Douglas East

[Declan]

All those years in the communication industry and still a superfluous apostrophe creeps in.

[Albert Tatlock]

Kevin Woodford has added his name to the list of candidates.

[jimbms]

Kevin Woodford has added his name to the list of candidates.

Ah well at least they may get someone who can cook the books in a different way.

[- Paul -]

Eight MHKs for the various areas of Douglas - North, South, East, West.

 

Plus three for Onchan

 

Perhaps a reduction to four for Douglas?

 

Given that Peel only has one and Ramsey two.

 

I'm sure a 50% reduction in Douglas wouldn't affect Dog Poo and the other serious issues.

[Theodolite]

Listening to Manx Radio Mandate this morning, I'm not so sure if Kevin Woodford is doing this for himself or for the people of East Douglas/Isle of Man

[censorship]

Eight MHKs for the various areas of Douglas - North, South, East, West.

I'm sure a 50% reduction in Douglas wouldn't affect Dog Poo and the other serious issues.

 

Wouldn't this be a great opportunity for government to start making some cuts? Let's not have the election. The constituency can cope with one MHK (some would argue that's exactly what it has had for the past few years) and the money saved - the cost of running an election to fill a seat for about 18 months, the salary and the pension potential - could then be spent on something useful. If government departments claim they are going to cut costs by reducing staff through natural wasteage, surely parliament can do the same. Before we employ someone for this job, lets decide if it is a job that's necessary and, if not, lets make the position redundant, save the cash and move on. With the inevitable government post that comes with being an MHK, this could save government in excess of £50,000 a year - maybe we could get a couple of teachers or nurses?

[In fact . . .]

Eight MHKs for the various areas of Douglas - North, South, East, West.

 

Plus three for Onchan

 

Perhaps a reduction to four for Douglas?

 

Given that Peel only has one and Ramsey two.

 

I'm sure a 50% reduction in Douglas wouldn't affect Dog Poo and the other serious issues.

 

Since more than one third of the Isle of Man's population lives in Douglas, surely it's fair that the town has one third of the seats in the House of Keys?

[Declan]

Paul - Douglas has about a third of the Island's population (32.7%) and exactly a third of the number of members in the Keys. Peel is underrepresented for its population, but this is because its population is larger than other one member constituencies, some of which are tiny. For example, if Peel and Glenfaba were one constituency with two members, it would be a fair distribution of votes.

 

Censorship - I agree that headcount reduction is needed in Government, the last people to be cut should be the numbers in the Keys. Get rid of the unelected LEGCO first, merge local councils where anyone who wants can have a seat, go through the civil service to weed out the dead wood, but don't curtail the people's only real means of influencing policy.

 

Taken to its logical conclusion your arguement that we should only have those we need - we end up with just 10 CM and a minister for each department. But who's going to scrutinise them, or hold them account?

[Theodolite]

The constituency can cope with one MHK (some would argue that's exactly what it has had for the past few years)

 

Well I suppose at least now Phil doesn't have to work so hard granny farming in his Post Office.

[freedom2f-art]

Kevin Woodford has added his name to the list of candidates.

 

for ****** sake is there nothing he won't stand for....... too many cooks spoil the manx broth fella . I wonder if he will make a documentary entitled " the time I ran for MHK", look out for the camera's on his rounds, smile your on the kevin woodford show.

[censorship]

Taken to its logical conclusion your arguement that we should only have those we need - we end up with just 10 CM and a minister for each department. But who's going to scrutinise them, or hold them account?

 

Your principle is correct. However, what difference has having this post filled for the past 14 years had in terms of scrutinising government? The usefulness of the position depends entirely on the person who gets it. The position is not, in and of itself, useful.

[Declan]

Actually, had you removed one post prior to the last 2 elections, it would have been Brenda Cannell that lost out not Braidwood.

[VinnieK]

Your principle is correct. However, what difference has having this post filled for the past 14 years had in terms of scrutinising government? The usefulness of the position depends entirely on the person who gets it.

 

Maybe so, but the fact that some who are elected fail to perform the duties expected of them is not then an argument for cutting down the number of available posts. Cutting government positions down to 'what we need' effectively sacrifices the potential for debate and scrutiny for a matter of what in the grand scheme of things amounts to pennies, with little justification other than a defeatist "ah well, they're all crap, so we might as well have fewer of them".

[- Paul -]

To my mind, there's little room for

the potential for debate and scrutiny

in the present system.

One or two loose cannons, the rest subject to Arkwrights influence/patronage.

[VinnieK]

To my mind, there's little room for

the potential for debate and scrutiny

in the present system.

One or two loose cannons, the rest subject to Arkwrights influence/patronage.

 

I'd put it at more than one or two: Karran, Malarkey, Henderson, Houghton, Cannan, and Cannell are all fairly consistent critics of the Government, with maybe Cregeen close behind and Cretney's got something of a rebellious streak (for a member of CoMin). The most enthusiastic nodding dogs are probably Quayle, Earnshaw and Braidwood.

 

Yes there are serious problems with the current system, especially with regards to the system of patronage and appointment, but isn't that beside the point? Cutting the number of MHKs does nothing to address that and in fact would just make it all the worse. Better instead to reform the system*, and then see how that works than to set forth with the axe.

 

*Of course, it would also help if people stopped voting for "that nice fella in the post office/etc." or whoever can make the largest number of empty promises in a manifesto.