Douglas East

[P.K.]

Face it, the current model is simply not fit for purpose and recent events have proved it beyond doubt.

 

I still think you need upper and lower chambers. But they should all be elected by popular vote. You could have 12 constituencies each returning two MHK's. Upper chamber by "nationwide" vote for want of a better word, say ten of them. ALL ballot papers to end with a "None of the above" option. Four year term with 50% turnover every two years i.e. one constituent MHK plus half the upper chamber.

 

Unfortunately you do need a figurehead. So CM voted in by both chambers via open ballot. Thus allowing Joe Public to congratulate/vilify their representatives as appropriate.

 

No more patronage. Portfolios distributed again by open ballot by both chambers. Could be from either chamber or even an outsider like a hi-pot civil servant. Interest expressed and has to be seconded from the other chamber to go forward, outsider seconded by both. Representation safeguards could be built in i.e. if an MHK gets a portfolio the other constituent MHK can't.

 

The idea being that all of the the government becomes accountable to the voter, radical I know...

 

Fire away!

[In fact . . .]

 

There is no other parliamentary system in the World that directly-elects its First Minister, and there's no guarantee he would even be voted in by a majority.

 

 

Between 1996 and 2001, Israel had a popularly-elected prime minister. But that idea was abandoned as unworkable.

[censorship]

Also the argument for cutting the number of civil servants isn't quite as you describe, and highlights the difference between the civil service and Tynwald. There's an argument for getting rid of X civil servants because their jobs are viewed as unnecessary (even if they're good at them), whereas what you're suggesting is getting rid of a what I'd argue is a necessary position (an individual seat in the house of keys), just because the individual isn't good at their job.

 

Then it becomes a question of scale. If we wish to ensure there is a majority in 'opposition' rather than in government, to ensure full scrutiny, then we cut the Council of Ministers down to five plus the chief minister, then we can scale back the number of MHKs without affecting the ratio. I don't see why all health, social care, social services and education couldn't come under one minister, and I'm sure the same could be said of other departments.

Incidentally, the idea that those who are not in the Council of Ministers provide scrutiny and oversight of government is naive. At the moment almost every member of the Keys (I think there may be one member who isn't) holds a government post of some description, worth somewhere in the region of £15,000-plus a year in salary, as well as the 'look how important I am' factor. Reducing the number of departments would reduce the number of ministers and departmental members. We could impose a limit on the percentage of Keys members who serve inside government, thereby ensuring there is a genuine opposition.

[triskelion]

12 with 2 each then, I suppose that if an MHK has to step down or dies, that will still leave the constituency with representation.

But underneath that, only 4 councils, North, South, East and West.

The IOM does not need 4 Town authorities, 2 District authorities, 3 Village authorities and 15 parish authorities.

Whilst I accept that there are functions of higher government particular to being a crown dependancy, involving as a consequence additional posts; A population of 80,000 don't need nor should be expected to stump up for 24 local authorities. It's an outdated historical legacy which should be reviewed on cost and efficiency grounds.

 

But you only contribute to one local authority at a time. Just because they are numerous doesn't mean that value for money is necessarily poor. Authorties already cooperate in the provision of some services. Yes, there are perhaps certain things, like waste, that might be better dealt with centrally. However, the debate there needs to be about the particular service - what needs to be delivered and how is it best delivered; not the entire structure of local government.

 

Its also a bit strange that you've decided the optimum structure of local Government is on based on the points of the compass, rather than, say, population centres. Although the use of parishes is probably a concept that has had its day, it makes sense to me that people living in Laxey or Port St Mary can decide what goes on there, rather than being marginalised by the representatives of the larger settlements.

 

I accept that there's a problem with getting people to stand for local authority seats, but I don't think the best solution is tear the whole thing down.

 

Face it, the current model is simply not fit for purpose and recent events have proved it beyond doubt.

 

I still think you need upper and lower chambers. But they should all be elected by popular vote. You could have 12 constituencies each returning two MHK's. Upper chamber by "nationwide" vote for want of a better word, say ten of them. ALL ballot papers to end with a "None of the above" option. Four year term with 50% turnover every two years i.e. one constituent MHK plus half the upper chamber.

