Election Results

[VinnieK]

It's all about experience and impoving their 'electability CV' for me. There's a lot to learn in politics, and given my being undecided between two similar candidates, I would always go for the one with more experience and a demonstrable track record, even if that was in a town council. This allows the opportunity to see how they operate - and is a kind of apprenticeship.

 

This is how it works mostly in the UK, you cut your teeth on the smaller councils usually before they allow you to go for county council and then as a PPC - unless of course you're a half-wit conservative celebrity f***wit like ex Coronation Street Adam Rickitt and you're straight in (god help us all!).

 

That's only an argument in favour of voting for a candidate who has previous experience of serving on councils and so forth, not for the restriction of elligeability to stand for election to those who've worked on local councils and so forth.

 

I'm not sure the analogy with council members is accurate either. It's true that council careers tend to work that way, but a large number of MP's come from entirely different background. Previous experience in law, trade unionism, the media, and business seem to be far more desirable qualities for the parties' selection committees than experience with local government. I suppose one of the arguments would be that restricting candidature to those involved in local government would make national government too provincially minded to deal with issues on a national and international level.

[squally]

It would seem to me that the Island has the opportunity of voting in the main rump of those who were on watch when we had Mount Murray, MEA, Nobles, Incinerator, Iris , DHSS etc etc or the guts to decide that personal integrity is more important than experience gained in a failed political environment

[Lonan3]

It would seem to me that the Island has the opportunity of voting in the main rump of those who were on watch when we had Mount Murray, MEA, Nobles, Incinerator, Iris , DHSS etc etc or the guts to decide that personal integrity is more important than experience gained in a failed political environment

 

You sound like a candidate.

[TomTucker]

i was at the braddan meeting at union mills last night.

 

Kate Beecroft seemed a nice intellegent lady with good views but as Albert says someone with no political experience at all is hard to vote for. She said "i would like to know more about...[this and that]" a bit too much and delivered little in weighty promises more like a common sense candidate.

 

Andrew Jessop clearly the best informed of the three, he brought props to illustrate the failings of the government and other candidates, and reveled in the enviromental debates and got a round of applause for sabre rattling about the MEA, which is an easy target anyway. Came across as a bit of a nutter though.

 

Martyn Quayle dullness personified, very much towed the government line and repeatedly informed us of his experience as MD at the farmers club which apparently qualifies him in "big business".

 

all in all not a great selection, id have put the order based on last nights performance as:

 

1, Jessop 2, Quayle 3, Beecroft

 

cant say i know who to vote for though!

[thesultanofsheight]

i was at the braddan meeting at union mills last night.

 

Kate Beecroft seemed a nice intellegent lady with good views but as Albert says someone with no political experience at all is hard to vote for. She said "i would like to know more about...[this and that]" a bit too much and delivered little in weighty promises more like a common sense candidate.

 

Andrew Jessop clearly the best informed of the three, he brought props to illustrate the failings of the government and other candidates, and reveled in the enviromental debates and got a round of applause for sabre rattling about the MEA, which is an easy target anyway. Came across as a bit of a nutter though.

 

Martyn Quayle dullness personified, very much towed the government line and repeatedly informed us of his experience as MD at the farmers club which apparently qualifies him in "big business".

 

all in all not a great selection, id have put the order based on last nights performance as:

 

1, Jessop 2, Quayle 3, Beecroft

 

cant say i know who to vote for though!

 

I'd go for Quayle, Beecroft, Jessop.

 

I've decide to vote for Beecroft. Jessop was a nice guy but struck me as a bit of a loon, and as for Martyn I've decided to vote for nobody remotely manx establishment as it would seem to perpetuate more of the same rubbish as we've had over the last 10 years. Nothing against him personally and he's a good MHK but I can't face more collective inertia and believe we need a few new faces.

[maggle]

New faces can only be good, route out some of the deadwood from the past few years. I reckon a couple of the younger candidates should get in, they might put a challenge up for the old farts who have been around far too long. It would be good for the old farts to try the real world for a few years.

 

Anyone know where I can borrow a Hummer for my drive to the polling station?

 

@Mr Dosser, thanks for the PM, I grabbed your manifesto from my mothers. You can have a vote if you answer the following question, either on here or by PM:

 

Do you think Douglas has a traffic problem and if so, what would you suggest would be the most appropriate way of reducing the amount of cars travelling into Douglas on a daily basis?

 

Cheers

[Lost Login]

I wrote this previoulsy with no response but I wonder if Beecroft would have had a better chance as an independent rather than a member of the LVP. This is partly because the LVP mandate does appear to be a bit wishy washy in that it seems to be mainly a call for an awful lot of reviews consultations and investigations rather than specific ideas and this would appear to be reflected in your comments on the meeting last night.

