Andy Onchan Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 Just now, Steve_Christian said: The role is gapped or the past incumbent remained in post until a democratically elected candidate is voted in. What would you expect to happen? Absolutely no idea what to expect to be honest. It's an interesting concept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_Christian Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 3 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said: Absolutely no idea what to expect to be honest. It's an interesting concept. Agreed. Imagine if there was 2 MHK posts (as per the general election) and RON came second (or first) - one candidate could get in and the rest do not - or even a rule if RON wins- no-one gets in. It would be interesting to see if more people voted if there was this option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
english zloty Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 13 minutes ago, Omobono said: But I hear Mr Squeaker and Mr Collister have long haul jollies planned Mr Squeaker to St Helena and Collister to Australia , these boys get about , I recon the CPA and Tynwald travel plus expenses would be the equivalent to the increase in school bus charges ? High time the Islands financial problems were sorted out and money stopped for parliamentary Jollies which appear to be of no benefit for us Had a poo. Played with my didgeridoo pity he hasn’t heard of Zoom. Else he could do his bit for the climate too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 7 minutes ago, Steve_Christian said: The role is gapped or the past incumbent remained in post until a democratically elected candidate is voted in. What would you expect to happen? Here? ...a helluva turnover based on the last 25 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 2 hours ago, Non-Believer said: The reason I asked Stu was because in the world that I come from, any employer sending a candidate on a course or detachment would examine a few criteria before deciding who to send, the principal 3 being; 1) Does that candidate have any interest or enthusiasm for the subject? 2) Does that candidate possess any aptitude for the subject? 3) Will that candidate bring anything home from the time that will benefit my operation? Now, given that you have already stated that you would "rather have stayed at home" then it would suggest that neither of the first two criteria were fulfilled. Which duly begs the repeat question, Who is determining who attends these forays? And what criteria are they using because it sounds very much as though they're throwing a dart (badly) at a list or it's just "somebody's turn to go". Perhaps on the best looking or most fun. These are not the criteria that satisfy the taxpayer however. The fact that the best response that Stu Peters can make to my earlier post is a "confused" emoji tells me all I need to know about Tynwald members, their jollies and the selection criteria used to despatch people on them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 16 minutes ago, Non-Believer said: The fact that the best response that Stu Peters can make to my earlier post is a "confused" emoji tells me all I need to know about Tynwald members, their jollies and the selection criteria used to despatch people on them. 4) Perhaps training will sort out the useless chairman's son. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 22 minutes ago, Non-Believer said: The fact that the best response that Stu Peters can make to my earlier post is a "confused" emoji tells me all I need to know about Tynwald members, their jollies and the selection criteria used to despatch people on them. I’m sorry, I thought it was a ridiculous post so chose not to engage further. Which is still the case, but now you know why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
De nada Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 2 minutes ago, Stu Peters said: I’m sorry, I thought it was a ridiculous post so chose not to engage further. Which is still the case, but now you know why. You thought? A first! 😜 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 7 minutes ago, Stu Peters said: I’m sorry, I thought it was a ridiculous post so chose not to engage further. Which is still the case, but now you know why. You've avoided the question Stu. Who is selecting Tynwald members to go on these taxpayer-funded missions and what is the selection criteria? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weliveinhope Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 8 minutes ago, Stu Peters said: I’m sorry, I thought it was a ridiculous post so chose not to engage further. Which is still the case, but now you know why. Proves my point perfectly. You're ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 1 hour ago, Non-Believer said: Who is selecting Tynwald members to go on these taxpayer-funded missions and what is the selection criteria? I think we all know it's basically Buggin's Turn and they're all supposed to trot off to be indoctrinated in the glories of the UK's disintegrating political system at some point and maybe an extra somewhere else. From memory it's technically paid via the CPA or whatever and I supposed they're obliged to pay the subs. If they were really interested they'd learn more from 30 minutes on Wikipedia. As all Stu seems to have gathered from his trips is that there might be a way he can spend even less time at work, I'm not sure that much understanding of in depth constitutional principles has been gained. Of course these aren't the same as normal work trips. There's no intensive courses, intricate negotiations, delivering and defending papers at a conference or long hours spent selling face to face or convincing people at an exhibition. It's more like an upmarket coach tour where you are shepherded around and treated respectfully and everything is arranged. Like all these activities, it is possible to use them to do useful things on the side - arrange to meet opposite numbers in other countries to sort out mutual problems for example or making useful contacts. But that requires good preparation and research. 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said: I think we all know it's basically Buggin's Turn and they're all supposed to trot off to be indoctrinated in the glories of the UK's disintegrating political system at some point and maybe an extra somewhere else. From memory it's technically paid via the CPA or whatever and I supposed they're obliged to pay the subs. If they were really interested they'd learn more from 30 minutes on Wikipedia. As all Stu seems to have gathered from his trips is that there might be a way he can spend even less time at work, I'm not sure that much understanding of in depth constitutional principles has been gained. Of course these aren't the same as normal work trips. There's no intensive courses, intricate negotiations, delivering and defending papers at a conference or long hours spent selling face to face or convincing people at an exhibition. It's more like an upmarket coach tour where you are shepherded around and treated respectfully and everything is arranged. Like all these activities, it is possible to use them to do useful things on the side - arrange to meet opposite numbers in other countries to sort out mutual problems for example or making useful contacts. But that requires good preparation and research. Things have clearly changed since the 60s when you presumably went on them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted March 8 Share Posted March 8 10 hours ago, Stu Peters said: Things have clearly changed since the 60s when you presumably went on them. Nah, then it was all sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll. So you're really saying it hasn't changed since? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted March 8 Share Posted March 8 (edited) 44 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said: Nah, then it was all sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll. So you're really saying it hasn't changed since? So we're asking questions based on Ian Dury songs now? "Could the Treasury Minister please list for the Manx Public Reasons to be Cheerful?" "What a waste of taxpayers money" "Did the Post Office Chairman meet Plastow Patricia on his recent fact finding trip to London? Was she partial to his abracadabra?" Edited March 8 by Declan 2 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopek Posted March 8 Share Posted March 8 Stu P. Do you respond to your constituents in this glib manner? Not the wind up merchants but a seemingly genuine question from someone you don't know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.