 

Unfortunately you do need a figurehead. So CM voted in by both chambers via open ballot. Thus allowing Joe Public to congratulate/vilify their representatives as appropriate.

 

No more patronage. Portfolios distributed again by open ballot by both chambers. Could be from either chamber or even an outsider like a hi-pot civil servant. Interest expressed and has to be seconded from the other chamber to go forward, outsider seconded by both. Representation safeguards could be built in i.e. if an MHK gets a portfolio the other constituent MHK can't.

 

The idea being that all of the the government becomes accountable to the voter, radical I know...

 

Fire away!

You've not really made a case for a second chamber? The idea of two-member constituencies makes sense. As regards the all-Island vote though, to make it something resembling an actual contest, you would need 20-30 candidates, and I don't think the Island has enough people of sufficient standing to accomplish that.

 

The problem with the electing the Chief Minister via the same means as the other ministers is that they then have effectively no role. They will have no portfolio and bascially just interfere with everyone else.

[sarahc]

Face it, the current model is simply not fit for purpose and recent events have proved it beyond doubt.

 

I still think you need upper and lower chambers. But they should all be elected by popular vote. You could have 12 constituencies each returning two MHK's. Upper chamber by "nationwide" vote for want of a better word, say ten of them. ALL ballot papers to end with a "None of the above" option. Four year term with 50% turnover every two years i.e. one constituent MHK plus half the upper chamber.

 

Unfortunately you do need a figurehead. So CM voted in by both chambers via open ballot. Thus allowing Joe Public to congratulate/vilify their representatives as appropriate.

 

No more patronage. Portfolios distributed again by open ballot by both chambers. Could be from either chamber or even an outsider like a hi-pot civil servant. Interest expressed and has to be seconded from the other chamber to go forward, outsider seconded by both. Representation safeguards could be built in i.e. if an MHK gets a portfolio the other constituent MHK can't.

 

The idea being that all of the the government becomes accountable to the voter, radical I know...

 

Fire away!

 

Oh my, I agree with this.

 

 

*looks outside to see if the world has ended*

[VinnieK]

Then it becomes a question of scale. If we wish to ensure there is a majority in 'opposition' rather than in government, to ensure full scrutiny, then we cut the Council of Ministers down to five plus the chief minister, then we can scale back the number of MHKs without affecting the ratio.

 

The point is that the current ratio is pretty inadequate as it is when it comes to holding the government in check - CoMin + CM together comprise almost half the votes in the House of Keys and need only three MHKs to vote with them to have a majority. If you want to decrease the power of CoMin you have to either decrease the size of CoMin whilst keeping the House of Keys at its present size, increase the size of the House of Keys, or cut CoMin and increase the numbers in the Keys. Cutting everything in proportion accomplishes little except shaving what's in terms of the expenditure is little but a largely token amount off the cost.

 

What's more is that the way a parliament operates is not merely a function of ratios between the opposition and government. The raw numbers are important as well and generally when dealing with a parliament as small as ours it's better to have more people in it to provide a greater chance of there being a diversity of opinion and expertise. Say we went with your idea of proportionately cutting the Keys such that CoMin and the Chief Minister consisted of six members. The House of Keys would then number around fifteen. Okay, so on paper things are still the same, but say that the nine positions being shed results in the current six main critics of the government losing their places, then you've effectively neutered the Keys by making it so that the nodding dogs and waxworks to dominate even more than they do now.

 

To be honest, I don't quite understand the passion behind the idea of cutting the Keys down in size. In the long term it seems misguided - damaging the ability of the Keys to hold the Government to account, reducing how representative it is, all in the name of punishing our current crop and saving pretty much bugger all money.

 

I don't see why all health, social care, social services and education couldn't come under one minister, and I'm sure the same could be said of other departments.

 

All you'll get by merging departments as disparate as Education and Health is a need for more delegation of the minister's duties within Tynwald, making him or her proportionately more powerful and increasing the bond of patronage. You could probably get rid of Culture, and perhaps Environment, but that's probably about it. And as I've argued so far, I would prefer to see such a cut result in a larger body of backbenchers than keep everything the same, with the same faults, for the sake of a handful of MHKs salaries.

 

Incidentally, the idea that those who are not in the Council of Ministers provide scrutiny and oversight of government is naive.

