Election Looming For Two Places On Legislative Council

[Charles Flynn]

You assume Peter reads this Forum Theo. He doesn't as he is a very busy person.

 

Peter is a nice chap. He is intelligent, quick witted and does look at the detail. One of the Forum members made out he would get lost in the detail. I know from many years of charity work with Peter that this remark is so untrue. Peter is the one person I could name who looks at the detail of everything with which he is involved.

 

However having said all this I believe Legco to have legitimacy must have a real democrativc mandate from the public. I do not understand why anyone would co-operate with these elections by allowing their names to be put forward but of course there probably are good reasons. I just can't think of any!

[John Wright]

You assume Peter reads this Forum Theo. He doesn't as he is a very busy person.

 

Peter is a nice chap. He is intelligent, quick witted and does look at the detail. One of the Forum members made out he would get lost in the detail. I know from many years of charity work with Peter that this remark is so untrue. Peter is the one person I could name who looks at the detail of everything with which he is involved.

 

However having said all this I believe Legco to have legitimacy must have a real democrativc mandate from the public. I do not understand why anyone would co-operate with these elections by allowing their names to be put forward but of course there probably are good reasons. I just can't think of any!

 

 

I think you misunderstand lost in the detail. I know nothing i stoo complicated for Peter to bore down to the umpeenth level digging out more and more detail but the he loses sight, in my view of the bigger picture because he is lost with the devil in the detail

[Addie]

To be honest, John, if they stood for the Keys and failed, they do not have a mandate. Nor do they have a mandate if they didn't stand for the Keys.

 

If they stood for the Keys years ago, it seem irrelevant if they failed or not as they didn't stand this time, and again, they do not have a mandate.

 

If they're really nice chaps, again, irrelevant.

 

If they were sick and are now well, I'm delighted to hear it, but it doesn't give them a mandate.

 

It's time all politicians were elected by the public.

 

 

Alan Crowe stood down voluntarily from Legco after being taken ill. He has now recovered. Never rejected by the electorate or the Keys

 

Charles Cain was an MHK. I think Irecall if he stood down because of ill health in 1986ctorate. He has previously been nominated for Council and not got in. Previously rejected by the Keys

 

 

Adrian Duggan has just stood down from Keys, he has not lost an election. I am surprised I understood that he had health grounds for his decision. He has been nominated before but not eected. Is it confirmed he has dropped out.

 

Mr Singer having spent a relatively short period in the Keys went to the Council and decided to stand down to face the electorate again, he failed, there can be no justification for electing him.

 

That leaves 2 non politicians

 

1. Peter Kelly, never held elected public ofice. Nice guy and I like his expression of view on Legco elections. may tend to get a little lost in the detail.

 

2. John Lightfoot I do not know, but he didn't seek a mandate at the Peel election two months ago, so why does he think he is ready for the national stage now

 

Link mem bers of keys since 1417 http://www.tynwald.org.im/keys/1417-chronological.shtml

[Albert Tatlock]

To be honest, John, if they stood for the Keys and failed, they do not have a mandate. Nor do they have a mandate if they didn't stand for the Keys.

 

If they stood for the Keys years ago, it seem irrelevant if they failed or not as they didn't stand this time, and again, they do not have a mandate.

 

If they're really nice chaps, again, irrelevant.

 

If they were sick and are now well, I'm delighted to hear it, but it doesn't give them a mandate.

 

It's time all politicians were elected by the public.

Well said.

[teapot]

John Lightfoot Peel commissioner and failed business man - not very useful. Wasn'te he formally Legends Travel! Now in with Street Heritage and Jonathan Irving!#

 

I think your thinking of John Shakespeare who would seem to fit the description but not the name.

 

My abject apologies to Mr Lightfoot - you are right I was thinking of John Shakespeare!

[Moghrey Mie]

To be honest, John, if they stood for the Keys and failed, they do not have a mandate. Nor do they have a mandate if they didn't stand for the Keys.

 

If they stood for the Keys years ago, it seem irrelevant if they failed or not as they didn't stand this time, and again, they do not have a mandate.

