Brown For President

[Utah 01]

Dodger, you raised the question 'Who will stand in Castletown, Ayre, Ramsey to oust the main drivers?'

 

The record of this current government, both pre and with Brown, has been dismal. These fora record the disquiet and criticism about the calibre of our 'ministers' and MHKs and the overall abysmal decision-making ability of our intellectually ill-equiped representatives.

 

The apathy of the Manx electorate is also well known so how on earth can there be a concerted push to rid ourselves of the present incumbents? The 'individual' standing for MHK at the next election may be able to propose the great reforms that many here crave for, to offer the 'vision' of the future and posess the charisma to lead the Island to the promised land but as an idividual he/she is urinating into the prevailing breeze.

 

The massive failings and incompetences of the current crop of buffoons, lead by the greatest of them all, Comrade 'Lambchops' Brown himself, have to be brought to the fore of the electorate's consciousness in the run up to the next election and that can only be done through a party organisation.

 

'Even without having to agree policy and strategy or forming a party!' says Dodger. Policy and strategy and the forming of a party is the only viable solution to ridding ourselves of the current crop in the Keys.

[censorship]

If Brown is replcaed it will not solve problems overnight but a restoration of leadership and increase in confidence in the executive would be a start.

This is where it all falls down for me - you say 'restoration of leadership', what do you mean? Did we have leadership of the quality you seek under Walker, Gelling or Corkill? When did the Island last have confidence in its executive?

[Lost Login]

If Brown is replcaed it will not solve problems overnight but a restoration of leadership and increase in confidence in the executive would be a start.

This is where it all falls down for me - you say 'restoration of leadership', what do you mean? Did we have leadership of the quality you seek under Walker, Gelling or Corkill? When did the Island last have confidence in its executive?

 

I am not defining the quality or amount of leadership, I just would like to see some! Presently the impression given is that we are totally rudderless.

 

As for confidence again the amount and level may be a mute point but I never got the impression that the executive has previously been treated with such disdain and derision as it is now.

 

A change in leader may not lead to an improvement but when such a person has apparently lost the confidence of those they are meant to lead it is time to get out and give somebody the else the chance. They may be no better but in my view you do not stick with the same lame duck in case the successor is no better rather you change in the hope they are. Presently if a replacement had no more or less ability just having somebody who had not apparantly lost the confidence of probably the majority would be an improvement

[Dodger]

Dodger, you raised the question 'Who will stand in Castletown, Ayre, Ramsey to oust the main drivers?'

 

The record of this current government, both pre and with Brown, has been dismal. These fora record the disquiet and criticism about the calibre of our 'ministers' and MHKs and the overall abysmal decision-making ability of our intellectually ill-equiped representatives.

 

The apathy of the Manx electorate is also well known so how on earth can there be a concerted push to rid ourselves of the present incumbents? The 'individual' standing for MHK at the next election may be able to propose the great reforms that many here crave for, to offer the 'vision' of the future and posess the charisma to lead the Island to the promised land but as an idividual he/she is urinating into the prevailing breeze.

 

The massive failings and incompetences of the current crop of buffoons, lead by the greatest of them all, Comrade 'Lambchops' Brown himself, have to be brought to the fore of the electorate's consciousness in the run up to the next election and that can only be done through a party organisation.

 

'Even without having to agree policy and strategy or forming a party!' says Dodger. Policy and strategy and the forming of a party is the only viable solution to ridding ourselves of the current crop in the Keys.

 

Utah, What about a coalition rather than a party? I for one have difficulty agreeing with all that one party may decide to bring forward, if I stood as a member I would be bound to do so, I couldn't stand as a party member and then stand down from the party once I got in.........I would feel split between 2 loyalties, party or constituancy. This is why I personally wouldn't stand as a party member.

 

A party has a set group of policies that everyone who joins agrees with, this same principle can be used for the coalition members, but allows them to vote with their conscience or with the will of their electorate if it is a constituancy issue. This I could agree to!

[VinnieK]

A party has a set group of policies that everyone who joins agrees with, this same principle can be used for the coalition members, but allows them to vote with their conscience or with the will of their electorate if it is a constituancy issue. This I could agree to!

