4 Mlc Places Next Year

[Albert Tatlock]

That's why I think if we could pull this off it would mean that for the first time there would be at least one candidate going forward with a mandate from a percentage of the public even though he or she had not been an MHK.

 

I like the idea of 'taking the initiative' and I think it would be the first time it has been done. The candidate need not be reliant on just forum votes neccessarily, canvasing for signatures could be a possibility.

I think it would be a very good idea in principle, perhaps even unique. However, there are likely to be a number of major problems which will need to be addressed, such as:

• A purely online vote will lead to the disenfranchisement of all those not on the Internet - that is certainly not democracy.
  
• If the vote were to be done on MF - sorry, but the fact is that MF-polls can be cheated - (remember voting is usually carried out in polling stations, and one of the reasons for that is to ensure that people can be identified and only vote once). An accurate, secure and fair system would have to be created, which would be difficult IMO.
  
• Even if you put something in the newspaper to allow non-internet users to send in a vote - what's stopping people buying 5 newspapers etc.
  

In fact, IMO the voting system could be so open to abuse, that even someone winning by a majority of say 200 might not actually be the true winner.

 

Personally, I think we would have to do something like get 2000 people (or as many as possible) to sign up to a 'system', giving their details name, address, telephone number etc. to someone trusted (effectively proving their identity) - and for this registration process to be verified, by say a lawyer, perhaps with each voter being given a unique number and a card - once candidate nominations had been suggested by anyone (this could be done in a local newspaper) - and candidates were contacted to confirm they would 'run'. Once registered people could then vote by sending back their card, giving their 1st, 2nd and 3rd preferences. Even this idea is full of holes though.

 

Simpler, might be best just to get another petiton on the go, or better still get 500 or more people to turn up one day demanding that MLCs should be elected.

 

Definately worth a brainstorm though.

[Topaz]

Declan, whoever we wanted to propose would have to agree first. I thought of Amadeus because he did try for the Keys. The main issue , I think, is do we want to do this? followed by how much support we would give our candidates.( If we get any).

 

Most of us, and I am one of the worst culprits, spend a lot of time criticising, but there are occasions when as a community we could seize the initiative, and attempt to put our own choice forward.

 

If we had a candidate, and we got an MHK to propose him/her, at the point when the proposer has to say why the candidate should merit the vote from the keys it would be pretty compelling if the reason was " Well, he/she has 2, 3 or 4 thousand votes from the electorate".

 

How would someone like Leonard Singer for example beat that?

[Albert Tatlock]

If we had a candidate, and we got an MHK to propose him/her, at the point when the proposer has to say why the candidate should merit the vote from the keys it would be pretty compelling if the reason was " Well, he/she has 2, 3 or 4 thousand votes from the electorate".

 

How would someone like Leonard Singer for example beat that?

He'd say - 'I'd find it just as easy to put together 500 anonymous names too!' - and dismiss it.

[Topaz]

I wasn't thinking of user names etc , Albert, I was thinking of having the courage of our convictions and doing something similar to the way the Steam packet petition was handled.

 

Actually,I was also thinking of somebody cleverer than me doing it as I don't have the organisational abilities to put it together......I'm quite good at ideas though! And I am a willing dogsbody and Jack of all trades.

[Declan]

Topaz, I agree we are getting ahead of ourselves, discussing individuals, that can later. First we need to decide whether this is a worthwhile thing to do.

 

My initial thoughts are -

 

1. why? What would the aim be?

2. Would we get an mhk to support it? Who?

 

My concerns are -

 

1. We are not a special interest group, but we are not a representative one either. I'm rather uncomfortable with a self-selecting group trying to anoint a member of Tynwald. How would we feel if the local trade unionists did the same?

2. We don't have a common point of view. We think all sorts of things. If we propose an mlc wouldn't we become associated with their policies. I think that may be to the detriment of the forum.

 

I can be convinced, but at the moment I am not. I need to see stronger arguments for doing it.

[Grianane]

I happen to know that Leonard Singer has his beady eye on one of those seats. If he doesn't get one he's trying to get onto Ramsey commissioners. Allegedly.

