John Wright Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 But assuming that was the suggestion/advice of the independent boundary committee still sitting and due early next year how does 8x 3 grab you? Incomers control, I am in favour of cultural cognisance being taken, including education for all incomers. Work permits or residence control are both blunt tools IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 I think we are missing a fundamental and obvious point here. We are just debating issues that have been well debated before and we could go on and on like this forever. 'Where do we go from here' requires a mechanism. Don't forget how many people there are on the island and what they ACTUALLY voted for yesterday. This debate needs to happen in the real world i.e. at a series of publicised conferences where people speak, debate the issues, and where peoples views can diverge or converge. Maybe the first conference will consist of MF members predomenantly, but the second needs to have many more of the public present, and the third elected representatives speaking etc. Experts from the UK could also be invited to speak of the lessons we should take note of from other democracies etc. It is only from such events that any substantial political party(s) will have any chance of evolving. etc. etc. etc. is where we should be really taking this. If people really want things to change they have to become Organisers not Jawganisers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckett Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 Open topic really, considering that not much has changed post election results. The idea of a new party being formed from these very forums has been mentioned more than once, as has the fact that there are some highly capable people on the island that could do a better job so, what say you all? 'It's the economy stupid'. People have jobs and money in their pocket - nowt will change until that does. Agreed, something needs to change but the groundwork needs to be put in long before the next elections. Quite frankly, I'm astounded at the shortsightnedness of the electorate this time around, it really does begger belief! How do you mean Mission? As ever it comes down to attracting the right people, voters only have a choice between those who stand - look at Ayre! Less Tynwald members, higher pay to attract the best. Either that or something invovative involving the Chief Execs of each Department being made more accounatble to the public... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneWolf Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 I should have posted adequate affordable housing for every one. in fact I would transfer all public sector housing to a housing assocaition to run, give it power to sell off, enter into shared equity schemes etc. One of the more sensible suggestions I have seen on this forum wrt housing (the most pressing social problem on the Island imho) If we also made a housing benefit available to qualifying claimants we would then be able to empower the housing association (or even existing local authorities) to charge economic rents, not necessarily market rents. (with acknowledgement to Slim) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theskeat Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 No matter whos in Tynwald it will always be a case of. you can please some,some of the time but not all,all of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mission Posted November 24, 2006 Author Share Posted November 24, 2006 Thanks for the responses, there's quite a lot of information to digest there. @ AT / Thieawin - can I take it from your responses that you'd be interested in being a part of this if it gets off the ground? If so, when would you propose the first meeting be held? I'd certainly be interested in attending that. I have no idea if I could offer anything useful but I would certainly give the concept my full support and offer help wherever I can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 I pretty much agree with most of Thieawins objctives, though they need quantifying of course. Wouldn't a good approach be to try to form up some of this elections near misses, or even find some elected people with similar aims as a running start? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Flynn Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 Exploratory meetings are one thing. The hard part will be ensuring policies are not an amalgam of waffle with no real sense of purpose and direction. Some of the initial group will be forced to make hard choices and so I agree with Thiewin it may be that two parties will need to be formed to cover the different shades of opinion. What we don't need is a talking shop where anything goes and which attracts too many 'fringe elements'. Many 'politicians' are too independent with their own personal agendas so party discipline will be extremely difficult to control. Moreover the IOM public have shown time and time again that they have little love of parties. They tend to attract those who cannot stand on their own two feet. I am not convinced many successful politicians will really be interested but of course it will depend on who is involved and whether they have any real political standing in the community. Trying to plant an English/WelshIrish/Scottish/American system on to the IOM by people who hail from these places will not work at any election. We have our own Parliament and quite frankly most of the electorate do not wish for it to be adulterated with too many ideas from elsewhere. Unless a majority of long standing local people back reforms they will not be implemented and those who advocate them will be put in the political wilderness. Moreover coming to the table with your own ready made political agenda is a recipe for disaster. Bring ideas yes, but anyone who starts off with a whole list of their own policies will soon put others off. I saw it with the PAG - none of the core group were elected which I predicted. Lessons can be learned from the past. I suggest the history of Manx politics should be studied so that elementary mistakes are not repeated. Five years is an awful long time to spend to find out if the result of all the hard work has been worthwhile. It may well be for those who become elected politicians but what about the far greater number who will have worked for little reward? This idea is for the really dedicated only! These must be people with practical experience of politics at the sharp end not dreamers with more ideology than is acceptable to the community. Over recent months I have listened to more pipe dreams than I care to remember. I knew it at the time but was too polite to say as others seemed absolutely enthralled by wordy talkative wanabees who have now seen the result of their efforts rejected totally by the electorate. You can be too clever and in politics it is not a trait which produces votes. Maggie Thatcher knew the