 

I can also not get my head around how the LVPwill vote or decide to vote on issues. If anybody has read the supplement in this weeks Examiner the response to the question "do you believe residency control should be introduced" is interesting. I can not remember way round they answered but in respect of Beecroft and Karran, Party Leader and perspective candidates, one said Yes and the other No! Reviewing the responses of the other members of the LVP to the same question respones seemed to be a mixture of Yes, No or it should be reviewed. Considering they are all standing under the same manifesto I would have expected a standard response in line with it.

 

The manifesto I got through only mentions immigration and states the "LDV is dedicated to facing facts and implementing radical immigration policy changes to protect the Island...." it also says "the best policy for the Island is a policy of controlled immigration. I presume that means yes then but I wish they would have followed that up by actually stating what that "radical immigration policy" was so I could form a view.

 

The nearest they get is they state that Australia has one of the most successful economic migration policies but that is it. So what if it is a great policy for Australia is that what they are proposing for the IoM. If it is say so and then I can take a view.

 

 

i was at the braddan meeting at union mills last night.

 

Kate Beecroft seemed a nice intellegent lady with good views but as Albert says someone with no political experience at all is hard to vote for. She said "i would like to know more about...[this and that]" a bit too much and delivered little in weighty promises more like a common sense candidate.

 

Andrew Jessop clearly the best informed of the three, he brought props to illustrate the failings of the government and other candidates, and reveled in the enviromental debates and got a round of applause for sabre rattling about the MEA, which is an easy target anyway. Came across as a bit of a nutter though.

 

Martyn Quayle dullness personified, very much towed the government line and repeatedly informed us of his experience as MD at the farmers club which apparently qualifies him in "big business".

 

all in all not a great selection, id have put the order based on last nights performance as:

 

1, Jessop 2, Quayle 3, Beecroft

 

cant say i know who to vote for though!

 

I'd go for Quayle, Beecroft, Jessop.

 

I've decide to vote for Beecroft. Jessop was a nice guy but struck me as a bit of a loon, and as for Martyn I've decided to vote for nobody remotely manx establishment as it would seem to perpetuate more of the same rubbish as we've had over the last 10 years. Nothing against him personally and he's a good MHK but I can't face more collective inertia and believe we need a few new faces.

[sarahc]

Don't forget to lie to the exit pollers on Thursday.

[www.theislandinsider.co.uk]

Hi Maggle! I have no problem answering that.

 

I would first like to say that I dont drive so this is a purely personal perspective

 

I dont think we have a major traffic problem in Douglas, I would, however, as one of my main policies centres around environmental issues want to look at cheaper public transport, initiatives for car sharing, and ideas as to how to get people to walk or cycle for short journies.

 

If public transport costs came down enough, as was shown in Sheffield in the 80s, people would be encouraged to use it. At the moment there isnt much difference between using the car or the bus, or any difference doesnt compensate for the inconvenience of public transport.

 

I think car sharing is best addressed by encouraging people through work links, office communities or online communities. We have a small community on the Island and I think Onchan residents would not have a problem sharing a car with someone they didnt know at first.

 

As for getting people to walk or cycle short journies, thats a bit more tricky. It requires commitment from the person. If we can get the local schools to have a walk to school scheme, however, this may encourage parents and others to follow the same lead.

 

Regards

 

Andrew

[Donald]

Donald was in a pedantic mood, but there were some things he just couldn't let lie.

 

One was the mis-use, or rather in this particular case, the complete non-use of the abbreviation apostrophe; as in don't and doesn't.

 

The other was the mis-spelling of plurals. 'Journeys' or 'journies' . . . . . ? You decide.

 

Donald had been at the Onchan requisition meeting (Monday not Tuesday) and had thought that the youngfella hadn't been given enough say. Donald also wondered how the rest of them would fare at spelling anyway. It has to be said though, none of the others claimed to be a journalist.

 

The point that Donald really wanted to make was related to nostalgia and regarding cheap bus fares.

 

Donald had been in Sheffield as a student and had related some months ago to the forum, an experience that happened in Sheffield Central Bus Station: The Photobooth in Sheffield Central. That happened as far back as the 1970s, but yes the bus fares were extremely cheap and they had those super bendy-buses too.

 

Donald could ride all round Sheffield for a mere 7p then. He wondered what Jack From Laxey would have thought about all this had he still been with us on the forums.

 

". . . . 'tis a pity you didn't get more of a say t'other night lad. I hope tonight went better for you" thought Donald, as he once again made his voice heard to the big wide world of the internet via the use of manxforums.

