Sooo, Where Do We Go From Here Then?

[Declan]

No - Steve. The benefit of a political party is that you know who will form the Government and the broad thrust of their policies.

 

Currently we don't have that option. For example, I voted for Gawne on Thursday - he was a minister, so was my vote a vote for the Government. I didn't vote for Rimmington, also a minister, was that a vote against the Government?

 

The fact is I wanted to see a change of direction, an end of some of the sleazy goings on in recent years, and a less paternalistic approach. BUT neither Gawne or Rimmington were particularly responsible for these problems. So I wasn't in a position to deliver a verdict on the Gelling/Corkill years or a vote for a change.

[John Wright]

Well we have a number of choices

 

1. We sit back, do nothing, and in five yers time bemoan the fact we did nothing

 

2. We join the LV's and make them work, have a shake out and recruit some sitting memebrs, try local governemnt and get ready for 2011

 

3. We join the MLP and make it work, have a shake out and recruit some sitting members, try local governemnt and get ready for 2011.

 

4. We set up a Manx conservative party, recruit some sitting members, try local government and get ready for 2011

 

5. We turn things on the head and think outside the box, set up another party, spend time formulating a constitution, proper and costed policies, publicise, stand for local goverment attract existing sitting members and get ready for 2011.

 

For those of us who are socialists or liberals, well the basis is already there. Off you go, revitalise or they will die. Peter K and David C will be the last of their breed.

 

I'm not of a conservative bent myself so for me I rule out number 4. In fact I find 1 surprisingly attractive apart from the fact I tried it all before in the 1980's.

 

So is there a chane for a Centrist party in the IOM, adopting without right or legt or liberal dogma policies that are right for the Ilsand short, medium and long term, that will build itself, sell itself, involve the population in forming its policies etc.

 

Albert T you are wrong, so Charles are you. The time to start this is now, start small, work on a constitution and policies for 9 months, launch, have a conference to endorse or change the policies, start recruiting sitting members. The order may be slightly wrong, but the timescale of 2 yeras to public launch and then three of setting up constituency assocaiations and recruiting downwards to the grass roots. We need 5, a max of 10 for this over the next few months.

 

In 1946 and 1951 labour had 8 MHKs, how have they lost it?

 

The LV's mabe a poor start due to lack of sufficient forward planning

 

Most independents now seem to be centrists, one nation torioes or right wing labour in UK terms.

 

I am willing to give a meeting a go, not publicised for now, not large scale but planning, drfating, formulation.

[Albert Tatlock]

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?

IMHO parties should not be about personalities, but inevitably they are in this day and age, or soon become so. Just look at the three main parties in the UK general election where very many people seem to simply vote for the leaders, often ignoring the work undertaken locally by all parties. This should not be underestimated. That's perhaps why people saw LV as a vehicle for PK.

 

In all honesty, LV struck me as though it had been put together on 'the back of a fag packet', especially given the diverse range of personalities that seemed to appear as candidates. I don't think that LV did itself any good through what could only be described as a 'rushed' approach where there seemed to me to be little central control of those candidates i.e. they all seemed to sing different songs. It was more about personality and less about policies. I still couldn't tell you what I thought LV really stood for, even though I read the manifesto and website and heard their radio interviews.

 

I think a new party, or even a revamped LV, should be seen to be driven from the bottom up so to speak, so as to give those currently elected represenatives who might eventually wish to join, the confidence that they are being backed by a 'substantial organisation'. Without having that core constitution, detailed policies and a clear message - and spending several years before the next election getting that message across - and testing it out in terms of local policies e.g. town council elections - people will be wasting their time. Targetting and winning seats, and then sorting out several key issues in local town elections would say more about the capabilities of any new party than any leaflet could ever do. It is only through this approach that such a party would be capable of winning the trust and support of the general public and businesses at large.

 

Whether this is done initially seeking the 'quiet' support of several successful general election candidates, as well as some of those holding seats in local councils, is an important decision. With the backing of such candidates, I suspect that once such a party is formed, properly organised and policies debated and fine-tuned, I think it will have a far greater chance of succeeding when such representatives were willing to 'come out' and support it. I do not think they would support it, let alone sign up for it, if they thought it was just bcoming yet another 'chat organisation'.

 

For those thinking of joining such a party, they must realise that most of the work undertaken needs to be done behind the scenes. The reward being only when representatives are actually elected to vote through that carefully constructed and detailed vision. They must not forget that this can only occur with foot slogging and knocking on doors to persuade the public of that vision. None of this can be done in six months or even a year - it needs to start now, in time for 2011.

[Max Power]

The fact that government reform is well overdue seems obvious to me. No matter what the candidates manifesto may say, or what their personal beliefs, they are one voice in 24.

It seems ludicrous in this day and age to be fighting elections on constiuency issues while National issues are so much more important. This would be fine if we didn't have all these tiny local authorities to supposedly take care of local problems!

By the next election, I would like to see a party system in place and the election fought on a party manifesto which is clear and transparent. Nobody has the slightest idea where the new government are heading in their policies, so why have we really voted for the people who we have?

