Albert Tatlock Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 From MR: Malarkey's bill questioned (with audio clip). Donald Gelling says that he is worried about this because MLCs are some of the most hardworking members of Tynwald and 'don't have constituents as such' so they can devote their time to representing the Isle of Man with a 'totally independent mind'. What codswallop. No one should represent the people without being elected. I know there have been damn good MLCs in the past, but there have also been damn bad ones IMO - all of whom operated, or currently operate, without our remit. Where's the rocket science required to understand that in a supposed democracy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 I never considered the role of MLCs to be to represent the people anyway, rather they should be there to scrutinise legislation proposed and past by the Keys. I personally agree that there is value in having a house in the Tynwald that doesn't have to be concerned with being re-elected. It is a short-sighted move by Malarky anyway. Since the LC is seemingly destined to be elected, excluding them from holding ministerial posts or voting on the Chief Minister (a position for which I think there is a much more pressing need to be popularly elected) will only turn them into a body hostile towards the Keys in long term, except with popular legitimacy. Even in the short-term, weakening the LC will only discourage more competant individuals from applying for a role they can't get people to do as it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharp Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 MLCs should be voted in by the people and not the old boys club. MLCs should have the role of being independant, to act as a watchdog over the Keys and the policies that they may make. MLCs should not be allowed to vote on the Chief Minister or be elected as a Minister. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 It would be better, perhaps, to recommend that anyone who is not directly elected by universal suffrage should not be able to become a minister or chief minister which would allow for any future changes to the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 It would be better, perhaps, to recommend that anyone who is not directly elected by universal suffrage should not be able to become a minister or chief minister which would allow for any future changes to the system. Well that's entirely the point, but it's a bit of a chicken and egg situation where you need those with those powers to approve the removal of those powers, as I understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 I'd rather the MLC was taken over by pensioners which would save an absolute fortune. But then again, it won't happen, as the loss of the 'gravy train' would cause a massive panic in the Old Boy Network Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 I'd rather the MLC was taken over by pensioners which would save an absolute fortune. You're so right! We could have people Like Eddie Lowey, George Waft, Alan Crowe.... errrm, wait a minute..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 There is stale mate on the legislation to make the Council democratically elected, the MLC's will not agree anything the Keys have put up so far and the Keys do not want to create a body which can challenge their claim to have the only democratic mandate. Malarkeys Bill is not expected, even by him, to pass but to bring things to a point where they can agree soenmthing, and the threat oif taking away privileges is a big threat to MLC's I see no problems with the following, bearing in mind that Tynwald is our Government All members of Trynwald be popularly elected All members of Tynwald can stand for and vote for any ministerial position All debate on policy and finances is in Tynwald with no differentiation between Keys and Council For legislation only Tynwald divides into Keys and Council with Council having limited powers of amending or refusal or delay Keys to have 8 x 3 seat constituencies elected every 5 years and Council to have the same constituencies with one member each elected half way through life of each Keys for 5 years No Bishop AG to sit ex officio with no vote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 Seconded Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Ayres Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 Sounds like it could work, now to get it past the MLCs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 Keys to have 8 x 3 seat constituencies elected every 5 years and Council to have the same constituencies with one member each elected half way through life of each Keys for 5 years But who then represents the people of, say, Onchan? Surely it is preferable to have one member per consituency? Then you have the problem of whether the LegCo member represents their interests more or less. Under your system, they would almost certainly have more votes than the leading MHK. To be honest though, I can't think of an easier system.The alternatives I came up with are two rounds of voting, where the top four candidates (in a national vote) go through, then there is a second round where everyone votes again on the remaining candidates. Or you could have a system where everyone picks their top eight on a single ballot. You will also have conflict in Tynwald debates if the LegCo is empowered only to amend or refuse legislation, as that effectively makes the Keys the sole legislating body. If this power is limited, as is nominally the case in the UK under the Parliament Act, then the Keys is under no obligation to actually alter legislation, and would have to wait, say a year, and then put it through again. In effect then the LegCo might just become a stalling body, especially if the CoMin consists solely of Keys. If the LegCo is constituency based, then I can't see what the candidates would write on their manifesto beyond 'I will go to great lengths to analyse any legislation that passes through the Council and amend it if necessary' The LegCo, if it is function effectively, needs to have its own responsibilities. For example, it could be given responsibility for finance, the economy, business and tourism, with the Keys concerned with health, social care, education (basically everything else). Each then, through the Tynwald, would act as a brake on the other. Also there would be an elected First Minister who would hold the President's casting vote power be responsible for (an elected on the basis of) forming the Government's overall policy. Constitutional settlements are much harder to work out than I thought they would be when I started writing this post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarahc Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 Nice bit of navel-gazing Malarkey, and you're only a newbie! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 You will also have conflict in Tynwald debates if the LegCo is empowered only to amend or refuse legislation, as that effectively makes the Keys the sole legislating body. ...Constitutional settlements are much harder to work out than I thought they would be when I started writing this post. It's an interesting one about having a council or chamber that can reject legislation, and how this should be within a democratic system. Just because representatives are democratically elected does not mean they will always be beyond reproach as is sometimes portrayed. It's a cliche to say Hitler was democratically elected, but more recently in Fiji the government tried to introduce apartheid legislation discriminating between native Fijians and Indian descent Fijians. This led to the recent military coup, which in many ways was warranted by what might have been an internationally criminal act had this gone through. Personally I'm in favour of a 'constitutional backstop' of some kind which is non-military - a body that reviews whether the legislation is 'constitutional' in a sense, who may debate and consider any bill, but perhaps only refuse that which infringes human rights, international humanitarian law and democratic principles. These need not be elected, but if there is a rift between the legislature and council, it should perhaps go to a referendum. Just a thought... What I'd really like to see in a government is the ability to 'de-elect' elected representatives - i.e. if a majority of their constituents petitioned for their removal they would have to resign. This would make them a lot more accountable rather than being interested in the electorate only every 5 years or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 Keys to have 8 x 3 seat constituencies elected every 5 years and Council to have the same constituencies with one member each elected half way through life of each Keys for 5 years Marginally better than the current system, but still not remotely democratic. It would not encourage me to change my mind, after last time's debacle, stop boycotting this corrupt electoral system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
%age Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 Keys to have 8 x 3 seat constituencies elected every 5 years and Council to have the same constituencies with one member each elected half way through life of each Keys for 5 years So - what is it best to be then? An MHK elected with a couple of pals who will be more or less equal or an MLC (aka 'super MHK') elected on your todd in the identical constituency? The existing system is hardly perfect but if it isn't broken toooo much and as long as we are still managing to lift a helluva lot of cash from the UK and allow lots of dodgy doings to be covered up and all that . . . . . don't try to fix it. I would suggest the only correct answer is for us to become a County of the UK and elect a single MP. I would laugh my tits right off because there would all of a sudden be a few thousand Civil Servants and Parasitic Lawyers and Consultants and Politicians and...and...and... all of a sudden without a huge big pension providing holiday enhancing wonga stashing Cash Cow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.