General Election 2011 - Ayre

[VinnieK]

My understanding is that the 2.5 mil was a cost incurred by the new agreement that wasn't by the old one. Call it bean counting if you like but in my opinion it is a complete waste of money. We don't have a RHA with any other country in the world, why do we need one with the UK ? While it was freely available then yeah fine but now it's costing us serious money then get rid of it.

 

If it's true that the current agreement costs more, then it is because under the old agreement we were getting subsidised. In other words, the likes of Teare and his colleagues and predecessors were more than happy to chance their arm playing around with other people's money, all the while failing to plan for the eventuality that the agreement would be renegotiated. Indeed, Brown, Bell and Teare spent an entire year specifically not coming up with a plan, stringing us and Tynwald along until the last moment in order to limit the amount of debate and public criticism which could be raised.

 

You might think that the ability to blithely bandy around figures makes up for such ineptitude and cynicism towards our supposed democracy, but it really doesn't. When judging a politician it can't just be a matter of what they do, what they say, and counting up how many times they just so happen to agree with you on individual issues. Principle matters as well, as does the ability to come up with a coherent set of vision and ideals, and I would argue that Teare, like many in Government, has few of these qualities.

 

A fairly decent test of whether a politician's aptitude is to look at their manifesto and what they say, and try to describe their politics meaningully in ten words or less. The aim is to try and identify what they actually stand for, what they believe in and what unifies and informs their politics. Are they a reformer? Is their platform based on personal responsibility or society's responsibility to the person? Are they small or big government, an economic interventionist or a believer in the free markets? My betting is that such an exercise will prove difficult, with most politicians offering up nothing more substantial than the familiar disjointed hodgepodge of individual policies, with no actual thought or philosophy underpinning them bar perhaps the bland and vague assertion that "growth is good".

 

You say we'll be up shit creek if the other guy gets in, I'd argue that we're already well on the way and what's guarranteed more than anything to get us there is to carry on the same we have been doing: namely by following the same reactionary and fractured approach mentioned in the previous paragraph that we've been following for the past god knows how many years. Teare embodies this. He's not alone, not by a long shot, but perhaps more than most he stands for precisely the same kind of vacuous knee jerk politics which have led us to where we are now and which have gradually brought about the intellectual and moral impoverishment of our parliament.

 

I don't think it is any coincidence that those who were most vocal in advocating this shameful waste of public money were all from the UK originally & no doubt have more reason to frequently visit the place than the rest of us.

 

What, like Peter Karran? I see a degree of revisionism creeping in here, whereby all that people remember is Rodan campaigning for more negotiating. Plenty more people than just Rodan were vocal in their criticism of Teare, Bell and Brown's cack handed dealing with the RHA, and neither that issue or the Island's future should be so lightly reduced to the kind of Manx vs. Comeover bullshit which lets people like Tony Brown stay in Tynwald for nigh on thirty years.

[Monkey boy]

Good post. You may be right that the previous agreement was subsidised, although why the UK government would subsidise a health agreement with the IOM I don't know. My point was merely that now it is costing what it is costing it is not a good use of public money. As for objectors, well yes a vast majority of them were not from the UK with your exception of PK noted. My intention in stating this was not to turn anything into a Manx vs comeovers slanging match, merely to question their intentions for causing so much fuss.

As for principles & what politicians believe in, well I couldn't agree more. Whatever you think of Teare, or Brown for that matter, I think it would be difficult to question their motives for being in politics. I don't belive either are on the make & I believe that their intention is to do their best to serve the people of the island and its best interests. Now you may argue, perhaps rightly, that their ability to do this is lacking and in certain cases I would agree with you, but the fact remains their intentions & principles are good which you yourself stated was more important than how many issues they agree with you on.

I have nothing against the other fella, I agree with him on several of the points he made, however it is his motives that concern me & those concerns only increase when you look into his past.

I think it is a common misconception at the moment that because we are in financial difficulty we need successful business types in government to get us through it. I believe this is a grave mistake. Yes successful businesses are often run far more efficiently than government but you've got to look at the reason for that efficiency - to make people like our friend filthy stinking rich, not the good of the people around them.

