Dobbo Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 That can only be described as 'opportunism.' He was well aware - and has stated - that he'd have no chance of competing against Rodan; so much so that he was (allegedly) seriously considering having a go in Onchan. Now, if Steve makes President of Tynwald, it opens the door for 'Dobbo' to walk right in. I can only hope that someone else will declare to run against him. I'm glad you used the word 'alledgedly'. Zac is our candidate and has my full support, for what it is worth. you are right in that I have stated that I have 'little' chance against Steve, he is a heavy weight in Manx politics and I am just a comeover who sits on a rural Board. But I didn't see anyone else putting in the time and expense, trouble and effort to give the people of Garff an election. No candidate should ever be elected without a mandate. I am giving the voters in Garff a chance to vote for me OR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dobbo Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 whoops, pressed the wrong button. OR give Steve a mandate. Last time he said he wanted to be CM. He won the election but didn't become CM. This time he has said he wants to be Speaker on Manx Radio - before he stood for President - and if the people of Garff are happy with that he has his mandate. If I didn't stand, how would he get a mandate? And as mine is such a helpless cause, I have 3,500 leaflets to deliver - - - - several times, any helpers for the helpless??? nigel.dobson@liberalvannin.org Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terse Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 I accept what you say. I also think its a shame that you didn't have an opportunity to stand in Onchan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theodolite Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 Manx Radio debate.... Regarding the block vote matter - it looks like Dobbo missed a chance to rip the sitting member a new A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted September 13, 2011 Author Share Posted September 13, 2011 Nigel Dobson is on a hide into nothing here. Steve Rodan better exemplifies Liberal Vannin's supposed values than Peter Karran does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theodolite Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 Perhaps not unreasonably, Steve Rodan is making a meal of his unoffical chat he had with a fellow Scot regarding the Reciprocal Health Agreement. Well done Steve for that particular episode, anyway. I have a picture in my head of the two of them chatting convivially over the finest bottle of single malt in the conference bar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shake me up Judy Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 It's perhaps a shame that Dobbo is standing in the only constituency where he doesn't have a hope. As one of the strongest LibVan candidates he could have put up a good fight virtually anywhere else. He gave a good account of himself on the election broadcast this evening and had more to say than Steve Rodan, who for all his strengths, continues to disappoint. Steve too often seems to have his head stuck in the Celtic mists, and a pride in our romanticised history, nationhood and independence seems to be uppermost in his mind, whereas Dobbo was actually putting his and LibVan's ideas and policies up front, leaving Steve to react rather than lead the discussion. There's also a touch of Scots intransigence in there which is too defensive against change and new ideas, whereas Dobbo was able to appear to offer choice and fresh thinking. Steve even came across as almost seeming to defend the toothless provisions contained within the Freedom of Information Bill, as being the envy of other jurisdictions. This is not the Steve Rodan that some of us were looking for and Theodolite's image of the convivial chat over a fine bottle of single malt is not quite the picture we had in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theodolite Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 As far as I can see, Steve Rodan has only ever done one memorable thing. And that is talking in Jockenese to some bloke about the Reciprocal Health Agreement at a conference that probably sells finest single malt whisky. There are some that might say, that what other people did - non politicians - probably did a lot more for us as far as the RHA was concerned. Anyway, whatever the effect of the meeting and whatever the circumstances, it will go down in history as Steve Rodan's 15 minutes of fame. I think he is going to eek it out for all it is worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 I would agree that Rodan and Dobson are good candidates. However, what marks Rodan out is his committee and his understanding of what is actually going on with legislation. work. It's hard to makes this an issue for the electorate but Rodan is one of the very few who can really drill down through a piece of complex legislation and get to the bottom of what it actually means for the public. MHK's are tasked with sorting out a vast amount of very detailed stuff - and most of them frankly aren't up to it. Rodan can do that job - and the Keys would be lost without him. His shining moment was when he used his casting vote against COMIN and sent the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill to a Committee. This was in support of a motion put forward by Cannell. The Keys voted 12 / 12 and Rodan used his authority to go against the block vote. In so doing he saved the Manx people from an awful lot of agro because this Bill was quite the nastiest piece of 'cut and paste from the UK' that has come the Island's way in a long time. In my book - when he needs to use then - he's definitely got the balls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theodolite Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 I had forgotten about the Criminal Justice Bill: The Speaker: I just wish to be absolutely clear that the House understands the motion before us, and the motion is that the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill be referred to a committee of three Members with powers to take evidence under the Tynwald Proceedings Act 1876. That is the motion before the House. Those in favour, please say aye; against no. The ayes have it. A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows: FOR....................AGAINST Mr Karran..............Mr Quirk Mr Crookall............Mr Earnshaw Mr Cannan..............Mr Brown Mr Cregeen.............Mr Anderson Mr Houghton............Mrs Craine Mr Henderson...........Mr Bell Mr Robertshaw..........Mr Quayle Mrs Cannell............Mr Teare Mr Corkish.............Mr Malarkey Mr Watterson...........Mr