 

Thinks perhaps he's had his day. The fiaisco over standing for keys without resigning his legco seat, and then resigning on the election day did for him, if you can't get the basic politics right then what hope does he have. I sense he no longer has much support in Tynwald after the election.

[Naighteyr]

How many vacancies will there actually be though?

 

The sitting members will naturally have a huge advantage should they decide to allow their names to go forward for re-election, so perhaps we should really be asking whether anyone is aware that any incumbent doesn't plan to 'run' again?

[keyboarder]

whoever we wanted to propose.................................................... do we want to do this?................................................... how much support we would give our candidates.( If we get any).

 

...................................... we could seize the initiative, and attempt to put our own choice forward. (etc, etc....)

 

Who exactly are "we", and what is "our" presumably unified political agenda?

[Albert Tatlock]

whoever we wanted to propose.................................................... do we want to do this?................................................... how much support we would give our candidates.( If we get any).

 

...................................... we could seize the initiative, and attempt to put our own choice forward. (etc, etc....)

 

Who exactly are "we", and what is "our" presumably unified political agenda?

A very valid point. IMO more general universal support would be achieved on this issue by concentrating on the fundamental principle that MLCs should be elected by the public, for which already exists a perfectly functional candidate nomination and election system. Once you start getting into particular candidates you are no longer apolitical and start dividing support.

 

The speed limit debate and the resulting formation of the SID group was one example, where there were many split opinions, as was to be expected.

 

Surely the first objective should be to put the system right for everyone.

[Topaz]

Ok. Albert, Let's just sit back and wait for the already existing perfectly functional candidate nomination and election system to shake the earth with it's electrifying display of dynamic apathy.

[Albert Tatlock]

Ok. Albert, Let's just sit back and wait for the already existing perfectly functional candidate nomination and election system to shake the earth with it's electrifying display of dynamic apathy.

I didn't infer that at all.

 

Surely the first objective should be to put the system right for everyone.

[Dodger]

Forgive me if I have got this wrong, I believe that 4 positions on the LegCo are up next year. My understanding is that the usual process occurs where a well connected member of the public can find him or herself proposed and then elected by our politicians.

If there are 4 posts available, that is a significant portion of the voting strength of the Governement.

 

Geographically, this could mean that the the new MLCs are all residents in one area such as Douglas and this could create a regional bias on the Island.

 

In times gone by, we have witnessed individuals given positions of significant power who have not been elected by the public.

 

Would it be feasible to 'get in ahead of the game' and somehow demand our representatives to be open about who is nominated? Perhaps if your local MHK held a public meeting about who and why he or she was supporting and it could give some public backing to a candidate in this questionable process.

 

Any thoughts?

 

The Positive Action Group (PAG) has been championing the need for MLC's to be publically elected! There is a private members bill going through the process, though getting the goose to vote for Christmas will be very difficult! The suggestion in Tynwald/Keys is that the publically elected MLC's be done by area, North, South, East and West, this gives a potential problem of being able to afford to campaign and visit the electorate as historically the candidate must fund themselves! This could lead to super MHK's representing a larger area and therefore a larger madate?!

 

I would like to see a more open process even for the elections in February 2008, whereby those being nominated, one, have a manifesto to tell the people what their aims are and two what they can bring to the court of Tynwald. Those supporting the candidates should also give their reasons as to the nomination, same as a reference!

[Dodger]

Forgive me if I have got this wrong, I believe that 4 positions on the LegCo are up next year. My understanding is that the usual process occurs where a well connected member of the public can find him or herself proposed and then elected by our politicians.

If there are 4 posts available, that is a significant portion of the voting strength of the Governement.

 

Geographically, this could mean that the the new MLCs are all residents in one area such as Douglas and this could create a regional bias on the Island.

 

In times gone by, we have witnessed individuals given positions of significant power who have not been elected by the public.