 

I think that's probably the best interim solution as well. My view is that one of the most urgent matters is the reform of the government system, from the question of CoMin's power within the House of Keys, the existence and nature of LegCo, and electoral matters. I'd be quite pleased to see something like a confederation of independent candidates who are united and cooperate on this issue, but who retain their independence on other matters.

[Utah 01]

'I'd be quite pleased to see something like a confederation of independent candidates who are united and cooperate on this issue'

 

Absolutely, Vinnie, but that calls for some kind of co-ordination, organisation and strategy which must surely come of the heading, albeit loosely, of 'party'. I just can't see how else a co-orodinated campaign to get reform through (once in power) and, of greatest urgency, kick out the current crop at the election can be organised.

 

Furthermore, I believe that a '5 year plan' needs to be put in place, a proactive rather than reactive (or complete inactive in the current case) programme but the success of that programme (at national level, Dodger) could not be assured under a loose coalition.

[VinnieK]

Absolutely, Vinnie, but that calls for some kind of co-ordination, organisation and strategy which must surely come of the heading, albeit loosely, of 'party'.

 

Sure, I suppose I tend to view a party in the strictest terms: as being a permanent organization united under a broad ideology which is enforced via discipline, and where official policy comes from the party membership. That's why I tend to worry a little about the prospect of parties forming, because that version of them encourages a kind of ossified factionalism and intellectual stagnation, with the sole purpose of the party eventually becoming to win elections (as well as further distancing themselves from the electorate by making the party apparatus the primary body to which members are accountable). I much prefer the idea of individuals operating under and agreed, and perhaps temporary charter on a number of issues and presenting themselves directly to the electorate for approval.

 

Furthermore, I believe that a '5 year plan' needs to be put in place, a proactive rather than reactive (or complete inactive in the current case) programme but the success of that programme (at national level, Dodger) could not be assured under a loose coalition.

 

Aye, if there are two things that the Island seems to lack at the moment it's coordination between departments and a clear idea of:

 

a. what the problems are and how severe they are;

 

b. what can be done; and

 

c, what should be done.

 

Part of the problem is also the disturbing addiction CoMin has to secrecy, meaning that it's near impossible for Tynwald or indeed the electorate to even see what's going on, never mind to provide input and opinions. Examples abound: the foot dragging over FOI, the shambolic and infrequent reporting to Tynwald by the working group (Brown, Bell and Teare) on the RHA until the very last minute, resistance to Cannan's recent call for more transparency, the long standing mystery of just how the Common Purse was calculated, and so on.

 

This lack of transparency allows, if not encourages CoMin to lazily drip feed a mess of measures to the public and provide Tynwald with a fait accompli whenever they want to force through something unpopular without having to face too much scrutiny or criticism, pointing in their defence to some mysterious plan or strategy that only they are privy to (if it even exists).

 

Edited to add:

 

Does anyone know if Ministers have to report, either to Tynwald or for publication online) on activity within their department? It would be nice if they did, perhaps bimonthly or quarterly, covering what changes have been made, appointments, what issues have arisen and what's being looked at, rather than having to rely on whatever press releases they decide to issue to IOMtowncriers or what comes out as a result of questioning in the House of Keys for information.

[Kopek]

Dodger. Isn't that what we have at the moment? A coalition of independents? however, they vote the way that they are told or in such a way as to further their career or how they are bamboozled into believing is best for the Manx economy. ie Nags Home carpark agreed by Tynwald, Richmond Hill skislope, agreed by Tynwald. Are any of them calling for the VAT increase to be given back to the lowest paid?

Even a Party would have to be pretty cohesive if it were to hold it's members together, when you allow that they would follow the party line until their concience dictates otherwise how long before a friendly Minister persuades them that they would get further outside the party?

What is required is a mechanism, a reform that allows MHKs to be free of the patronage system so that the bulk of them can be an opposition to Comin.

[Utah 01]

Vinnie, I completely agree with your last post but how can......'individuals operating under and agreed, and perhaps temporary charter on a number of issues and presenting themselves directly to the electorate for approval' be achieved'?

[VinnieK]

Vinnie, I completely agree with your last post but how can......'individuals operating under and agreed, and perhaps temporary charter on a number of issues and presenting themselves directly to the electorate for approval' be achieved'?

