nipper Posted February 18, 2008 Author Share Posted February 18, 2008 On the 28th February 2007 the term of 4 Members of the Legislative Council (MLC) is up. Pamela Crowe Clare Christian Eddie Lowey Juan Turner It is a nicely paid job for a period of 5 years and it seems all 4 are up for re-election to do their bit for our wonderful democracy. Except I don't believe it is a democracy when 3 members of the unelected Legislative Council can overturn the wishes of a large majority of the popularly elected Members of the House of Keys (MHKs). This thread gives a bit of background to an example, and especially considering it was the Speaker of the House of Keys that proposed the motion to continue with Questions, I would have thought that it would have been reasonable to concur. From the Tynwald meeting 20th November 2007 page 250 The Speaker: Mr President, I beg to move the suspension of Standing Order 3.5(2) to permit the remaining Questions for Oral Answer to be taken at 2.30 this afternoon. It is a fairly short Order Paper and I believe it would be in the public interest, sir.I move: That Standing Order 3.5(2) be suspended to permit the remaining Questions for Oral Answer to be taken at this sitting. The President: Mr Cannan, Hon. Member for Michael. Mr Karran: I beg to second and reserve my remarks. Mr Cannan: I confirm that I believe that it will be strongly in the public interest that these remaining Questions are answered, sir. The President: You are seconding, sir? Mr Cannan: Yes, sir. The President: In that case, Hon. Members, we will put it to the vote. We require 16 votes in the Keys, Hon. Members and 6 in the Council. Electronic voting resulted as follows: In the Keys – Ayes 17, Noes 5 FOR.................................................... AGAINST Mr Quirk............................................... Mr Earnshaw Mr Karran............................................. Mr Brown Mr Crookall........................................... Mr Bell Mr Anderson......................................... Mr Watterson* Mrs Craine............................................ Mr Gill Mr Quayle Mr Cannan Mr Cregeen Mr Houghton Mr Henderson Mr Malarkey Mrs Cannell Mr Braidwood Mr Corkish Mr Shimmin Mr Cretney The Speaker The Speaker: Mr President, the motion carries in the House of Keys: 17 votes for, 5 votes against. In the Council – Ayes 5, Noes 3 FOR....................................... AGAINST Mr Crowe............................... Mrs Crowe Mr Downie.............................. Mrs Christian Mr Lowey................................ Mr Waft Mr Butt Mr Turner The President: In the Council, Hon. Members, there are 5 votes for and 3 against. Therefore, Hon. Members, requiring 6 in the Council, the motion fails to carry, Hon. Members. Orders are often suspended to allow Question Time to be extended, it's no big deal, but when The Speaker of the House of Keys proposes a motion to continue along with the assertion that it would be in the Public Interest, then I would tend to agree with him. Auntie Pam and Auntie Clare know better though. I wonder will they be able to persuade 13 members of the House of Keys to re-elect them this March? Maybe you should phone your MHK to see who he/she will be voting for them . . . . . * I though it quite sweet that Juan Watterson, the upcoming young über establishment figure from the South didn't fancy an extended Question Time. Maybe he was supporting constituency neighbour Mrs Crowe in her hour of need. Mssrs Earnshaw, Brown, Bell and Gill possibly have their own reasons for their noe vote. Who knows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 I though it quite sweet that Juan Watterson, the upcoming young über establishment figure from the South didn't fancy an extended Question Time. Maybe he was supporting constituency neighbour Mrs Crowe in her hour of need. Mssrs Earnshaw, Brown, Bell and Gill possibly have their own reasons for their noe vote. Who knows? I thought you might have a point about the Post Office pensions question, but expanding the whole thing so as to suggest a conspiracy is a bit much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Thoroughly annoying as it meant that important questions like the following could not be debated: 30. The Hon Member for Garff (Mr Speaker) to ask the Chief Minister – (1) What is the Government’s policy on the biometric scanning and data capture of the personal details of citizens in the Isle of Man; and (2) does the policy include criteria for the fingerprinting of children? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nipper Posted February 18, 2008 Author Share Posted February 18, 2008 I though it quite sweet that Juan Watterson, the upcoming young über establishment figure from the South didn't fancy an extended Question Time. Maybe he was supporting constituency neighbour Mrs Crowe in her hour of need. Mssrs Earnshaw, Brown, Bell and Gill possibly have their own reasons for their noe vote. Who knows? I thought you might have a point about the Post Office pensions question, but expanding the whole thing so as to suggest a conspiracy is a bit much. No, not a conspiracy at all, please don't suggest I was angling for one. Try taking it purely on face value as I did but perhaps I should have just concentrated on the 3 noe votes in the Legislative Council rather than overspilling my wonder into the Keys. The majority of the House of Keys wanted the questions to be asked. Why did the 3 members of the Legislative Council vote against the motion? It is widely believed there were questions arising regarding a matter that might have caused some embarrassment. Perhaps even a matter in the Public Interest but obviously what interests one person is piffle to another, depending on what side your bread is buttered, obviously. In this case the desire of 3 unelected members was enough to go against the desires of 17 members of the democratically elected House. Conspiracy - pahh!, no need for theories there our kid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodger Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Nominations close at 5pm this Friday...........who wants a go! Speak to your MHK to get nominated....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 In view of the introduction of the Human Rights Act 2001 and of the Tribunals Act 2005 and in view of the numerous bodies including Government and local authorities and other public authorities from whose decisions or actions there is no right of appeal or review, would you agree with me that the time is ripe for the setting up in the Island of an office of Ombudsman and the appointment of an Ombudsman for the Isle of Man to act as a Parliamentary Commissioner, Local Government Ombudsman, Police Complaints Ombudsman and to subsume into his office other Ombudsman powers currently exercised by appointees of a number of Government Departments and Statutory Boards under Ombudsman complaint and compensation schemes? That was a wriiten question of 119 words in a single sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moghrey Mie Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 On the 28th February 2007 the term of 4 Members of the Legislative Council (MLC) is up. Pamela Crowe Clare Christian Eddie Lowey Juan Turner It is a nicely paid job for a period of 5 years and it seems all 4 are up for re-election to do their bit for our wonderful democracy. Except I don't believe it is a democracy when 3 members of the unelected Legislative Council can overturn the wishes of a large majority of the popularly elected Members of the House of Keys (MHKs). This thread gives a bit of background to an example, and especially considering it was the Speaker of the House of Keys that proposed the motion to continue with Questions, I would have thought that it would have been reasonable to concur. From the Tynwald meeting 20th November 2007 page 250 The Speaker: Mr President, I beg to move the suspension of Standing Order 3.5(2) to permit the remaining Questions for Oral Answer to be taken at 2.30 this afternoon. It is a fairly short Order Paper and I believe it would be in the public interest, sir.I move: That Standing Order 3.5(2) be suspended to permit the remaining Questions for Oral Answer to be taken at this sitting. The President: Mr Cannan, Hon. Member for Michael. Mr Karran: I beg to second and reserve my remarks. Mr Cannan: I confirm that I believe that it will be strongly in the public interest that these remaining Questions are answered, sir. The President: You are seconding, sir? Mr Cannan: Yes, sir. The President: In that case, Hon. Members, we will put it to the vote. We require 16 votes in the Keys, Hon. Members and 6 in the Council. Electronic voting resulted as follows: In the Keys – Ayes 17, Noes 5 FOR.................................................... AGAINST Mr Quirk............................................... Mr Earnshaw Mr Karran............................................. Mr Brown Mr Crookall........................................... Mr Bell Mr Anderson......................................... Mr Watterson* Mrs Craine............................................ Mr Gill Mr Quayle Mr Cannan Mr Cregeen Mr Houghton Mr Henderson Mr Malarkey Mrs Cannell Mr Braidwood Mr Corkish Mr Shimmin Mr Cretney The Speaker The Speaker: Mr President, the motion carries in the House of Keys: 17 votes for, 5 votes against. In the Council – Ayes 5, Noes 3 FOR....................................... AGAINST Mr Crowe............................... Mrs Crowe Mr Downie.............................. Mrs Christian Mr Lowey................................ Mr Waft Mr Butt Mr Turner The President: In the Council, Hon. Members, there are 5 votes for and 3 against. Therefore, Hon. Members, requiring 6 in the Council, the motion fails to carry, Hon. Members. Orders are often suspended to allow Question Time to be extended, it's no big deal, but when The Speaker of the House of Keys proposes a motion to continue along with the assertion that it would be in the Public Interest, then I would tend to agree with him. Auntie Pam and Auntie Clare know better though. I wonder will they be able to persuade 13 members of the House of Keys to re-elect them this March? Maybe you should phone your MHK to see who he/she will be voting for them . . . . . * I though it quite sweet that Juan Watterson, the upcoming young über establishment figure from the South didn't fancy an extended Question Time. Maybe he was supporting constituency neighbour Mrs Crowe in her hour of need. Mssrs Earnshaw, Brown, Bell and Gill possibly have their own reasons for their noe vote. Who knows? Perhaps Noel Cringle was going beyond his brief. 