Election Results

[Shadey Burger]

 

......

Singer shot himself in the foot and so one less to represent the North

......

 

Excuse my immense ignorance, but how so?

 

No I wont excuse your ignorance, it is plain as can be.

 

As Lonan3 said, using Legco as a safety net incase he failed, and a one issue candidate.

[Foxtrotlima]

Which is why I thanked Lonan3 for explaining it to me. No offence intended.

[Chinahand]

no its the concept of the rich robbing the poor, the addiction, the geting the money from anywhere to gamble, the fact that the bank always wins long term, that make it immoral and unethical. E gaming is no different to any other gaming

 

Why is it that being a professional gambler at poker is mired in disrepute but a person who plays the stock markets for a living is championed as a high flier?

 

Its the difference between a zero sum game and a non-zero sum game. Investing money in the ownership of a company creates wealth on a massive scale.

 

I admit playing poker is enjoyable, and so has a service industry sub-plot, but the game itself is simple redistribution. Its either random redistribution ... not much point to that ... or its suckers being taken by pros.

 

Hence, I can understand why its image doesn't compare well compared with a stock market pro.

 

However, I'm quite happy for companies to set themselves up doing this, but I'm not surprised they are more regulated than stock market advisors.

 

Caveat emptor and all that ... applies to the stock exchange as much as buying yourself into a game of Texan Stud or what ever the name is!

[Snaipyr]

I had no views on internet gambling until a couple of days ago, when my Visa statement arrived with an entry for £300 to a betting company in Malta. I don't gamble, and after speaking to the credit card company it seems I probably won't have to pay it. Nevertheless, given that gambling can become an addiction, won't e-gaming lead to more credit card fraud? Last night's Panamara was an eye-opener for me.

[thesultanofsheight]

Because he eventually gave up his legco seat – although not technically a seat for Ramsey I guess he would generally have voted in support of a Ramsey issue such as the 24 cover at the cottage. He will be replaced by someone from the South or West.

 

Its fair to say however that such vanity robbed Ramsey of the great representation it previously had. They had two MHK's plus a Leonard in Legco. Now they are down to two MHK's and little influence in Legco - that is a backwards step for a place that really needs the most support it can get.

 

In my mind it was a naive move to think you could hedge your bets, and I am convinced it lost votes as people dug their heels in.

[Amadeus]

I had no views on internet gambling until a couple of days ago, when my Visa statement arrived with an entry for £300 to a betting company in Malta. I don't gamble, and after speaking to the credit card company it seems I probably won't have to pay it. Nevertheless, given that gambling can become an addiction, won't e-gaming lead to more credit card fraud? Last night's Panamara was an eye-opener for me.

I can only speak from own experience, and to me, it appears as if the mentioned kind of fraud is usually carried out by "normal" criminals, i.e. not usually motivated by any other factors such as an addiction, but only by the desire to get some cash out of people. There are already very sophisticated measures in place to prevent what happened to you, but unfortunately criminals develop new methods as well, especially when it comes to identity theft, which - looking at what you were saying - I guess is what happened to you. It's virtually impossible to deposit funds to any bookie these days, unless the person doing so has all your information, i.e. name, credit card and cvv2 number, etc... The idea is to get funds of your card, have a few random bets, and then withdraw the funds via different means - luckily on the IOM, that's where the train usually stops, as the AML regulations kick in...

[thesultanofsheight]

I had no views on internet gambling until a couple of days ago, when my Visa statement arrived with an entry for £300 to a betting company in Malta. I don't gamble, and after speaking to the credit card company it seems I probably won't have to pay it. Nevertheless, given that gambling can become an addiction, won't e-gaming lead to more credit card fraud? Last night's Panamara was an eye-opener for me.

I can only speak from own experience, and to me, it appears as if the mentioned kind of fraud is usually carried out by "normal" criminals, i.e. not usually motivated by any other factors such as an addiction, but only by the desire to get some cash out of people. There are already very sophisticated measures in place to prevent what happened to you, but unfortunately criminals develop new methods as well, especially when it comes to identity theft, which - looking at what you were saying - I guess is what happened to you. It's virtually impossible to deposit funds to any bookie these days, unless the person doing so has all your information, i.e. name, credit card and cvv2 number, etc... The idea is to get funds of your card, have a few random bets, and then withdraw the funds via different means - luckily on the IOM, that's where the train usually stops, as the AML regulations kick in...