So yes, I still believe Teare is the only decent candidate in Ayre. I'd far rather have someone with good intentions and limited ability in government than someone with less honorable ones and the ability to further them

[Terse]

Good post. You may be right that the previous agreement was subsidised, although why the UK government would subsidise a health agreement with the IOM I don't know.

They subsidised it, originally, because of the hundreds of thousands UK residents who came to the island for their holidays. It was clear that treating them for accidents.illness etc was going to cost the IoM far more than it cost the UK to treat the much smaller number of Manx visitors to the UK. The decline of tourism clearly caused a big change.

Unfortunately, Brown, Teare & Co, seeing an opportunity for saving money by having everyone on the island buying their own private health insurance, tried to secure a complete end - rather than a reasonable adjustment - to the agreement.

As foar as I'm concerned, they were deceitful and dishonest and made a real effort to pull the wool over the eyes of the electorate.

They managed to shed a few crocodile tears over the elderly who would suffer as a result of their abandonment of the RHA, and they even managed to contrive one of the most complicated insurances ever devised to 'help' them.

Under no circumstances can I accept your statement that their intentions and principles were good in this instance.

I really believe the lapdog should follow his master into ignominious retirement.

[Monkey boy]

But is it a reasonable adjustment? It's costing the manx taxpayer £2.5 million at a time when we can least afford it & for what? I say if they saw it as an opportunity to save money then good on them, it's a shame they didn't succeed.

As I said before, we don't have a RHA with any other country in the world, why do we need one with the UK? They are obliged to provide emergency treatment to us, we pay for referals separately so what value does a RHA have? Certainly not £2.5 million's worth, it is a complete waste of public money & should have been left to go.

I do still believe they have good intentions also, given all the media hype surrounding this at the time it would have been difficult to gain support for ending the agreement although that would have been in the best interests of the majority of us, if like you say that is what they were trying to achieve then I applaud them, it was not their money they were trying to save it was ours.

[Terse]

But is it a reasonable adjustment? It's costing the manx taxpayer £2.5 million at a time when we can least afford it & for what? I say if they saw it as an opportunity to save money then good on them, it's a shame they didn't succeed.

If that was what they wanted to do they could have voted against Richmond Hill, or any one of a dozen other ridiculously grandiose schemes that they've voted in favour of. Instead, they chose to try and save money without the slightest regard for the most vulnerable in our society. I very much fear that we'll have his presence to endure for another 5 years but, if we do, the people of Ayre will be doing a great disservice to the rest of the island.

[Monkey boy]

But is it a reasonable adjustment? It's costing the manx taxpayer £2.5 million at a time when we can least afford it & for what? I say if they saw it as an opportunity to save money then good on them, it's a shame they didn't succeed.

If that was what they wanted to do they could have voted against Richmond Hill, or any one of a dozen other ridiculously grandiose schemes that they've voted in favour of. Instead, they chose to try and save money without the slightest regard for the most vulnerable in our society. I very much fear that we'll have his presence to endure for another 5 years but, if we do, the people of Ayre will be doing a great disservice to the rest of the island.

True, Richmond Hill was a waste of money & there have been other examples of this, but at least it was a one off cost, the RHA is 2.5 million every year & scrapping it would have been a real saving. I don't think getting rid of it would diadvantage the most vulnerable in our society, nobody is forced to visit the UK, and I think if you expect Mr. taxdodger to give more regard to the most vulnerable in our society then you're sadly mistaken.

Teare may not be the best politician the island has ever seen but he's by far the best of the three on offer in that part of the island.

[Terse]

Just to repeat: No payments for such treatment will be made to the Isle of Man by the UK, nor by the UK to the Isle of Man.

 

The 2.5 mil is the extra that UK was paying - that was always going to go. The RHA is in place because, if it wasn't, the most vulnerable in our society (e.g. the elderly who would struggle to get cost-effective health insurance) would never dare to travel to visit relatives or attend reunions etc. Mr T appears to have you bamboozled with a very nice little sleight of hand with the figures.

[Monkey boy]

So you believe the UK has been paying us £2.5 million per year since the hey day of tourism just to keep the RHA going? You may be right I don't know, but the fact remains, elderly people have relatives in other countries than the UK & doubtless have reunions elsewhere aswell, so by your definition we already have no regard for the most vulnerable in our society (unless they come from the UK).