 

Well, that's the rub, unfortunately. It needs a sufficient number of like minded people who also have a desire to stand to come together and hammer out the details into a formal statement of their intentions and beliefs to present at elections. There would probably have to be a minimum of around six or seven actually getting into particular seats (Middle, Ayre, Ramsey, and so on) to avoid being immediately marginalized and rendered impotent by CoMin, which is quite a lot, and of course all that would be binding them is what amounts to a gentleman's agreement (and, as Bill Malarkey demonstrated with Lib Van, even a more formal association can be thrown off without a moment's pause).

 

Whether it's actually feasible, I don't know (with opinion perhaps leaning slightly towards the more pessimistic side). Erring on the side of caution, it could maybe take about half a year or more of regular discussions and lots of spare time research to do a proper job and get from basic principles to something approaching a decent plan of reform, be it political, economic or both, and reach agreement on all of the details. It would also require people who were able and prepared to set aside their differences on other matters of policy and ideology and, given that new candidates typically do very poorly in elections, it'd also have to be a set up that could survive the possibility of early defeat and having to wait a further five years (or at least be capable of drafting new people in as some inevitably tire of the process).

 

It'd be a hell of commitment: essentially asking for a group of people to run a political association in their spare time for anything up to six years or perhaps even beyond that, in addition to tutoring themselves in the economics and politics of the Island. An alternative measure might be the establishment of something akin to PAG, although narrower in focus, more modest in scope and more specific in its aim - an initially recreational political debating society following a specific programme of discussing and identifying the key points and potential improvements to the Manx political system, with the ultimate aim of coming up with some kind of charter and candidates who want to endorse it.

[Pat Ayres]

Vinnie, I completely agree with your last post but how can......'individuals operating under and agreed, and perhaps temporary charter on a number of issues and presenting themselves directly to the electorate for approval' be achieved'?

 

Well, that's the rub, unfortunately. It needs a sufficient number of like minded people who also have a desire to stand to come together and hammer out the details into a formal statement of their intentions and beliefs to present at elections. There would probably have to be a minimum of around six or seven actually getting into particular seats (Middle, Ayre, Ramsey, and so on) to avoid being immediately marginalized and rendered impotent by CoMin, which is quite a lot, and of course all that would be binding them is what amounts to a gentleman's agreement (and, as Bill Malarkey demonstrated with Lib Van, even a more formal association can be thrown off without a moment's pause).

 

Whether it's actually feasible, I don't know (with opinion perhaps leaning slightly towards the more pessimistic side). Erring on the side of caution, it could maybe take about half a year or more of regular discussions and lots of spare time research to do a proper job and get from basic principles to something approaching a decent plan of reform, be it political, economic or both, and reach agreement on all of the details. It would also require people who were able and prepared to set aside their differences on other matters of policy and ideology and, given that new candidates typically do very poorly in elections, it'd also have to be a set up that could survive the possibility of early defeat and having to wait a further five years (or at least be capable of drafting new people in as some inevitably tire of the process).

 

It'd be a hell of commitment: essentially asking for a group of people to run a political association in their spare time for anything up to six years or perhaps even beyond that, in addition to tutoring themselves in the economics and politics of the Island. An alternative measure might be the establishment of something akin to PAG, although narrower in focus, more modest in scope and more specific in its aim - an initially recreational political debating society following a specific programme of discussing and identifying the key points and potential improvements to the Manx political system, with the ultimate aim of coming up with some kind of charter and candidates who want to endorse it.

 

As far as the LV and Malarkeys 'treason'. LV have learned their lesson and all candidates will sign an agreement or contract that if they resign from the party for any reason they will seek re-election under an independent ticket. I understand there was a 'gentleman's agreement' last time, but unfortunately no gentleman. Still at least he took some LV policies with him and is acting on them.

[Lost Login]

As far as the LV and Malarkeys 'treason'. LV have learned their lesson and all candidates will sign an agreement or contract that if they resign from the party for any reason they will seek re-election under an independent ticket. I understand there was a 'gentleman's agreement' last time, but unfortunately no gentleman. Still at least he took some LV policies with him and is acting on them.