importance of plain speaking. Clement Atleee was a man of few words. Yet they achieved results. It is this end result which matters and if you can't produce it you are a failure and all the work will be as dust. I am saying this not to put a dampner on the idea of party formation which I fully support if it helps the IOM to progress to a reasonable democracy but to warn as a simple Manxman of dangers which I believe are relevant. You may disagree but I hope you will take on board at least some of my thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 Some of the initial group will be forced to make hard choices and so I agree with Thiewin it may be that two parties will need to be formed to cover the different shades of opinion. An interesting concept...two political parties helping each other to form in the interests of democracy and the residents of the island. However, IMO, I think (initially) a two party model would be a fatal mistake - and would lead to the inevitable failure of both. There just isn't enough people to run two parties yet, never mind to fight elections e.g. Steve Rodan had 50 volunteers helping him in his seat (and it has taken him enough time to build that sort of support). From what I am reading, we are not talking fundamental political differences here, and IMO both parties will only end up fighting over the centre ground at present. I think meeting now would be premature. Before I would attend any meetings, and to make the first meeting worthwhile, I would suggest we at least need to turn up with an outline *constitution, and a broad paragraph on direction for each major topic area (all of which could be suggested/agreed/edited by people on line) from which policies will eventually be defined by conference i.e. members voting, say, next year. We also need at least 50 people signed up to attend the first meeting. This, along with a firm agenda would make for a realistic start. If we can't get fifty people to turn up to the first meeting, we will have even less chance of getting another 50 to sign up at the ballot box. *Constitution (overall aims, direction, mission statement, rules etc. but not policies) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Flynn Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 Some of the initial group will be forced to make hard choices and so I agree with Thiewin it may be that two parties will need to be formed to cover the different shades of opinion. An interesting concept...two political parties helping each other to form in the interests of democracy and the residents of the island. However, IMO, I think (initially) a two party model would be a fatal mistake - and would lead to the inevitable failure of both. There just isn't enough people to run two parties yet, never mind to fight elections e.g. Steve Rodan had 50 volunteers helping him in his seat (and it has taken him enough time to build that sort of support). From what I am reading, we are not talking fundamental political differences here, and IMO both parties will only end up fighting over the centre ground at present. I think meeting now would be premature. Before I would attend any meetings, and to make the first meeting worthwhile, I would suggest we at least need to turn up with an outline *constitution, and a broad paragraph on direction for each major topic area (all of which could be suggested/agreed/edited by people on line) from which policies will eventually be defined by conference i.e. members voting, say, next year. We also need at least 50 people signed up to attend the first meeting. This, along with a firm agenda would make for a realistic start. If we can't get fifty people to turn up to the first meeting, we will have even less chance of getting another 50 to sign up at the ballot box. *Constitution (overall aims, direction, mission statement, rules etc. but not policies) Albert, personally I am not advocating two parties but in the course of time this may be inevitable. 50 people at the first meeting is relatively easy to achieve. Getting them to continue for 5 years is the trick but of course you know that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 Albert, personally I am not advocating two parties but in the course of time this may be inevitable. 50 people at the first meeting is relatively easy to achieve. Getting them to continue for 5 years is the trick but of course you know that! Commonsense currently screams that we offer help, support and development to Liberal Vannin. But whether that would be acceptable to most is another issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Flynn Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 My advice is start from scratch. Peter has formed his own party. No doubt he would welcome others but I believe they have to undo much before they become credible including dropping some of their people who seem to me to be from such a variety of backgrounds that they don't easily work together. Peter may in fact be one of them!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 My advice is start from scratch. Peter has formed his own party. No doubt he would welcome others but I believe they have to undo much before they become credible including dropping some of their people who seem to me to be from such a variety of backgrounds that they don't easily work together. Peter may in fact be one of them!! That is often the price of forming a party. Once the membership increases, and selection committees etc. are formed, some previous candidates could inevitably be out on their ear. It is only by increasing standards and quality that new members will ever be recruited. Otherwise you simply end up rebranding the same old poor product. There is no room for sentiment in politics, only truth and reality. Sometimes all of us, Charles, have to reconsider what is best for the 'party' - and sometimes that can mean upsetting friends or people we have supported in the past by having to inform them that their role must change e.g. from past candidate to support - especially when more capable people start to come forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Flynn Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 Yes, I agree Albert. Too much sentiment in politics is for losers. Those less capable must give way for the greater good but when this happens in the IOM these people go off, stand as Independents and quite often get elected! There must be a lesson there but I am not sure I can make sense of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ushtey Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 A lot of the feedback I received on the doors was that many people liked the LV party in principle, but either didn't know enough about it or that they were worried it was simply a vehicle for Peter. Should any future parties perhaps be headed by people not standing or already in power? Would that approach have helped the LV push this time around? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.