 

Would it be feasible to 'get in ahead of the game' and somehow demand our representatives to be open about who is nominated? Perhaps if your local MHK held a public meeting about who and why he or she was supporting and it could give some public backing to a candidate in this questionable process.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Another thought, if you have to elect a MHK for the upper chamber, this would mean that you could have a proper election to replace them, with the usual candidates, manifesto's and public meetings. Then the elevated MHK would still have their election promises to uphold and the new MHK would be elected on what they propose to do.

[Topaz]

Sorry Albert, I do know what you meant. But although the existing system is in place, it just doesn't work. In the space (length?) of this thread we have moved from toying with an idea which might galvanise the serving members of the House into doing something to avoid another long winded, money consuming debacle when it comes round to MLC election issues again soon, to discussing the finer points of politics.

 

Conducting an election campaign as a candidate for the House of Keys is a demanding, costly and exhausting experience. I often wonder how those who have done this and having then been elected, feel when they see someone who has not faced the electorate. Who has not spent their own money,coming to the table sometimes only days before the election, and often in the middle of it, and throwing their hat in the ring for election to a position of power within our Parliament.

 

Another point is that our Political masters seem to be unaware of just how much 'people power' access to the internet has given us plebs. The opportunity to share ideas and opinions misguided or not is iresistable to most of us. With luck an Oak tree from a little acorn might grow.

 

BTW I'm adding the smilies in case you think I'm being aggressive.

[Albert Tatlock]

The suggestion in Tynwald/Keys is that the publically elected MLC's be done by area, North, South, East and West, this gives a potential problem of being able to afford to campaign and visit the electorate as historically the candidate must fund themselves! This could lead to super MHK's representing a larger area and therefore a larger madate?!

 

I would like to see a more open process even for the elections in February 2008, whereby those being nominated, one, have a manifesto to tell the people what their aims are and two what they can bring to the court of Tynwald. Those supporting the candidates should also give their reasons as to the nomination, same as a reference!

That proposal, seems to me, somehow designed to fail. I for one don't like the idea of 'super-MHKs' and there are built in difficulties in people having to campaign much larger areas.

 

Surely a simpler idea would be for the LC to be comprised only of elected MHKs. This could be done by:

• Three (or even six) months prior to a general election - an internal election by members of Tynwald to take place as to which existing (previously elected by the Public) MHKs go into the Legislative Council for the next period. Those people then do not face re-election by the public. This would leave the power to elect the LC in the hands of Tynwald.
  
• Existing members of the LC, effectively voted off the LC by Tynwald by internal election, are destined go back to being ordinary MHKs 3/6 months later, and have to face re-election by the public (like all the other MHKs) at the general election six months later.
  
• With this knowledge available 3/6 months prior to the next election, potential new candidates would know the full picture for the forthcoming election. This would ensure that everyone in Tynwald/LC was elected by the public at some stage.
  

If people are worried about people not facing re-election for a period that could be up to 10 years under the current electoral system, then perhaps there could be a compromise e.g. two general elections every five years (but with only half the seats/LC affected at any one time e.g. North/South) - or maybe even an election each year covering only North, East, West, South and Central MHKs respectively. This would also ensure that MLC positions were also effectively 'regionalised', a regular 'turn over' and that the LC more fairly represented all areas of the island.

 

If anyone was to die/leave office for whatever reason, then if that person was on the LC, there would be an internal Tynwald election to relect an existing MHK to replace him on the LC, and a simple by-election to elect the replacement for the MHK that rises to the LC - or just an ordinary by-election if that person who died/left was an 'ordinary MHK' not on the LC.

 

Either way, the LC would then be made up of elected MHKs and/or voted on by elected MHKs who are elected and accountable to the public. No MHK in any position (MHK or LC) would be allowed to avoid facing re-election once every five years e.g. if someone had been on the LC for 5 years, he automatically loses his place 'drops down' and has to face re-election as an MHK etc. and can't just sit and 'hide' in the LC.

 

 

 

Simpler still, just select the LC every five years from currently elected MHKs, as the constituency workload for MHKs is similar to that of a Borough councillor in the UK. If that takes the workload up to County Council levels in the UK for some of them - they'll just have to start working for a living for a change.