 

If they're really nice chaps, again, irrelevant.

 

If they were sick and are now well, I'm delighted to hear it, but it doesn't give them a mandate.

 

It's time all politicians were elected by the public.

Well said.

 

 

Well said indeed.

And if they are supposed to be representing us why haven't we been invited to the 'hustings' meeting that David Cannan has arranged for them on Friday

As soon as they are 'elected' they will claim to be representing the people of Ramsey, Douglas or the West etc.

[Charles Flynn]

You assume Peter reads this Forum Theo. He doesn't as he is a very busy person.

 

Peter is a nice chap. He is intelligent, quick witted and does look at the detail. One of the Forum members made out he would get lost in the detail. I know from many years of charity work with Peter that this remark is so untrue. Peter is the one person I could name who looks at the detail of everything with which he is involved.

 

However having said all this I believe Legco to have legitimacy must have a real democrativc mandate from the public. I do not understand why anyone would co-operate with these elections by allowing their names to be put forward but of course there probably are good reasons. I just can't think of any!

 

 

I think you misunderstand lost in the detail. I know nothing i stoo complicated for Peter to bore down to the umpeenth level digging out more and more detail but the he loses sight, in my view of the bigger picture because he is lost with the devil in the detail

 

 

Thanks for explaining. You could well be right about this.

 

However to be clear, I do not accept that people with no public mandate should be representing us no matter who they are.

[lisner]

Well maybe our MHKs think likewise and will not vote at all. There needs to be a change and maybe it has to be forced.

 

I note there is a reappearance of serial candidates again.

 

Considering that half a dozen votes in Tynwald from the Legislative Council, can over-rule and kick out a motion that has just been agreed by the Keys, we are dealing with potentially powerful people here.

[Moghrey Mie]

You assume Peter reads this Forum Theo. He doesn't as he is a very busy person.

 

Peter is a nice chap. He is intelligent, quick witted and does look at the detail. One of the Forum members made out he would get lost in the detail. I know from many years of charity work with Peter that this remark is so untrue. Peter is the one person I could name who looks at the detail of everything with which he is involved.

 

However having said all this I believe Legco to have legitimacy must have a real democrativc mandate from the public. I do not understand why anyone would co-operate with these elections by allowing their names to be put forward but of course there probably are good reasons. I just can't think of any!

 

 

I think you misunderstand lost in the detail. I know nothing i stoo complicated for Peter to bore down to the umpeenth level digging out more and more detail but the he loses sight, in my view of the bigger picture because he is lost with the devil in the detail

 

 

Thanks for explaining. You could well be right about this.

 

However to be clear, I do not accept that people with no public mandate should be representing us no matter who they are.

 

 

Does that include the bishop?

[John Wright]

I don't accept that the representative of any religion or denomination should have a seat ex officio

 

I agree direct elections are necessary

 

So that leaves the AG

 

Why should he ahdve a job for life, staying when the government changes. isn't it about time it was a five year fixed term appointment by each incoming government

[Charles Flynn]

You assume Peter reads this Forum Theo. He doesn't as he is a very busy person.

 

Peter is a nice chap. He is intelligent, quick witted and does look at the detail. One of the Forum members made out he would get lost in the detail. I know from many years of charity work with Peter that this remark is so untrue. Peter is the one person I could name who looks at the detail of everything with which he is involved.

 

However having said all this I believe Legco to have legitimacy must have a real democrativc mandate from the public. I do not understand why anyone would co-operate with these elections by allowing their names to be put forward but of course there probably are good reasons. I just can't think of any!

 

 

I think you misunderstand lost in the detail. I know nothing i stoo complicated for Peter to bore down to the umpeenth level digging out more and more detail but the he loses sight, in my view of the bigger picture because he is lost with the devil in the detail

 

I knew someone would bring that up.

 

The people must decide. I am biased as I am a member of the C of E and I believe the present Bishop is on the whole a voice of reason but of course he is not elected by the people. I would give him my vote if he stood for election but as this is unlikely the Church as a whole will have to make a good case for him retaining his vote or having a seat with no vote. The grounds would be tradition, a moral voice, someone who represents faith, heritage, culture, the retention of a Sodor & Man Bishop etc. Against of course he is not elected by public vote.