 

Fine, except I've never made the case that those who currently aren't in CoMin all do a tip top job at providing scrutiny, have I? The importance of the backbenchers is that they as a body have the ability to provide security and oversight and to effectively challenge CoMin. The performance of the current crop or their predecessors is largely irrelevant to the question at hand and, as I've said before, is a matter for the people to deal with when it comes to election time and (as is often neglected) holding their own MHKs to account.

 

Hmmm. My thinking for a unicameral system is that the LegCo and Keys are abolished and you have the 32-person Tynwald. The result is a much more substantially out-numbered CoMin, and voting is less vulnerable to absenteeism. I'm sure there have been times where as few as three Council members have essentially held the balance of an entire sitting due to indisposition.

 

Ah, fair enough. I misread your initial post and thought you mean getting rid of LegCo wholesale without any change to the size of the Keys. Thinking about it, yours probably is the best and most practical solution.

[P.K.]

You've not really made a case for a second chamber? The idea of two-member constituencies makes sense. As regards the all-Island vote though, to make it something resembling an actual contest, you would need 20-30 candidates, and I don't think the Island has enough people of sufficient standing to accomplish that.

 

The problem with the electing the Chief Minister via the same means as the other ministers is that they then have effectively no role. They will have no portfolio and bascially just interfere with everyone else.

Bit of a strawman really.

 

I think the case for an upper chamber makes itself. Some folks clearly have a contribution to make but might struggle to represent constituents. Being aside from the local issues is also an advantage. For example if there is to be a large government spend (heaven forbid!) obviously the various constituent MHK's would want it on their patch, probably even if it makes sense or not! An upper chamber can guard against this. I'm also thinking of "Who watches the watchers?" Should an MHK knowingly mislead, fiddle x's, whatever then the upper chamber should be able to remove them.

 

Without patronage the CM no longer need be a compromise candidate and with an open ballot they'll all be accountable for the CM's performance - or lack thereof. So who knows? You might even end up with someone who can lead...

 

Take the point about "quality" candidates though.

[Lost Login]

I think the case for an upper chamber makes itself. Some folks clearly have a contribution to make but might struggle to represent constituents. Being aside from the local issues is also an advantage. For example if there is to be a large government spend (heaven forbid!) obviously the various constituent MHK's would want it on their patch, probably even if it makes sense or not! An upper chamber can guard against this. I'm also thinking of "Who watches the watchers?" Should an MHK knowingly mislead, fiddle x's, whatever then the upper chamber should be able to remove them.

 

I will never be an MHK or an MLC but if I actually had the choice I would quite like to be an MLC as I see the role as reviewing and scrutinising and acting for what you see as the best interests of the IoM as a whole. MHK's have also to represent their local constituents and I would not want to do that. Not because I would see it as beneath me but because if a matter was a question of being in the constituents best interest or the IoM's as an MHK I would feel conflicted. I would really want to be able to by constituents detriment if I fely ot was in the interest in the IoM as a whole.

[Lost Login]

The idea of two-member constituencies makes sense.

 

I would be happy with that. I would equally be happy with the current constituency numbers but each voter only has one vote. What I object to most in multi member constituencies is that the votes have more than one vote. to me it would be much fairer if everybody had just one vote and then if your consituency elected one MHK whoever came top of the poll was elected. If a two member constiuency then top two, three then top three

[triskelion]

I think the case for an upper chamber makes itself. Some folks clearly have a contribution to make but might struggle to represent constituents. Being aside from the local issues is also an advantage. For example if there is to be a large government spend (heaven forbid!) obviously the various constituent MHK's would want it on their patch, probably even if it makes sense or not! An upper chamber can guard against this. I'm also thinking of "Who watches the watchers?" Should an MHK knowingly mislead, fiddle x's, whatever then the upper chamber should be able to remove them.

 

I will never be an MHK or an MLC but if I actually had the choice I would quite like to be an MLC as I see the role as reviewing and scrutinising and acting for what you see as the best interests of the IoM as a whole. MHK's have also to represent their local constituents and I would not want to do that. Not because I would see it as beneath me but because if a matter was a question of being in the constituents best interest or the IoM's as an MHK I would feel conflicted. I would really want to be able to by constituents detriment if I fely ot was in the interest in the IoM as a whole.