 

dotcom.

[VinnieK]

The idea behind lessening the environmental consequences of traffic is of course one that many can agree on in principle, but the justification behind the solutions you've proposed are a bit vague. Take for example:

 

If public transport costs came down enough, as was shown in Sheffield in the 80s, people would be encouraged to use it.

 

Is it valid to make such a comparison? In Sheffield we see a population over five times that of the Isle of Man crammed into an area nearly half the size. In Sheffield's case there are obvious incentives towards using mass transport systems because the sheer pressure of population density encourages the use of such systems, provided they're affordable, as a means of avoiding the congestion and parking hassles that are an inherent consequence of such a dense population, whilst the relatively small area served by those buses helps to keep down the costs of any increased service. If as you say there is no major traffic problem in Douglas (or by extention a problem for those commuting into Douglas) public transport then has to compete not just economically with private means, but also in terms of comfort, convenience, and the sheer personal preference many have for cars over buses. Secondly, Sheffield was hit particularly hard by the recession of the 70's and the early 80's, only really undergoing true recovery in the 90's. Is it any suprise that use of public transport would increase in a period of significant unemployment and deindustrialization?

 

The point is that significant investment could be poured into subsidizing the prices of bus tickets to make them cheaper, only for it to fail to attract the kind of custom required to make investment worthwhile all because the decision to invest (and what the investment was spent on) was based upon the faulty assumption that the comparison between 80's Sheffield and Douglas/Isle of Man in 2006 holds true. Money that could perhaps be better spent elsewhere, or indeed perhaps even better invested in mass transport systems by addressing material issues beyond mere cost (which in a relatively prosperous society where car ownership is common is just one of many, and perhaps even a lesser factor in influencing their use over cars). Ultimately the danger is that money that could have been put into, say, a recycling scheme will instead go on a bus service that is used no more than it was previously, only with the added concern that either taxpayers money or a part of the budget of some other service has been sacrificed for nothing.

[rallybug]

....If public transport costs came down enough, as was shown in Sheffield in the 80s, people would be encouraged to use it. At the moment there isnt much difference between using the car or the bus, or any difference doesnt compensate for the inconvenience of public transport.....

 

So a Manx 12 ticket on the bus is a maximum of £18 for 12 journeys (this will get you to any point on the island). Cost per day = £3

 

Drive to work plus park all day (if you aren't lucky enough to have a company parking space). 14.5 miles each way, or 29 mile round trip, at 35mpg and £4.27 per gallon = £3.53 in petrol plus £3 or £3.50 in parking. Gives a total of £6.50 or £7 per day, plus wear and tear (tyres etc).

 

So, over a week, the bus would cost you £15, and the car £32.50 - £35.

[teapot]

Hi all, I'm a Glenfaba constituent and would like to add my two penneth!

 

There is more background research on Mr Boot here:

http://www.manxforums.com/forums/blog/gis/...id=101#comments

Make of it what you will.

 

 

@teapot: I too was at the meeting last night and thoroughly enjoyed it. The item you may have forgotten is the look of genuine surprise on Mr Boots face when Mr Anderson responded to Mr Boot about problems with EU reciprocal health care forms and meat derogation by pointing out that the Isle of Man is not a member of the EU. A lack of such basic background knowledge is abysmal for a resident of 20years...

 

Also, after you left he was pressed further on having been resident here for so long / where exactly he has been. Again, no straight answer. Earlier in the meeting he stated that he had owned a house here and paid Manx tax for 20years (another slip up) - I think that there is a distinction to be made between this and actually living in and being active in the community.

 

Although Mr Anderson showed no brilliance - he made no big slip ups, and I think won points for stating that he isn't afraid of taking big decisions. (Whereas Mr Boot pointed out that he would prefer to defer decisions until after re-election).

 

I think that the result will be close on Thursday, as unfortunately many members of Glenfaba seem to like someone who will interfere with the commissioners role of handling the minutiae of local matters, rather than spending their time concentrating on national and international issues.

 

I do agree Boot side-stepped some tricky questions - but as he said (and this was the third thing I couldn't remember yesterday) "that's politics"! This was his response to the groan from the audience regarding his answer to the planning deferment question. He should keep off the jokes - that's what I meant by his over confidence. We all know that that's exactly what they do, defer any big questions until the people hopefully won't notice, but for god sake Geoffry, don't admit it in public. It gave Anderson the chance to take the moral high ground, and I wouldn't be surprised if he couldn't avoid making the decision on Scarlet regardless of the election. He was able to side-step any arguement that the audience might have had about his decision because everyone was so focused on the Boot reply! What an idiot! This seat is Boots to loose rather than Anderson to win. Anderson made no big slip ups because he didn't actually say anything. As with all the "sitting tenants" in the seats, he just quoted the government line. From the start nothing was his fault, he wasn't elected when the decisions were taken over the MEA and other cock-ups - well perhaps he wasn't but I didn't hear him jumping up and down in the Keys and making a great fuss about the MEA once the mess came to light.