The RHA has undoubtedly been the biggest storm in a tea cup over the last 5 years, it is no basis on which to judge the performance of our senior politicians though & I'd be very surprised if it cost us nothing.

[interestedman]

I think it is a common misconception at the moment that because we are in financial difficulty we need successful business types in government to get us through it. I believe this is a grave mistake. Yes successful businesses are often run far more efficiently than government but you've got to look at the reason for that efficiency - to make people like our friend filthy stinking rich, not the good of the people around them.

So yes, I still believe Teare is the only decent candidate in Ayre. I'd far rather have someone with good intentions and limited ability in government than someone with less honorable ones and the ability to further them

 

Are you nuts ? I mean I agree that not all successful businessmen make good politicians but honestly, have you not had enough of the tinker, tailor and candlestick maker ? I can see the headline now; "Sorry, the money's gone but we had good intentions".

 

Get real.

[Monkey boy]

I think it is a common misconception at the moment that because we are in financial difficulty we need successful business types in government to get us through it. I believe this is a grave mistake. Yes successful businesses are often run far more efficiently than government but you've got to look at the reason for that efficiency - to make people like our friend filthy stinking rich, not the good of the people around them.

So yes, I still believe Teare is the only decent candidate in Ayre. I'd far rather have someone with good intentions and limited ability in government than someone with less honorable ones and the ability to further them

 

Are you nuts ? I mean I agree that not all successful businessmen make good politicians but honestly, have you not had enough of the tinker, tailor and candlestick maker ? I can see the headline now; "Sorry, the money's gone but we had good intentions".

 

Get real.

Perhaps you're forgetting that it's the likes of the tinker, tailor and candlestick maker's that created all this wealth in the first place & which you now seem to think we can't do without. Would you prefer the headline "Sorry, the money's gone but MHK's have just awarded themselves a 100% pay increase, huge bonuses, blanket planning permission for everyone above the tax cap & bollocks to all the rest of you"?

[VinnieK]

Perhaps you're forgetting that it's the likes of the tinker, tailor and candlestick maker's that created all this wealth in the first place

 

Was it? Or was it, as now seems to be the case, an overly generous revenue agreement with the UK which was open to being profitably if dangerously manipulated by a few canny civil servants to bankroll an artificial inflation our economy, while the 'tinkers tailors, and candlestick makers' all sat back, looked on in bewildered wonderment at how they appeared to be delivering an economic miracle without even having to think about, much less understand what was going on or the perils, and spent much of the past twenty years giving themselves a big pat on the back for doing such an amazing job and using the largesse to effectively bribe the electorate?

[Monkey boy]

Why would the UK be overly generous in agreeing anything with us? In this thread alone you've had them subsidising us on the RHA & now on a revenue sharing agreement for years. If true I think it says more about the competance of their government than it does about ours.

[gazza]

Perhaps you're forgetting that it's the likes of the tinker, tailor and candlestick maker's that created all this wealth in the first place

 

Was it? Or was it, as now seems to be the case, an overly generous revenue agreement with the UK which was open to being profitably if dangerously manipulated by a few canny civil servants to bankroll an artificial inflation our economy, while the 'tinkers tailors, and candlestick makers' all sat back, looked on in bewildered wonderment at how they appeared to be delivering an economic miracle without even having to think about, much less understand what was going on or the perils, and spent much of the past twenty years giving themselves a big pat on the back for doing such an amazing job and using the largesse to effectively bribe the electorate?

 

hit the nail on the head.

i dont think the islands growth has anything to do with the finace industry, it was the fact we had so much income coming from the VAT that made it easy to set things in motion to lower the tax which brought over the companys,

the island is is where it is because of the VAT payments we got. everything eles just led on from that.

[Monkey boy]

So you think we should get rid of the finance sector then?

[gazza]

So you think we should get rid of the finance sector then?

 

we should never get rid of companys that employ people,

and noboody said anything about getting rid of them.

 

it was to say the finance indusrty was built on the back of the huge sums of cash we got from the vat, which in turn helpped us lower the tax, which brought the companys over in the first place.

 

problem is now, how to fill that deficit we have, with out losing the companys