This is probably the most commonly-raised argument in favour of a non-constituency based upper house, often from sitting MLCs. I would however question what the risks actually are in a jurisdiction the size of the Island, and whether just because MLCs would be voted on an all-Island basis would mean they consider things from an all-Island perspective. On the latter point, there would still be an inevitable bias towards the place the MLC lived, and the areas he frequently visited.

Concerns over so-called "pork-barrelling" are not, I think, particularly relevant to the Isle of Man. This is simply because no one is prohibitively far from somewhere else. This was why a convincing case has never really been made for distributing Department HQs around the Island. Realistically, what things are going to be good for one constituency, but bad for the rest of the Island, yet still secure enough votes to pass through Tynwald?

[Declan]

That wouldn't work (unless you had Single Transferable Vote) there's no way the second person could recieve 50% of the vote. If, for example, 80% of voters supported one candidate, all the other candidates would be fighting over 20% of the vote if there are 3 other candidates 10% would then be enough. Now that candidate could be utterly repellant to 90% of the people he's meant to vote.

 

If everyone has 2 votes and is in a 2 member constituency isn't that fair?

[triskelion]

What if you had staggered 4 year terms, with elections every 2 years?

[Lost Login]

That wouldn't work (unless you had Single Transferable Vote) there's no way the second person could recieve 50% of the vote. If, for example, 80% of voters supported one candidate, all the other candidates would be fighting over 20% of the vote if there are 3 other candidates 10% would then be enough. Now that candidate could be utterly repellant to 90% of the people he's meant to vote.

 

If everyone has 2 votes and is in a 2 member constituency isn't that fair?

 

Presently you do not need to hvae 50% of the vote to be elected. Presently for the by election there are 5 candidates. If 4 each got 19.5% each you could be elected with only 22% of the vote. OK unlikely but Teare was first elected with only 47% of the votes cast, Rodin 34% and Quayle 31.7%.

 

In multi constituencies we have no idea what % of the vote anybody got as PK has topped the poll in Onchan with just under 23% of the votes cast. But as electorates may have cast 1, 2 or 3 votes it is dificult to equate this a % of those actually voting. I suppose it is possible if you had details of number of electorate and turnout %, but I am not sure if the % is a % in respect of numbers voting or votes cast.

[triskelion]

http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/36864-who-should-be-chief-minister/page__view__findpost__p__490500

[VinnieK]

That wouldn't work (unless you had Single Transferable Vote) there's no way the second person could recieve 50% of the vote. If, for example, 80% of voters supported one candidate, all the other candidates would be fighting over 20% of the vote if there are 3 other candidates 10% would then be enough. Now that candidate could be utterly repellant to 90% of the people he's meant to vote.

 

If everyone has 2 votes and is in a 2 member constituency isn't that fair?

 

I think I'd be quite happy with the Single Transferable Vote being trialled on the Island.

 

Of course, this all ignores the problem of getting people to stand. In some constituencies the effect of an increase in MHKs would put the emphasis more on deciding who doesn't win than who does. For instance, were we to have a 32 seat Keys with the vote distributed evenly Ramsey would probably have three MHKs, which in the previous election would have meant that all but one of the candidates would have been elected. Of course, an increase in the number of places may result in an increase in the numbers of candidates, but it still has to be a concern.

 

Realistically, what things are going to be good for one constituency, but bad for the rest of the Island, yet still secure enough votes to pass through Tynwald?

 

Well, that's an extreme example since it could involve things being good for a group of constituencies (i.e. Douglas). For instance the Tesco expansion and rumours of a retail park are in a sense both examples of things which could be felt to benefit one area at the expense of others.

 

It also ignores the other possibility - something necessary which will unfortunately impact the constituency and surrounding constituency. Say Alan Bell is in his lair under Snaefell, scratching his walnut like head as he thinks of ways to inject cash into the construction industry. In time he stumbles across an idea for an open air museum of faeces. "What a pro-active, innovative and bold solution!" he declares to his evil monkey butler. No one wants it on their patch, but, in addition to not wanting to anger the fifth reincarnation of Mumm-ra, everyone wants the credit for creating jobs and temporarily lowering unemployment. The obvious place to stick it is in Ayre or in the northern area of Michael where at most two MHKs will get a bit grumpy.