'We will put it to the vote' is sufficient. But to say 'We require 16 votes in the keys and 6 in the Council' is rather leading them on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 On the 28th February 2007 the term of 4 Members of the Legislative Council (MLC) is up. Pamela Crowe Clare Christian Eddie Lowey Juan Turner It is a nicely paid job for a period of 5 years and it seems all 4 are up for re-election to do their bit for our wonderful democracy. Except I don't believe it is a democracy when 3 members of the unelected Legislative Council can overturn the wishes of a large majority of the popularly elected Members of the House of Keys (MHKs). This thread gives a bit of background to an example, and especially considering it was the Speaker of the House of Keys that proposed the motion to continue with Questions, I would have thought that it would have been reasonable to concur. From the Tynwald meeting 20th November 2007 page 250 The Speaker: Mr President, I beg to move the suspension of Standing Order 3.5(2) to permit the remaining Questions for Oral Answer to be taken at 2.30 this afternoon. It is a fairly short Order Paper and I believe it would be in the public interest, sir.I move: That Standing Order 3.5(2) be suspended to permit the remaining Questions for Oral Answer to be taken at this sitting. The President: Mr Cannan, Hon. Member for Michael. Mr Karran: I beg to second and reserve my remarks. Mr Cannan: I confirm that I believe that it will be strongly in the public interest that these remaining Questions are answered, sir. The President: You are seconding, sir? Mr Cannan: Yes, sir. The President: In that case, Hon. Members, we will put it to the vote. We require 16 votes in the Keys, Hon. Members and 6 in the Council. Electronic voting resulted as follows: In the Keys – Ayes 17, Noes 5 FOR.................................................... AGAINST Mr Quirk............................................... Mr Earnshaw Mr Karran............................................. Mr Brown Mr Crookall........................................... Mr Bell Mr Anderson......................................... Mr Watterson* Mrs Craine............................................ Mr Gill Mr Quayle Mr Cannan Mr Cregeen Mr Houghton Mr Henderson Mr Malarkey Mrs Cannell Mr Braidwood Mr Corkish Mr Shimmin Mr Cretney The Speaker The Speaker: Mr President, the motion carries in the House of Keys: 17 votes for, 5 votes against. In the Council – Ayes 5, Noes 3 FOR....................................... AGAINST Mr Crowe............................... Mrs Crowe Mr Downie.............................. Mrs Christian Mr Lowey................................ Mr Waft Mr Butt Mr Turner The President: In the Council, Hon. Members, there are 5 votes for and 3 against. Therefore, Hon. Members, requiring 6 in the Council, the motion fails to carry, Hon. Members. Orders are often suspended to allow Question Time to be extended, it's no big deal, but when The Speaker of the House of Keys proposes a motion to continue along with the assertion that it would be in the Public Interest, then I would tend to agree with him. Auntie Pam and Auntie Clare know better though. I wonder will they be able to persuade 13 members of the House of Keys to re-elect them this March? Maybe you should phone your MHK to see who he/she will be voting for them . . . . . * I though it quite sweet that Juan Watterson, the upcoming young über establishment figure from the South didn't fancy an extended Question Time. Maybe he was supporting constituency neighbour Mrs Crowe in her hour of need. Mssrs Earnshaw, Brown, Bell and Gill possibly have their own reasons for their noe vote. Who knows? Perhaps Noel Cringle was going beyond his brief. 'We will put it to the vote' is sufficient. But to say 'We require 16 votes in the keys and 6 in the Council' is rather leading them on. No Noel was doing his job down to the exact brief, this was not a 1st past the post voe but one where there has to be a 2/3 majority in favour to suspend standing orders. it is right to warn. However what is wrong is that when Tynwald sits as Tynwald the two branches vote separately. They should vote as one body in Tynwald assembled. That woud be 22 in favour and 8 against and with voting strength being 33 just a scrape home. If everything was deabted in Tynwakd as one body it would n't matter that there were differences in the powers of MLC/MHK's in the legislative process. That would only arise when the branches sat to consider legislation and there was a dispute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.