Fsc Members And Board Members Of Ksf Et Al

[nipper]

. . . . or rather, is the Island of Man too small to fit its boots?

 

There is currently much talk about the matter of people such as ex-politicians being closely involved with the Financial Services Commission and financial institutions such as Kaupthing Singer Freidlander.

 

Today there have been a number of questions in the House of Keys regarding this and the Chief Minister has smugly parried the questioners by saying that the Island is clearly a very small place of 80,000 people and it is difficult to find people with experience who are also willing to sit on such boards.

 

Is the Chief Minister Tony Brown, saying in other words that the Isle of Man is simply too small to be able run its Finance Industry without inevitable suggestions that the overseeing body members will have vested interests?

 

MHK Peter Karran's often asserted suggestion that the Isle of Man is run on a "clubby clubby" basis is becoming more and more clear.

[P.K.]

The thing that has always irritated me is that there are clearly very talented and able people on the island with plenty of integrity and nous. So how is it they don't end up in Tynwald?

[Jimcalagon]

The thing that has always irritated me is that there are clearly very talented and able people on the island with plenty of integrity and nous. So how is it they don't end up in Tynwald?

 

It is the very nature of politics that the people who are least suited to be in a position of power over others are the most likely to seek that power.

[Topaz]

Would need to check with todays Hansard, but the Chief Minister stated, in answer to one of the earliest questions that the reason those such as the current chairman of the IPA were able to take up their positions within the various regulatory bodies in spite of a directive that there should be no political input, Is due to the fact that they are no longer politicians.

 

I beg to differ, and feel that the following exerpt from the IPA report clears it up.

 

Insurance and Pensions Authority

 

Mr Gelling has held the position of Chairman of the Authority since November 2002. He was appointed Chief Minister for the Isle of Man for the second time in December 2004. During his 18 year parliamentary career he has held a number of key roles including Chief Minister (1996-2002), Minister for Treasury (1989-1996) and Chairman of the Financial Supervision Commission (1989-96).

 

 

 

After the sudden resignation of Richard Corkill on December 2, 2004 in a financial scandal, Gelling was re-elected as Chief Minister on December 14. He stayed in office then for exactly two years before stepping down as Chief Minister after the 2006 General Election. He then stood down as an MLC on 18 January 2007, retiring from politics.

 

 

 

IPA Report 2007 - 2008

 

The Authority’s Board is appointed for a period of 5 years which runs concurrently with the term of the House of Keys, the elected lower chamber of Tynwald, the Island’s parliament. In line with other Statutory Boards, the Authority’s Board retires at the time of House of Keys elections, most recently in November 2006, but remains in place until such time as a new Board is approved.

 

At the end of the previous term, Donald Fletcher, having served on the Board of the Authority since 1986, indicated that he did not wish to be reconsidered for appointment. A note of thanks for the work done by Mr Fletcher on behalf of the Authority was included in the Authority’s previous annual report.

 

In July 2007, a new Authority Board was approved by Tynwald. Existing members, Donald Gelling, Bryan Cooper, John Woolhouse and David Vick were reappointed by the Treasury and Peter Pell-Hiley was appointed to fill the vacant position. Mr Gelling was reappointed as Chairman.

 

The Authority’s Board has a wide range of experience in the fields of insurance, audit and accountancy, insolvency, actuarial practice and public administration. The Board meets, on average, once every six weeks in order to exercise its functions as set out in Schedule 1 to the Retirement Schemes Act 2000. There were eight Board meetings during the period covered by this report.

 

Surely Tony Brown would be aware that Donald Gelling when he became Chief Minister for the second time was already serving on regulatory bodies? Therefore his reply in todays Keys Questions could be misleading the House?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

The thing that has always irritated me is that there are clearly very talented and able people on the island with plenty of integrity and nous. So how is it they don't end up in Tynwald?

 

Maybe they have good sense enough to not become politicians.

[manshimajin]

the Chief Minister has smugly parried the questioners by saying that the Island is clearly a very small place of 80,000 people and it is difficult to find people with experience who are also willing to sit on such boards.

The important question for a board members is what is the particular experience that an ex-politician can bring to their board? Based on the financial decisions made by Tynwald my impression is that any sensible and prudent Board would not be looking to MHKs for their financial expertise. I assume it is their knowledge of the buttons to push in the political and public service areas that is sought after. This is not an unusual practice but the board would need to be very sure that the superannuated politician is not there to try and push a political line.

[newsnight]

Once it is accepted that for the members of Isle of Man Government which in reality of course consists of almost every single member of the Tynwald and the House of Keys, with a very notable exception being Peter Karran MHK, that the singular driving force behind everything they do is that the ends justify the means, then why they do what they do becomes obvious.

 

They will bend, amend, break, discard, interpret and create any law, rule, or simply ignore any parliamentary tradition to suit such means, which is of course to keep them in power and all that goes with it, and to keep the rest firmly from it.

 

The parliamentary history of the past ten years at least will demonstrate that nothing, no matter how serious really makes any difference to the powerbase they have. Why should this present situation be any different? Already the stale and very shabby old excuses that have been trotted out in similar situations from the past are being used by the parliamentary boys club and it is more than likely they will suffice, yet again, to get them out of trouble. Welcome to realpolitik Manx style?

 

May I say a very well presented post Topaz?

[Tugger]

The thing that has always irritated me is that there are clearly very talented and able people on the island with plenty of integrity and nous. So how is it they don't end up in Tynwald?