 

I welcome a Tynwald debate on this issue and on the rest of Legco.

 

 

Thanks for explaining. You could well be right about this.

 

However to be clear, I do not accept that people with no public mandate should be representing us no matter who they are.

 

 

Does that include the bishop?

[Addie]

So that leaves the AG. Why should he ahdve a job for life, staying when the government changes. isn't it about time it was a five year fixed term appointment by each incoming government

Isn't he supposed to be above politics? If 'Government' (what precisely do you mean by that btw?) appoints a new one every 5 years, that could make that person rather more political in posture.

 

The 'government', or preferably the Keys, could take part in a vote of confidence if that were allowed. There could also be one for the Chief Constable and other leading official appointees - including LegCo until the system becomes more democratic. The politicians only being allowed a vote if they used it correctly of course.

 

From lisener

Considering that half a dozen votes in Tynwald from the Legislative Council, can over-rule and kick out a motion that has just been agreed by the Keys, we are dealing with potentially powerful people here.

 

Scary stuff.

[Moghrey Mie]

I don't accept that the representative of any religion or denomination should have a seat ex officio

 

I agree direct elections are necessary

 

So that leaves the AG

 

Why should he ahdve a job for life, staying when the government changes. isn't it about time it was a five year fixed term appointment by each incoming government

 

 

At least the AG doesn't have a vote and he has the decency not to take part in general debates.

He occasionally gives guidance when invited to do so unlike the bishop who likes to have his say and vote.

[lisner]

From lisener

Considering that half a dozen votes in Tynwald from the Legislative Council, can over-rule and kick out a motion that has just been agreed by the Keys, we are dealing with potentially powerful people here.

 

Scary stuff.

 

AFAIK if a motion is passed in the Keys but fails in the Legislative Council, then the motion can be brought back into the House at a later sitting to be voted by Tynwald as a whole. The Keys would then need 17 of its members to get the motion passed, ie. a majority of 24 Keys + 9 Legislative Council.

 

As far as I remember, the last time this mechanism was going to be used was in the National Speed Limit debate where the vote went 10-10 in the Keys and lost by one vote in the Council. John Shimmin asked if he could recall th emotion in a future vote with Tynwald voting as a body. Standing Orders only allowed this if the vote lost in the Jeys whereas in fact it didn't lose it, er, drew! So it was disallowed. That particular motion lost by the very narrowest of margins. I assume the irresponsible speed freaks aren't bothered about political stuff and won't read this thread, but I hope they realise how very close we were to have a 60mph limit imposed on this Island. I did my bit for freedom........

 

Regarding the AG (that is to say Her Majesty's Attorney General), it sometimes makes you wonder why the Isle of Man doesn't elect the AG along with the Deemsters too. Sounds crazy? Well judges in the USA have to run for election, I don't see why the rather dubious club should be allowed to foist some of their blue eyed boys into our system.

 

Please ignore the last paragraph JW, but do I detect you'd quite like a term as AG....

[ponderer]

http://www.manxradio.com/ReadItem.aspx?ID=...mp;cate=General

 

I note that Peter Kelly would "welcome public vote for LegCo".

 

It all sounds very good and popularist but I wish he had suggested and discussed an alternative system,

 

Perhaps 8 constituencies with 1 member each and with elections every 7 years so that the mandate is not as strong as the Keys where elections are every 5 years?

 

Its encouraging that there is momentum building for upper chamber reform, but the challenge will be to build wide support around a particular alternative. Very difficult. Presumably those with most to lose from reform will help make it even more difficult!

 

If Legco is to become directly elected it is crucial that it does not get dominated by one particlar town or area and that it is not given a mandate which results in a power struggle with the Keys. Beyond that, some serious work needs to be done to identify an alternative which can attract widespread support.

 

What do the LegCo candidates think about this?

 

 

 

Whatever the system which eventually emerges