Chief Minister: Allan Bell V Peter Karran

[censorship]

I wonder what Private Eye would make of it this time around.

At a guess, nothing.

[Andy Onchan]

I suspect the reason why so many are upset about the LVP action yesterday is because more than anything it suddenly became personal. And I can't see that changing from now on. If there was a "party" in power then the angst would be directed at the party and/or it's manifesto.That is not the case and so the CM & his entourage should expect this to happen again if the government doesn't start to recognise the fact that they are responsible to someone else.

 

Welcome to the real world of rough and tumble politics.

[angelo]

Let's hope her sister doesn't get into the LegCo. Appreciate she's become used to a good living but enough's more than enough from that lot.

[ubbiali]

Carbon Selector. Have no fear, all is well here. I don`t know what happened but it should have read "Lowey and Braidwood should take a good look at themselves. Perhaps I fell of the chair again recalling some of the behaviour of Madam President (indeed!!) and one or two of the other unelected persons present.

Well said on your post 308. How can we possibly move on, much as we may like to, when there are so many issues and unfinished business from the last session as yet unanswered.

[Tempus Fugit]

As I posted maiden speeches by convention are non contentious

 

 

Is it not also established pratice that maiden speeches are non concentious?

 

glad you clarified that, I was heading for the dictionary !

[CableGuy]

Personally I think that the new LibVan MHKs showed themselves in a very bad light - Kate Beecroft was supposed to be making a nomination speech which turned out to be more of a criticism of Allan Bell's history rather than a nomination speech.

 

Seems to indicate that she didn't have many good things to say about Peter Karran.

 

As for Christian, Braidwood and Lowey criticising their conduct I thought their actions were justified really, if you have ever listened to Tynwald before then there are ways of making nominations etc and standing up to criticise other members when you are supposed to be making a nomination speech will attract criticism from other members on your conduct.

 

Compare one new MHK, Mr Skelly's speech for seconding Allan Bell :

Mr Skelly: Thank you, Madam President.

It gives me pleasure to second the nomination for the Hon Member for Ramsey, Mr Allan Bell, for the position of Chief Minister.

I am a new Member, but I have known Mr Bell for many years. In fact, I used my first general election voting opportunity in 1984, to help him become a Member of the House of Keys, and he has been here ever since. I have great respect for Mr Bell, who has held many ministerial positions where he has gained extensive experience and truly understands the complexity of international politics. His time as Treasury Minister has helped us build the solid financial foundation we all enjoy today, an envy of most Western nations. Hiscommitment to an inclusive style role is to be welcomed by all Members, as we will need a unified political team to benefit the Island we all serve.

The Hon. Member’s political career has not always been easy, and we must recognise these are not easy times now. The challenge that lies ahead requires a Chief Minister who can show strength of leadership, build effective relationships both domestically and internationally and guide our nation to a brighter future. Madam President and Hon. Members, I believe Mr Bell is the right person for that job.

 

Which I thought was a really good seconding speech for new member, no criticisms of Peter Karran etc.

 

Compare that to Kate Beecroft's speech which extends to about 5 pages of Hansard where she is reminded to talk about her nomination and not to use her time talking about Allan Bell's past, the simple fact of the matter is that one warning should be enough and to ignore it and carry on with with the criticisms rather than talking about your candidate shows a lack of respect for the house and the other members.

 

This lack of respect was also shown when Zac Hall when he went off talking about Manx2 and airline saftey - he was asked to come back to the matter in hand (the seconding of Peter Karran) and he said he would carry on ignoring the Madam Speaker (Christian), which led to more criticism from the house.

 

Tynwald is a court and as such there are ways to conduct yourself, it was quite obvious that the two new LibVan members did not know how to conduct themselves at all, this does not bode well for the future.

 

They got what they deserved in my opinion, if they had simply stood up nominated Peter Karran saying he is amn of the people etc and then Zac Hall had seconded saying similar then this farce wouldn't have happened.

[carbon selector]

Cable Guy, nicely presented post and I see your point, but there is nothing the old guard would like more, than people like Skelly (see your quote from Hansard above). An ambitious establishment man who can easily be stroked and moulded and has already fallen into place with the big boys.

 

Cregeen and Quirk (and Malarkey reincarnate) are typical of the sort that they want. "Now they are in the Keys we will mould them into our ways, even give them a 5 figure extra perk to soften them up" sort of thing. Such as Geoff Corkish needed no moulding as he was virtually born an establishment yes man.

 

John Wright is absolutely right. What happened is refreshing and to an extent I feel very much needed.

 

The time for wishy washy pussy cats is over. It was ok whilst we were getting an extra £1million thrown at us each and every working day, but the Isle of Man Government has displayed its impotence and incompetencer over the last decade. Time now for change and a wake up call.

 

It is going to be an interesting few years.

[manxman8180]

I had the opportunity to speak to Zac Hall during his campaign. One of the specific points I put to him, was that whilst I was considering voting for him as I was reasonalby impressed by his doorstep persona, I was concerned that a vote for Lib Van candidate was a 'wasted' vote, as they would not be willing to participate in Government and just shout bollocks from the sidelines.

 

His assurance was that would not be the case. Ultimately, I decided to use one of my votes for him. Whilst it is early days and I am not willing to taint him just yet, right now I am dissapointed. Both in him and in myself that I should have stuck with my gut instinct.

 

That Beecroft one just came over very poorly, not only in Tynwald, but in her justifcation in interview later. The references, to being like a job application and considering the bad and the good of each candidate doesn't wash either. Where was the 'bad' of Peter Karran? Things like how he can barely string a legible sentence together, would not be treated seriously by anyone in the outside world etc, etc. If you are truly wanting a fair comparison, then let us make it so.