Shimmin Mr Gill................Mr Cretney The Speaker............Mr Gawne The Speaker: The motion is a tie, 12 votes for, 12 votes against. I cast the casting vote for. We now – Mr Quayle: Sorry, Mr Speaker. If I may, I thought it would be a situation whereby, as it has not got the majority, that it would be the status quo which – Mr Gill: Read Erskine May. The Speaker: No, sir. The Speaker is not required to give reasons. I am happy, however, to any Member, outside this Chamber, to explain the reason for that decision in accordance with Erskine May principles. (Two Members: Hear, hear.) If we could simply leave it like that. If any Member has any difficulty with that decision, I am pleased to discuss it with the Member For ease of reference the Ministers are highlighted in purple. For ease of reference the ministerial arse-lickers are highlighted in red. Please feel free to copy and paste this post to Douglas South and Onchan*. Sometimes, I dispair at Malarkey and Quirk. I dispair at the electorates in their respective constituencies. What on earth caused them to vote these people in? They are free to vote how they feel of course but I simply cannot believe these two guys had much of an inkling as to what they were voting for, except the easy and cosy option of trying to pal up to the big boys. These guys are like performing powder puff poodles. Nodding dogs. Lap dogs. You choose. Back on topic: Good ol' Steve. Nice one mate. *edited to add: and Middle too source: Hansard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trueblood Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 I had forgotten about the Criminal Justice Bill: The Speaker: I just wish to be absolutely clear that the House understands the motion before us, and the motion is that the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill be referred to a committee of three Members with powers to take evidence under the Tynwald Proceedings Act 1876. That is the motion before the House. Those in favour, please say aye; against no. The ayes have it. A division was called for and electronic voting resulted as follows: FOR....................AGAINST Mr Karran..............Mr Quirk Mr Crookall............Mr Earnshaw Mr Cannan..............Mr Brown Mr Cregeen.............Mr Anderson Mr Houghton............Mrs Craine Mr Henderson...........Mr Bell Mr Robertshaw..........Mr Quayle Mrs Cannell............Mr Teare Mr Corkish.............Mr Malarkey Mr Watterson...........Mr Shimmin Mr Gill................Mr Cretney The Speaker............Mr Gawne The Speaker: The motion is a tie, 12 votes for, 12 votes against. I cast the casting vote for. We now – Mr Quayle: Sorry, Mr Speaker. If I may, I thought it would be a situation whereby, as it has not got the majority, that it would be the status quo which – Mr Gill: Read Erskine May. The Speaker: No, sir. The Speaker is not required to give reasons. I am happy, however, to any Member, outside this Chamber, to explain the reason for that decision in accordance with Erskine May principles. (Two Members: Hear, hear.) If we could simply leave it like that. If any Member has any difficulty with that decision, I am pleased to discuss it with the Member For ease of reference the Ministers are highlighted in purple. For ease of reference the ministerial arse-lickers are highlighted in red. Please feel free to copy and paste this post to Douglas South and Onchan*. Sometimes, I dispair at Malarkey and Quirk. I dispair at the electorates in their respective constituencies. What on earth caused them to vote these people in? They are free to vote how they feel of course but I simply cannot believe these two guys had much of an inkling as to what they were voting for, except the easy and cosy option of trying to pal up to the big boys. These guys are like performing powder puff poodles. Nodding dogs. Lap dogs. You choose. Back on topic: Good ol' Steve. Nice one mate. *edited to add: and Middle too source: Hansard As a Rushen constituent it also puts Watterson and Gill above Gawne in my mind as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted September 14, 2011 Author Share Posted September 14, 2011 I think Watterson would have voted with COMIN had he been a member. As far as Gawne's concerned, this boils down to the big decision he made at the start of this Tynwald to join COMIN and accept collective responsibility. Would the Government of the Island been better if Henderson or Houghton had been there instead? It's easy to be a maverick and plot your own principled course but to get things done you need to compromise on occasion. Gawne got it wrong here and on the RHA by compromising too much. But does it override everything else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trueblood Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 I think Watterson would have voted with COMIN had he been a member. As far as Gawne's concerned, this boils down to the big decision he made at the start of this Tynwald to join COMIN and accept collective responsibility. Would the Government of the Island been better if Henderson or Houghton had been there instead? It's easy to be a maverick and plot your own principled course but to get things done you need to compromise on occasion. Gawne got it wrong here and on the RHA by compromising too much. But does it override everything else? Ballakillowey roundabout is the clincher for me. That and his apparant indifference towards the running costs of the airport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted September 14, 2011 Author Share Posted September 14, 2011 Which actually proves my point, he was critical of Brown's reshuffle of the ministrys and was rewarded with the poisoned challice of the DOI, a department with too many deep-seated problems to be fixed in the little over a year he had? Incidently, why is Ballakillowey roundabout such a bad thing? Loads of people moan about it but that road needed resurfacing anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nellie Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 That and his apparant indifference towards the running costs of the airport. He did certainly repeat the Airport Directoresses comments that the airport cost c£2m per year more to run than it should do, but I'd speculate that Comrade Arkwright told him to 'button it' as he wouldn't want any fallout on his Castletown doorstep involving commercial reality, loss of jobs or changes to T's & C's for the many staff there. Incidentally, two candidates in my constituency have both told me that they have had more adverse comment from voters on the performance of the DoI (state of roads, pavements, Queen's Pier, grandiose schemes etc.)than Health, Education and Law & Order put together....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.