 

It always seems odd to me that if you resign from a party you are expected to seek re-election but I rarely hear calls that if you are an independent and then join a party you should resign and seek re-election. To me they are the opposite signs of the same coin so I presume the LV will also insist that any individual elected under an independent banner will if they wish to join the LV be required to resign first and then seek re-election?

 

I think it is also a bit unfair to critisise Malarkey for not resigning and seeking re-eection as presumably he might have been taking his lead and following the example set by the leader of the LV who I believe was elected under the Manx Labour Party banner in 2001 but when he left the party in 2004 did not resign his seat and apply for re-election.

[Dodger]

Vinnie, I completely agree with your last post but how can......'individuals operating under and agreed, and perhaps temporary charter on a number of issues and presenting themselves directly to the electorate for approval' be achieved'?

 

Well, that's the rub, unfortunately. It needs a sufficient number of like minded people who also have a desire to stand to come together and hammer out the details into a formal statement of their intentions and beliefs to present at elections. There would probably have to be a minimum of around six or seven actually getting into particular seats (Middle, Ayre, Ramsey, and so on) to avoid being immediately marginalized and rendered impotent by CoMin, which is quite a lot, and of course all that would be binding them is what amounts to a gentleman's agreement (and, as Bill Malarkey demonstrated with Lib Van, even a more formal association can be thrown off without a moment's pause).

 

Whether it's actually feasible, I don't know (with opinion perhaps leaning slightly towards the more pessimistic side). Erring on the side of caution, it could maybe take about half a year or more of regular discussions and lots of spare time research to do a proper job and get from basic principles to something approaching a decent plan of reform, be it political, economic or both, and reach agreement on all of the details. It would also require people who were able and prepared to set aside their differences on other matters of policy and ideology and, given that new candidates typically do very poorly in elections, it'd also have to be a set up that could survive the possibility of early defeat and having to wait a further five years (or at least be capable of drafting new people in as some inevitably tire of the process).

 

It'd be a hell of commitment: essentially asking for a group of people to run a political association in their spare time for anything up to six years or perhaps even beyond that, in addition to tutoring themselves in the economics and politics of the Island. An alternative measure might be the establishment of something akin to PAG, although narrower in focus, more modest in scope and more specific in its aim - an initially recreational political debating society following a specific programme of discussing and identifying the key points and potential improvements to the Manx political system, with the ultimate aim of coming up with some kind of charter and candidates who want to endorse it.

 

I have to agree with a lot that has been said on this whole page of the thread, so what is needed is a formal statement of intention and beliefs, as a start and advertise for people who are prepared to put time and money into making this work, this is not just the candidates but the team of people it needs to get it all done. Most use family and friends, but that could be extended to like minded helpers, though there couldn't be external funding!

 

There are many more questions though, do you put a new person in as Chief Minister? You would need to plan for that in case you got a majority, or enough to swing a vote. Do you allow non-Government MHK's to join? Or are they all tarred with the same brush? Could you link up with LV on certain issues, would you need to agree not to cross stand and therefore dilute the vote so that the exisitng encumbant/s gets back in. In Onchan for example, you could have one LV and 2 coalition or 3 LV, but not 2 of each. Just as importantly what are the core items that everyone should be able to agree on?

[Declan]

Pat - is it even possible for an MHK to resign? Is there a Chiltern Hundreds over here?

[Lost Login]

Pat - is it even possible for an MHK to resign? Is there a Chiltern Hundreds over here?

 

I presume it must be as I do not see how you can force somebody to carry on being an MHK if they want to stand down mid term

I think the basic policy is laudable in principal but like much of what the LVP put forward not necessarily thought through. Is it really a bright idea to introduce a policy which can be used by opponents to highlight that you may not necessarily practice what you preach?

 

If a current sitting member joined the LVP it seems that the LVP would not insist on them resigning and calling a bi-election, but if say after a year they had second thoughts and then resigned from the LVP they would. So to change from the banner under which you stood to the LVP would not require resignation and request, but to revert to your original standing would.

 

You would have to question is it actually enforceable.

 

If it is enforceable, then rather than resign surely you basically act as an independent until the LVP expel you. In which case no resignation.

 

Finally why should the tax payers be required to foot the bill to meet the internal politics and rules of the LVP or will the LVP agree to cover the public costs of holding a bi-election