Lost Login Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 I do get the feeling that is why some of the MHK's are a bit "anti" the MLC candidtaes. I am not trying to belittle some of the MHK's but to get elected in the small constituencies it comes down to a local popularity contest so the local handyman or postie gets elected. There is a need for that sort of grass roots person individual in Tynwald representing the local views and issues but with all due respect to some of them they are not necessarily experienced in international affairs and business. Voting for those sort of guys as MLC's is an ideal way of getting an overall balance in Tynwald but it is also why I am not in favour of a fully elected upper house as it will be back to a local popularity contest, in effect a duplicate lower house. The upper house needs to be distinct and different otherwise you might as well only have a lower house God forbid you get anyone in that can actually provide results. They might upstage the MHK's that elected them and we couldn't have that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ushtey Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 It peeves me slightly as many of the MHKs views appear to be that you should only be electable as an MLC if you stood as an MHK and have a public mandate. This in effect means only sitting MHKs are electable as MLCs so if you want to be an MLC you must first have to stand as an MHK. It is not only MHKs who appear to share this belief as the first question to any candidate appears to be why did you not stand as an MHK with the infereence that they did not do so because they would not be electable. I wonder how they would view an MHK candidate who was unsuccessful being nominated. Oh, my mistake, Mr Singer tried. Still, maybe they should make it open nominations from constituents instead of just MHK's, say 100 names on a nomination form from three constituencies instead of the 20 for the MHK nomination. At least then there is some form of visible mandate from the public Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Kerr Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 I wonder how they would view an MHK candidate who was unsuccessful being nominated. Oh, my mistake, Mr Singer tried. Still, maybe they should make it open nominations from constituents instead of just MHK's, say 100 names on a nomination form from three constituencies instead of the 20 for the MHK nomination. At least then there is some form of visible mandate from the public Go for it Steve!! Its getting a bit embarrassing for all concerned now. The word *dignity* was erased from proceedings a few weeks back. Maybe some sort of sticker in chocolate bars is the answer? Just like the ones you needed to enter Willy W*nkers chocolate factory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 I think you've got something there! How about our own national 'Lotto'? Tickets are sold at a quid apiece and the winner gets an MLC's salary for a couple of years. They can turn up for debates if they want to (so they can claim expenses), volunteer for some of the all-expenses trips abroad, abstain from electronic voting citing 'conscience' and spoil their papers whenever a vote is carried out that way. Next time around, the salary can be paid for the full five years - making our lotto tickets even more valuable/desirable. You think that's a joke? So... what do you think their present antics are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moghrey Mie Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 I think you've got something there! How about our own national 'Lotto'? Tickets are sold at a quid apiece and the winner gets an MLC's salary for a couple of years. They can turn up for debates if they want to (so they can claim expenses), volunteer for some of the all-expenses trips abroad, abstain from electronic voting citing 'conscience' and spoil their papers whenever a vote is carried out that way.Next time around, the salary can be paid for the full five years - making our lotto tickets even more valuable/desirable. You think that's a joke? So... what do you think their present antics are? I really like the idea of a national lottery to fill this remaining place. The person who gets in will be really delighted to be there and it would be helpful to have a person who could ask a few simple questions like- 'Why are we doing that?' and 'What are the implications of bringing in this legislation?' and even 'How are we going to pay for that?' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 The national lottery seems as good as way as any but I think with the MHK's there are enough already of those to ask the why, what and how questions. I want as MLCs those who can answer those question's by reading and understanding the legislation and then critiquing it and making suggested amendments on that understanding. In my view it is that level that is missing presently in Tynwald and therefore that level that should be looking at being filled. After all the upper chamber is meant to be the reviewing & revising chamber I do not want to pick on Peter Karran but whilst I am sure he is an excellent local MHK fighting for his constituents on personnal issues I have had the missfortune to read some of the legislation he has tried to bring to the house. Specifically with regard to property and taxing second homes or developers, speculators and investors. In was embarrisingly poor. Not that it was not worded in statutory language but it was worded & drafted in a way that it would have caught within the legislation many that were not meant to be catch. I forget exactly what they were now but it was along the lines that if you owned two properties at any time when you came to sell you paid tax on the profit. This meant if when moving you overlapped for any period having two houses then you suddenly were treated as a developer. Equally if say a relative died and left you a property in the will. None of these consequences had been thought through and included so whilst I acknowledge what PK does and his place I also want others at the opposite end who could read and understand pitfalls and the consequences of legislation without it being pointed out to them. quote] I really like the idea of a national lottery to fill this remaining place. The person who gets in will be really delighted to be there and it would be helpful to have a person who could ask a few simple questions like- 'Why are we doing that?' and 'What are the implications of bringing in this legislation?' and even 'How are we going to pay for that?' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moghrey Mie Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 The national lottery seems as good as way as any but I think with the MHK's there are enough already of those to ask the why, what and how questions. I want as MLCs those who can answer those question's by reading and understanding the legislation and then critiquing it and making suggested amendments on that understanding. In my view it is that level that is missing presently in Tynwald and therefore that level that should be looking at being filled. After all the upper chamber is meant to be the reviewing & revising chamber I do not want to pick on Peter Karran but whilst I am sure he is an excellent local MHK fighting for his constituents on personnal issues I have had the missfortune to read some of the legislation he has tried to bring to the house. Specifically with regard to property and taxing second homes or developers, speculators and investors. In was embarrisingly poor. Not that it was not worded in statutory language but it was worded & drafted in a way that it would have caught within the legislation many that were not meant to be catch. I forget exactly what they were now but it was along the lines that if you owned two properties at any time when you came to sell you paid tax on the profit. This meant if when moving you overlapped for any period having two houses then you suddenly were treated as a developer. Equally if say a relative died and left you a property in the will. None of these consequences had been thought through and included so whilst I acknowledge what PK does and his place I also want others at the opposite end who could read and understand pitfalls and the consequences of legislation without it being pointed out to them. quote] I really like the idea of a national lottery to fill this remaining place. The person who gets in will be really delighted to be there and it would be helpful to have a person who could ask a few simple questions like- 'Why are we doing that?' and 'What are the implications of bringing in this legislation?' and even 'How are we going to pay for that?' I suspect they could all do with a crash course in 'How to make policy' 'How to run a meeting' 'How to listen to what other people are saying' and 'How to critique proposed legislation' etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 ... and How To Quote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theodolite Posted March 7, 2007 Author Share Posted March 7, 2007 David Cannan has accused "Mr President" of giving his views on this matter inappropriately. Manx Radio Website Irrespective of Standing Orders and rules, when Noel was the speaker, he didn't half manage to get MLC's voted in to a cushy number for 5 years. In them days I always felt he approached the matter in the manner of a school teacher telling the class that they either finish the days work or they won't be allowed to go home. Either that or he took the attitude of a farmer herding some cattle with a stick through a gate. If the candidates being offered aren't up to the job Noel, then that is tough. Change the system or admit that the whole thing is a farce. If I was voted onto LegCo by anything other than the first ballot I would be ashamed to cash my big cheque each month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
localyokel Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 Technically Tynwald have the power to vote any MHK up to Legco. To avoid the farce of the utter wasters being proposed the Speaker could say "Right, in advance of any change allowing a public vote on Legco members which one of you lot is it going to go up? If you can't decide we'll force someone up and have a bye election somewhere. You've got a week". Kills two birds with one stone: a democratically elected candidate gets appointed to Legco and this whole stupid process gets ground to a halt with some dignity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Kerr Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 Technically Tynwald have the power to vote any MHK up to Legco. To avoid the farce of the utter wasters being proposed the Speaker could say "Right, in advance of any change allowing a public vote on Legco members which one of you lot is it going to go up? If you can't decide we'll force someone up and have a bye election somewhere. You've got a week". Kills two birds with one stone: a democratically elected candidate gets appointed to Legco and this whole stupid process gets ground to a halt with some dignity. If they do I bet they go for Karran! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addie Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 As I said Maybe the 'right' person just hasn't declared yet! ...who knows who may pop up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theodolite Posted March 8, 2007 Author Share Posted March 8, 2007 This all seems rather topical with the announcement that the House of Lords is at long last to be popularly elected. Anyway, back on topic and "...who knows who may pop up..." Way back in 1998 they had a similar problem of finding a suitable person to fill a post. That one went to 5 sittings of the House of Keys and after numerous candidates being tried, tested and struck out along the way, on 12 May 1998 there emerged seemingly out of the blue, Alan Crowe (recently re-elected MLC). In December 1981 the House managed to elect George Swales on the first ballot, with the minimum of 13 votes. Only problem - if you could call it a problem - was that no one had bothered to ask him if he would like the job! Anyway, he did it and stuck it out for a year, standing down at the next the round of MLC elections the following year. (In those days you could do that sort of thing and didn't need to nominate prior to the election). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Ayres Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 What do I need to do to stand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 What do I need to do to stand? Put both feet firmly on the floor and slowly rise into an upright position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.