 

Ignoring - of course - the people in the newspapers every week who rip off their firm / family / steal to fuel their addiction.

 

The industry has a lot to answer for and at the bottom end is built on heaps of misery laid by people who would never have played a card game of placed a bet had it not been made so easy to do so.

 

Many of the company fraud cases being heard in the UK are employees stealing to cover gambling debts. The industry can't hide.

[Steve Gribbon]

Just wanted to say thanks for the words of support on here. Today is a fairly crappy day as you can probably imagine, but then again having over 25% of the voting public in Onchan think I was worth putting an X next to is something I'm very proud of.

 

The next five years is going to be difficult for all of us, I hope those successful last night are brave enough to have the courage of their convictions and make some very tough decisions and to support their colleagues not close ranks or avoid the issues.

 

Congratulations to all of my opponents in Onchan, it was a hard fought and well won election.

 

Steve

 

I hope everything is ok now. I was at one of the hustings and you explained that you were very committed to what you were doing, even that you had given up your Government job despite your wife expecting etc.

 

I hope you got your job back ok and everything back to normality

[Another comeover]

Watterson, Gawne, Gill in Rushen - but no figures yet!

 

As a resident of Rushen I would like to apologise to the rest of the Island. We've let you down again.

 

You lot should build a wall and keep us out.

 

Perfect result!

 

Two good solid MHKs re-elected, and a young sharp intelligent lad elected.

 

He's got two ideas. Teach kids to use a cheque book and shopworkers should speak English.

 

People spend ages running for Tynwald and deciding who vote for and the people of Rushen piss on them all by voting for the fuckin Chuckle brothers.

 

Gawne must be gutted he's going to have to do the work of three MHK's.

 

 

 

I think that is hardly fair at all. All three MHKs for Rushen got in due to hard work and substance that stood out from the rest of the candidates.

 

Gill does a lot of work with schools, the community and is a good egg all round. He tries his best all the time to help the constituents and is everyone's friend. It is good to have an approachable person when you want something done but I fear that he is one of the poor MHKs that gets calls at 3am complaining about something.

 

Gawne is a good Minister for Agriculture and I hope Brown picks him again to keep that job. He has come along way from his bad past and wish him luck. Nice chap as well with a nice family.

 

Watterson is a breath of fresh air for the island because he actually knows what he is talking about. I thought his manfesto was excellent as it could never give direct promises which I think too many politicians do then find they can't keep them which is the problem with being independant in many ways. He never once said anything stupid like some of the candidates and he listened to people on the door to find out what concerns they have. Quite frankly, he said that young people should be financially educated which makes sense if you don't want most of the people on the island to be in mounds of debt like they are in England...makes economical viability. I hope to see good things from this newbie as I do with all the other new guys...might brings some fresh ideas to make things even better on the island.

 

Did you perhaps want one of the candidates that didn't get in?

 

Tinkler - no personality and didn't give what the people wanted to hear - infact at the hustings he had no thoughts of his own and agreed with Watterson as did all the other candidates.

 

Tony who? Where was he? He also talked complete and utter rubbish if you ever look at his radio interviews.

 

Crellin - Maybe but he had no scope of wider issues and frankly I couldn't see him coping very well in sittings to display the concerns of Rushen and the island as a whole. Nice chap though but maybe he should stick to his career.

 

Rimmington - never met anyone quite as rude as this man. He also said the wrong things to annoy voters rather than to make them vote for him. Not much effort either to get votes as if he already knew he was going to lose thanks to being in the DOLGI death trap.

 

 

 

 

I say all the best for the next 5 years and hope we have no more scandals or cover ups. Better to look forward to the future and that these new MHKs can deliver a good service - if not then you have the chance to vote someone different in 5 years or maybe you fancy your chances at running a campaign? It is not as easy as it looks, nor is it easy to think of things that will inspire people to go to the polling stations and vote for you. I say well done to all the MHK's of Rushen for getting such a high percentage of voters.

[Lonan3]

...and is a good egg all round.

As opposed to the curate's eggs that surround him?

[Declan]

Another comeover - Firstly, the comments you pick out were in the heat of the moment when the result was announced. Also they weren't aimed at Gawne who I voted for with confidence - his was the best manifesto I read from anyone in any constituency.

 

My second vote went to Crellin, partly from his previous campaigns, this time he was lackluster.

 

Third vote went to Tinkler. But not with great conviction.

