carry debates.

 

I think you have a problem with democracy. Clearly you think PK is an idiot so you are astounded that despite your opinion the people of Onchan have consistently voted him in since 1986. What you are saying is that collectively the people of Onchan are stupid because they vote for him.

 

Maybe your opinion is wrong because the voting public seem to disagree? We are in a democracy after all and if you get in then regardless of whether some people think you have the necessary skills or not, you've had the majority of people behind you.

 

If they think your crap you'll be kicked out in 5 years and as he has never been kicked out you have to assume some people value what he does.

 

We can all criticise personalities as much as we like, but if people collectively thought they were rubbish they would not be sitting in Keys because they would not get any votes.

[lard]

Among the high earning posh speaking 'intelligent' fat cats of the Island there is a feeling that there are not enough high earning posh speaking 'intelligent' fat cats in Tynwald.

 

You see, they think it is people like them that are needed in this country to run a Government, but surely Politics and Politicians are a little bit more than being 'intelligent'.

 

This letter in this week's Isle of Man Examiner kinda sums it up I thought:

 

[lard]

and just so's you know - I'm always watching

 

 

 

That's me on the far left btw

 

(On the wall that is . . )

[LoneWolf]

I think you have a problem with democracy. Clearly you think PK is an idiot so you are astounded that despite your opinion the people of Onchan have consistently voted him in since 1986. What you are saying is that collectively the people of Onchan are stupid because they vote for him.

 

Maybe your opinion is wrong because the voting public seem to disagree? We are in a democracy after all and if you get in then regardless of whether some people think you have the necessary skills or not, you've had the majority of people behind you.

 

If they think your crap you'll be kicked out in 5 years and as he has never been kicked out you have to assume some people value what he does.

 

We can all criticise personalities as much as we like, but if people collectively thought they were rubbish they would not be sitting in Keys because they would not get any votes.

 

I certainly dont have a problem with democracy. However, I do think you need to take stock of what Parliamentary democracy consists of. Its called indirect democracy. You seem to be implying we have something different along the lines of direct democracy. We dont.

Anyone elected as a representative of the people needs a minimum set of skills to be an effective member of the parliament. With the best will in the world PK does not have those skills.

You need to read Hansard if you want to gauge how bad a performer he is.

That has nothing to do with capturing votes at the election or with the cognitive abilities of Onchan residents.

For the avoidance of doubt I have certainly not said the people of Onchan are stupid.

I have said PK is an ineffective politician and the evidence is there for you to see in Hansard.

 

For the avoidance of doubt here I am not advocating politics should be the exclusive domain of "business" people, only that politicians cannot be successful without the necessary skill set. Here is an example from a bygone age of an effective politician who through his own endeavours and hard work acquired the skills required for a parliamentary career and put them to good use.

Kier Hardy

[lard]

It is what is NOT in Hansards that amazes me, or rather what is simply not said at all to be recorded.

 

There are a fair few of them that say (and probably even think) very, very little.

 

From my place in the House of Keys I can see the blank bored looks on the faces of the members where there should be concern and questions. Many leave it all to Karran as they daren't put their head above the parapet.

[Lonan3]

With all due respect to his sincerity, I think Peter's 'scattergun' approach - firing at everything that moves - is only occasionally effective. Therefore, I tend to agree with Lonewolf and prefer to be represented by someone who, when approached by constituents about a problem, thinks about it, investigates it, and tries to take whatever will be the most effective action.

In this respect, I am quite content with my local MHK and will vote for him again this time.

If I was living in Onchan, I think Adrian Earnshaw is the only one who'd be certain to get my vote at the moment.