 

Bell is certainly no saint and we will see if he managed to accomplish anything over the next few years, but it is easy to keep your nose clean if you accept no responsbility for any decision, oppose every motion etc.

 

I am more certain than ever, that Lib Van will never be a credible force in Manx politics whilst being heade by Peter Karran and spun by the likes of Horsnell.

[Cronky]

This is fundamentally about freedom of speech:

 

Theodore Roosevelt, 1918

Free speech, exercised both individually and through a free press, is a necessity in any country where people are themselves free.

 

Isle of Man Human Rights Act

http://www.gov.im/li...ghtsact2001.pdf

Article 10 - Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to

hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public

authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the

licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

 

 

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities,

may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by

law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial

integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health

or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure

of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the

judiciary.

 

Beecroft and Hall should not have been interfered with. An awful precedent has been set. They may want to say many contentious things that the public would like to know about. Are there going to be further clampdowns?

[CableGuy]

The time for wishy washy pussy cats is over. It was ok whilst we were getting an extra £1million thrown at us each and every working day, but the Isle of Man Government has displayed its impotence and incompetencer over the last decade. Time now for change and a wake up call.

 

It is going to be an interesting few years.

 

If we are getting that much money thrown at us every day then getting LibVan members to stop waffling and get to the point would save a lot of money !!

 

There is freedom of speech but freedom of speech in the outside world and freedom of speech in a court are a totally different kettle of fish entirely.

 

If you were in court and conducted yourself inappropriately you would be warned by the Judge about your conduct, if you ignored the warning you would face the consequences its no different in Tynwald.

 

Beecroft and Hall should have stuck to the point, whilst it may have been a publicity stunt they should know how to conduct themselves in a court.

[Terse]

.

[Declan]

 

As I posted maiden speeches by convention are non concentious?

 

Sometimes, when a convention gets in the way of common sense it should be ignored.

 

All nomination speeches are contentious, are you suggesting that nomination speeches can only be made by non-newbies. Because that would have prevented Karran's name going forward.

 

Similarly, the shameful conduct of Braidwood, Lowey & Christian trawling up vague and irrelevant rules only succeeded in denying a fair hearing to Karran's case. This wasn't a Radio 4 panel game where no deviation or repetition is allowed. It was a speech by democratically elected members of Tynwald attempting to advance the platform they were elected upon. One doesn't need to agree with them or what they said to recognise that petty rules were being used for partisan ends by the Legco members.

[Topaz]

Could have been worse. For 'Speaker' read 'President'

 

If a member should refuse to obey the Speaker, he may be banished from the House for the rest of the day, under tow of the sergeant-at-arms if necessary. If the offender persists in his defiance, the Speaker may cause him to be suspended--five days the first time, twenty days the second and indefinitely if the rebel sins again. In extreme cases the Speaker may have the culprit confined in the tower of Big Ben. This last provision has not been invoked since the heyday of Irish militancy.

Quoted in Parliamentary Law for the Layman (1952) by Joseph F. O'Brien, p. 11 (citing Cheddar Harris, "Rt. Hon. Restraint," The New York Times Magazine, April 8, 1951, p. 48)

[Lost Login]

This is fundamentally about freedom of speech:

 

Beecroft and Hall should not have been interfered with. An awful precedent has been set. They may want to say many contentious things that the public would like to know about. Are there going to be further clampdowns?

 

It is nothing to do with Freedom of Speech. They were asked to propose and second PK for Chief Minister. They chose not to do that.

 

According to you if you are called to speak on any matter in Tynwald in any debate you should be allowed to speak about whatever you want. Debating the Steam Packet, lets instead discuss legalisation of Canabis. Asked a question about the Bus Service lets answer by discussing Man United. Sorry but that is plain bollocks

 

What happened yesterday is not much difference to what happens during most debates or at the majority of question times. If you go off topic you are pulled up.

 

Finally lets turn it around what if AB's supporters yesterday had used the opportunity to attack PK or LVP in their speeches. Would you have said that was acceptable. I would not. Equally from what you are saying you would believe it acceptable that at all future occasions under Freedom of Speech Ministers, MHK's etc should just be allowed to attack PK or the LVP regardless of the issue etc. Again I do not

[censorship]

As I posted maiden speeches by convention are non concentious?

 

Sometimes, when a convention gets in the way of common sense it should be ignored.

Yes, but a debating chamber has to have rules, otherwise it just becomes a 'live and in person' version of Manx Forums.

The rights and wrongs of LegCo interjection is an issue, but, for me, the more fundamental issue was that the Beecroft speech effectively ended any chance of Bell being challenged, and the proof of that is in the voting. Just days ago we were wondering whether Bell could get 17, because we could list people who would 'never' support him and would spoil their papers to ensure a third candidate emerged.

That remained the position until about five minutes into Beecroft's speech. She gifted him votes he had not earned, she used an important part of our government formation for a party political broadcast, she undermined any hopes of LibVan becoming a genuine force for reform, by proving it is all just more of the same from them, (all complaints, no solutions). Although there were interruptions, which may have been politically motivated, she was allowed to deliver 'her' speech, despite it contravening the rules of the debating chamber, and all she did was ensure Bell a coronation, which will play right into his egocentric character.

LegoCo and the President may have questions to answer about impartiality (although I'm not convinecd the president does), LibVan have far more important questions to answer about why, if they feel Bell is so dangerous, they did nothing to help save the Island from his leadership, but instead delivered him an overwhelming mandate which would, to an egotist, be justification for a dictatorial style of leadership.