 

Of the two successful candidates I didn't vote for Gill because, having voted for him in 2001, I was disappointed with his first term. I had hoped he'd be a representative who got stuck in - I didn't see any evidence of this. Since the election there've been some nice comments about him in another thread, so I might be wrong.

 

Watterson I didn't vote for because I was worried about his lack of experience. This isn't due to age, but because the roles he's previously had have been "inspecting" rather than "decision making" - we weren't electing someone to check the books but to direct policy. I thought of him more as one to watch for next time.

 

I like your last paragraph. Since the election I've mellowed in my views - we could have done worse! Certainly all three *could* win my vote next time around. I e-mailled the three Rushen members regarding the election of CM all three gave open honest replys about how they voted in the first round, their thoughts for Thursday and also forthcoming MLC choice.I was expecting to be told these are confidential, but they didn't and even gave the impression that they were interested in what I thought.

[Another comeover]

Another comeover - Firstly, the comments you pick out were in the heat of the moment when the result was announced. Also they weren't aimed at Gawne who I voted for with confidence - his was the best manifesto I read from anyone in any constituency.

 

My second vote went to Crellin, partly from his previous campaigns, this time he was lackluster.

 

Third vote went to Tinkler. But not with great conviction.

 

Of the two successful candidates I didn't vote for Gill because, having voted for him in 2001, I was disappointed with his first term. I had hoped he'd be a representative who got stuck in - I didn't see any evidence of this. Since the election there've been some nice comments about him in another thread, so I might be wrong.

 

Watterson I didn't vote for because I was worried about his lack of experience. This isn't due to age, but because the roles he's previously had have been "inspecting" rather than "decision making" - we weren't electing someone to check the books but to direct policy. I thought of him more as one to watch for next time.

 

I like your last paragraph. Since the election I've mellowed in my views - we could have done worse! Certainly all three *could* win my vote next time around. I e-mailled the three Rushen members regarding the election of CM all three gave open honest replys about how they voted in the first round, their thoughts for Thursday and also forthcoming MLC choice.I was expecting to be told these are confidential, but they didn't and even gave the impression that they were interested in what I thought.

 

 

 

Ah glad to see you have calmed down now Declan. I must admit the elections were rather exciting and made me rather all heated as well but I am happy with the results and hope it was all the right choice.

 

All I can say now is it is a bally shame we only have one candidate standing for CM - I would have hoped that there would have been some competition between Brown and Rodan.

 

I think you will find that the MHKs are all very open and honest after meeting them all over the last year or so. I think the only thing that would stop them answering questions are things that may have come up in the Council of Ministers etc.

 

 

I am new to this site so it is quite interesting to hear so of the views of everyone about politics. It is much more informative than anything we have in England - you would be lucky to get hold of your MP or get a response within 6 months.

 

One thing I didn't get was this whole Freemasons bashing in another thread. I think people criticise it and its members because they don't know what they do...trust me it is nothing satanic or a "look out for each other" club. They do a lot of charitable work and with most clubs, they have a good time socialising. If you make people declare they are a Freemason then maybe everyone should declare what clubs they are involved with even if it is the local golf course.

[Steve Gribbon]

One thing I didn't get was this whole Freemasons bashing in another thread. I think people criticise it and its members because they don't know what they do...trust me it is nothing satanic or a "look out for each other" club. They do a lot of charitable work and with most clubs, they have a good time socialising. If you make people declare they are a Freemason then maybe everyone should declare what clubs they are involved with even if it is the local golf course.

 

The old "they do a lot for charity"

 

Freemasons have a stronger loyalty towards other freemasons than they do to anyone else, 'tis a simple and pretty obvious fact. From the lowest to the highest.

 

Gerreat if you are a freemason, when you come up against them pretty shite if you are not.

[Albert Tatlock]

According to MR "The Council of Ministers has appointed the same MHKs as members of two departments of government which could merge, if a proposal in a recent report goes ahead.

 

Rushen MHK Quintin Gill and new member for West Douglas, Geoff Corkish (pictured) will serve under David Cretney at the Department of Trade and Industry and under Mr Cretney's successor, Onchan MHK Adrian Earnshaw, at the Department of Tourism and Leisure."

 

Given the past performance of both departments - I suspect the odds are high that they'll call any new department the Department of Leisurely Trade.

[Lonan3]

[/i]Given the past performance of both departments - I suspect the odds are high that they'll call any new department the Department of Leisurely Trade-offs.

 

Sorry, Albert. I just thought a very minor adjustment.... for the sake of accuracy?