 

I think that in order to get voted in you have to pander to two interest groups in particular: civil servants (who will vote against anyone who will disturb their comfortable existence) and pensioners. These are the groups that turn out in force on election day. Anyone who ran on a platform of, say, slimming down our bloated civil service would never get in.

 

Secondly, you get talented, capable people going to Westminster because you have the prospect of wielding real power when you are an MP. Tynwald is a glorified local authority - where's the attraction on voting on the Dogs (Amendment) Bill and the like?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

...you get talented, capable people going to Westminster because you have the prospect of wielding real power when you are an MP.

 

In that case, it would seema good thing that the Manx politicians don't have as much power! The UK politicians may be talented and capable but it is what they are capable of doing once they get into power. However, the truth of the matter is that real power isn't held by the state but by business.

[Skeddan]

Allegations of child abuse at a second home in Jersey - and claims that the abusers were protected by the very department meant to police them.

 

The following stood out in the item:

I think it’s a fundamental problem with the system of public administration on Jersey.

 

There’s no adequate separation of powers - there’s an healthy overlap between the legislative juror and the judiciary.

 

But the departments of the states themselves, the people who work in them and who perhaps ought to be regulating and monitoring each other, they know each other, are friends - they go to each other’s dinner parties and they have a common and shared interest of course in maintaining that the veneer and everything in all the services are working just fine.

 

Therefore, whenever anything goes wrong they have a collective interest in wanting to bury it and keep it all hushed up.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/content/art...2_feature.shtml

[hboy]

However, the truth of the matter is that real power isn't held by the state but by business.

 

I have to say that I think that is rubbish in a Manx context. Business just provides the money - the real power on an Island where almost 30% of the workers are government employees is with the government. Sorry to burst your bubble but its true.

[pongo]

The good work which has been done in recent years to counter the notion that the IOM is a dodgy offshore finance sector is eroded by the suggestion of conflicts of current or former interests.

 

The IOM economy is over dependent on financial services and the IOM needs to be especially careful to be seen to be cleaner, more modern and better regulated than any other competing jurisdiction.

 

I'm not suggesting that there actually were conflicts of interests, only that it almost makes no difference. Google has a long memory and the impression of a place (which matters) is created by the headlines not in the detail.

[Albert Tatlock]

The good work which has been done in recent years to counter the notion that the IOM is a dodgy offshore finance sector is eroded by the suggestion of conflicts of current or former interests...

 

...Google has a long memory and the impression of a place (which matters) is created by the headlines not in the detail.

Too true.

 

I heard Steve Rodan talk about the general approach to defending the islands image on the Mannin Line on Sunday, saying (paraphrasing): 'that a great deal of work had been done and continues to be done via a PR company who are responsible for putting out our image out to the media and briefing journos etc'.

 

The problem is much of the media, and news programmes like Channel 4 news (which along with newsnight, I usually respect for their journalistic integrity) - can undo much of that work in one fell swoop by repeating phrases like 'tax haven', 'money laundering' etc. We need the govt to be more involved with this, especially during this crisis, and get a couple of people on TV and more involved with the general media to take part and respond (as I have peviously mentioned) - because, like on last weeks Channel 4 news, others got away with making points with no challenge.

 

Another example, on the ML I heard one guy say 'but there is money laundering, there is a large case pending'. But the simple fact is that this attempted in all jurisdictions - and the point has to be made that we have picked it up and are investigating it, hence a case pending i.e. this is positive news because we have integrity and are vigilant. Moreover, case pending doesn't mean people are guilty of it though, everyone is innocent until proven guilty, which is another point that needs to be made.

 

IMO people are convincing themselves that this is all being handled properly in terms of PR, but are failing to realise that much of the fallout from this crisis is only up in the air at the moment, with a lot more of it due to land on the island in terms of the future 'new order of finance' and regulation, along with the potential election of Obama who's views on offshores were being talked about long before this crisis blew up.

 

If we don't focus on getting people out there to dispel these myths and countering issues such as suggestions of conflicts of current or former interests, continue to allow journos to get away with uttering and printing all kinds of half truths, and continue to believe that all is hunky dory and the islands image remains intact - the worst may yet be to come. Whilst the focus is on the finance crisis, we have a perfect opportunity to come out of this with the best image of all the offshores. Simply saying such stuff on the Mannin Line, with a local audience of only a few thousand at most, simply doesn't cut it.

[pongo]

If we don't focus on getting people out there to dispel these myths and countering issues such as suggestions of conflicts of current or former interests

 

We need to move towards the understanding that appointments which could even create the impression of clubby patronage are bad appointments. Such appointments reflect poorly on the quality of these bodies and institutions - and also damage the entire sector and therefore the best interests of the island as a whole.

 

You have to ask how an appointment will seem on first impressions. That should be one of the factors which determine whether an appointment is a good or a bad strategic decision.

 

The past few years have been about negotiating real agreements with other jurisdictions about the proper responsible sharing of information etc. Real fundamentals - properly taking part in the international way of things etc. Not just a PR exercise.

[Gladys]

But there is a huge PR exercise to be done, a charm offensive if you like. But it needs someone who can speak with real authority and understanding of the topic being able to stand up to a Paxman-like interview, not just a political slant. Malcolm Couch springs to mind, he is an excellent speaker and comes across as truly believing in IOM plc, but he probably wouldn't be able/willing to enter a public debate on such matters.

 

I think Alan Bell actually comes across very well, but that is through our home media, I am not too sure how robustly he would stand up to a Newsnight interrogation.

 

It's damage limitation, but it needs to be done