Also, if a consituency needs two or three members, surely that constituency should be divided into two to give a proper demographic representation for the people in that area. North Douglas is a classic case in point, two MHK's who agree on everything, but a more diverse constituency does not exist elsewhere!

 

 

edited for missed letter

[Albert Tatlock]

I am willing to give a meeting a go, not publicised for now, not large scale but planning, drfating, formulation.

I'm up for that, but first (as I mentioned earlier) I would like to see the following simple initial documents a] an outline constitutional statement text (agreed provisionally on here by those willing to attend/input), b] an outlined list of specific policy aims and objectives (each only a paragraph), and c] a list of specific aims and objectives for the meeting. Three pages in all.

 

I would suggest one approach might be to post a thread with a suggested constitutional statement (perhaps using the three main UK parties as a benchmark might be useful - and others perhaps) - and then allow people to comment/edit/suggest. Otherwise we will end up with a constitution based on the thoughts of only a few.

 

...then a series of threads discussing the best approach for, say, 10 key issues e.g. health, EU, immigration etc. At least then the first meeting would have some form of mandate.

 

I would place myself firmly in the liberal centre, but with passions for protecting the islands culture and civil liberties. You have not scared me off with too many of your beliefs.

 

At the end of the day, all at the first meeting might find many of their suggestions overturned or altered at the first conference - but hey that's politics! As long as we all start with the interests of the island at heart - I don't think we can go too badly wrong at the start.

[Declan]

Why does there have to be a meeting?

[Albert Tatlock]

Why does there have to be a meeting?

Because if we are serious about this we have to eventually physically meet to become an actual party. Parties have chairmen, treasurers, secretaries etc. and they need to fill in and sign bits of paper. You cannot have anonymous donators or members either - you have to be accountable to the public.

 

That does not stop the bulk of the topics for discussion/formalisation being debated/edited on here. However, you do have to remember that a party cannot possibly do everything openly and publically on an internet forum - otherwise differences in opinion would tear it apart and joe public would quickly lose confidence as 'annoyed of Douglas' slated every post. It is human nature that some arguments have to happen behind closed doors in order to present a united front.

 

If you are worried about anonymity, then as the party becomes larger, and as larger groups of people turn up for meetings/conferences etc. then e.g. you can come as your real self and remain as 'Declan' on here and no-one need never know.

[John Wright]

I'd rather have a meetingh or two to edge towrads the documents you want Albert, just to see if we are compatible at all,

 

no good doing it in the ether when we meet face toi face and find we cannot work together.

 

That way a draft constitution and poolicies would be more than one persons effort

 

it appears we are not far apart on the issues I've listed. Plaese list some more to see.

 

What about Steve Babb, Frank Schuengel and Mark Atherton, are they interested in building on what they have acheived?

[Snaipyr]

I'd rather have a meetingh or two to edge towrads the documents you want Albert, just to see if we are compatible at all,

 

no good doing it in the ether when we meet face toi face and find we cannot work together.

 

That way a draft constitution and poolicies would be more than one persons effort

 

it appears we are not far apart on the issues I've listed. Plaese list some more to see.

 

What about Steve Babb, Frank Schuengel and Mark Atherton, are they interested in building on what they have acheived?

 

Remind me - what did they achieve?

[Declan]

Why does there have to be a meeting?

Because if we are serious about this we have to eventually physically meet to become an actual party. Parties have chairmen, treasurers, secretaries etc. and they need to fill in and sign bits of paper. You cannot have anonymous donators or members either - you have to be accountable to the public.

 

 

Sure, eventually, when it is about the running of something tangible. But at the setting up of basic principles or policy development stage meetings will achieve nothing other than letting the flashiest talker get his way.

[Ripsaw]

 

 

Remind me - what did they achieve?

 

An inner warmth knowing they were willing to put their hats in the ring for the good of the country they live in I would imagine.

 

I'd be interested to know how you spent Thursday?

 

Maybe he was the one who asked me what I would do about a broken window in his Corpy house?

 

[sarahc]

I was quite happy with the results in my area. Time will tell if I am right to be so!

[Dave the Cardboard Box]

I'd rather have a meetingh or two to edge towrads the documents you want, just to see if we are compatible at all,

 

If you are really serious, here is the perfect document for a perfect society - no need to re-invent the wheel

 

[Charles Flynn]

Let me know when you've made your mind up. I am willing to work on this provided it's not going to be just a talking shop.

 

Now Karl Marx sounds an interesting chap. I'll look him up in Highgate sometime.

[nipper]

To be frank, it is my belief that anyone who attends a meeting with thieawin is in for a severe case of being talked at. Sorry to be a wee bit personal, but that is my belief.

 

That said, I really don't think that, for example, the one they call on this forum Albert Tatlock, is going to put up with that an awful lot of being talked to, although the 3 forum candidates might - who knows.

 

I seriously suggest they, and anyone else interested, arrange a meeting and have a jolly good tête - à - tête.

 

Then we'll ken.