If he gets in again (and unfortunately I think he will) you won't see him from Friday 24 November until he needs your vote again 5 years later. He's already said at the meeting that he doesn't need to visit the constituents because he "instinctly knows what they think"!! What arrogance!!! Quite frankly, I don't think Boot can do any worse than Anderson and we can at least hold him to account if he doesn't do the things he says, like surgeries and contact with the constituents. Anderson hasn't said anything about what he wants to try and do in the future because he'll be hoping to get back into a ministry and disappear from the people that voted for him (and, in fairness to him, he's not alone in this, I think most of them will hope to do the same - they don't want to mix with the great unwashed once they get into the Keys!)

Anyway enough ranting - here's a very confident prediction - Geoff Corkish will get in, no problem, if any of you were at the Villa last night you'll have seen him operate - what a performer In fact, if he's not elected Chief Minister and Knighted by Christmas I'll eat my hat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mike]

Its sticks in your throat to admit it, because you know he's one of the Island's old boy network, friends in high places & after a cushy number to wind down his working life on, & he is a shoe in as MHK

 

but he really would be good as a voice box & chief representative of the government

[Timmy Smith]

@teapot: I agree with a lot of what you wrote. However I would take issue with the Anderson "instinctively knows what they think" argument. Although he doesn't know what we think, we know Andersons personal opinions and morals etc etc. So we know the kinds of views and decisions Anderson will take when in Government. On the other hand, Mr Boot hasn't told us of any of his views, only our views*! So how do we know the stance he will take on various issues not covered by his manifesto? Quite frankly we don't.

 

* Mr Boots views / opinions come straight from his electors survey - so he will clearly please a lot of people, and this is a good approach for getting elected. However he can't asked the constituency what they want at every decision - we need to know *his* opinions. Furthermore, saying that "a majority of people want x & y..." is bad statistics. He must remember that a majority from his survey want x & y, and that the sample (20ish% of voters) is not a representative sample - only the vocal few will have returned the form.

 

As some of the questions at the meeting alluded to what might happen if consultation resulted in equally divided opposite opinions, I have very politely asked Mr Boot for a brief summary of his political philosophy so we can better judge his stance. Unfortunately the "busy man" hasn't found time to reply to me yet!!

 

 

I do agree Boot side-stepped some tricky questions - but as he said (and this was the third thing I couldn't remember yesterday) "that's politics"! This was his response to the groan from the audience regarding his answer to the planning deferment question. He should keep off the jokes - that's what I meant by his over confidence. We all know that that's exactly what they do, defer any big questions until the people hopefully won't notice, but for god sake Geoffry, don't admit it in public. It gave Anderson the chance to take the moral high ground, and I wouldn't be surprised if he couldn't avoid making the decision on Scarlet regardless of the election. He was able to side-step any arguement that the audience might have had about his decision because everyone was so focused on the Boot reply! What an idiot! This seat is Boots to loose rather than Anderson to win. Anderson made no big slip ups because he didn't actually say anything. As with all the "sitting tenants" in the seats, he just quoted the government line. From the start nothing was his fault, he wasn't elected when the decisions were taken over the MEA and other cock-ups - well perhaps he wasn't but I didn't hear him jumping up and down in the Keys and making a great fuss about the MEA once the mess came to light.

If he gets in again (and unfortunately I think he will) you won't see him from Friday 24 November until he needs your vote again 5 years later. He's already said at the meeting that he doesn't need to visit the constituents because he "instinctly knows what they think"!! What arrogance!!! Quite frankly, I don't think Boot can do any worse than Anderson and we can at least hold him to account if he doesn't do the things he says, like surgeries and contact with the constituents. Anderson hasn't said anything about what he wants to try and do in the future because he'll be hoping to get back into a ministry and disappear from the people that voted for him (and, in fairness to him, he's not alone in this, I think most of them will hope to do the same - they don't want to mix with the great unwashed once they get into the Keys!)

Anyway enough ranting - here's a very confident prediction - Geoff Corkish will get in, no problem, if any of you were at the Villa last night you'll have seen him operate - what a performer In fact, if he's not elected Chief Minister and Knighted by Christmas I'll eat my hat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!