Addie Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 Article from Manx Radio's website. The Constitution Bill has been given a third reading in the House of Keys, with members voting by the narrow margin of 13-11 in favour. In a surprise move, MHKs backed an amendment from Onchan member Peter Karran, which proposed the creation of eight, four seat constituencies in the planned 32 member elected Tynwald. The previous suggestion had been for 16 constituencies, with two members each. The historic vote will be seen as a notable achievement by Garff MHK, Steve Rodan, who steered the Bill through in the face of strong opposition. He wound up the debate with a robust speech, which helped secure the ground-breaking decision. The Constitution Bill will now be considered by the Legislative Council. I wonder how and if this will affect the Isle of Man? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 It still has to pass through the Legislative Council,where it will no doubt be amended,then go to Tynwald,where again anything can be amended. So the final bill could be quite different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripsaw Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 Why all the pratting about? Oh of course, attendance allowences for comittees and sub committees. If they wanted to reform the Election/Representation why not have one election for 32 places with voters selecting upto 5 names from a list of all those standing. The theory is that MHKs represent the Isle of Man, so why limit the number of representatives for specific areas? What if Ramsey had 5 people wishing to become MHKs and all them were more suitable than the two unopposed candidates in another 'area' or the 3 dumbasses fighting for 2 seats elsewhere? The Island misses out because of the candidates location as opposed to their ability. History dictates the current election methods (well, sort of), any chance of a bit of logic now and again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addie Posted November 25, 2004 Author Share Posted November 25, 2004 I agree. The island is too small to have so many seperate area representatives. Surely time for all island elections with all manifestos in one book and everyone being able to vote for anyone. Apart from which, with this nonsensical ministerial system, if your man (or woman) isn't a minister, they aren't as well briefed or as powerful, therefore you are somewhat disenfranchised. Not clear, not fair and not democratic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripsaw Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 All Island Rates, Bin the Commissioners/councillors in favour of a single Ammenities & Services Board and an all Island election for the Government. Equality in the payments for services and equality in the services that we receive. Either that or abolish rates as we know them and devise a "User Pays" system (no thanks). So goddam simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addie Posted November 25, 2004 Author Share Posted November 25, 2004 So goddam simple. That's why it'll never see the light of day ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speckled Frost Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 I agree the whole political system needs simplifying but I don't agree with abolishing commissioners for an amenities and services board. I feel commissioners provide the opportunity for democracy to work at grass roots level even if, what they deal with, appears trivial. It also provides an opportunity for potential MHKs to test the political water and get a grounding for how politics works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 I agree with Speckled frost in that we should keep our own commissioners but I am also in favour of all-Island elections. And what exactly is wrong with the way we pay our rates now? I'm perfectly happy with it, isn't it obvious that thos who live in areas with more amenities should be charged more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallybug Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 And what exactly is wrong with the way we pay our rates now? I'm perfectly happy with it, isn't it obvious that thos who live in areas with more amenities should be charged more? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> As long as you pay the extra to use those amenities when you are in that area Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy camper Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 And what exactly is wrong with the way we pay our rates now? I'm perfectly happy with it, isn't it obvious that thos who live in areas with more amenities should be charged more? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> As long as you pay the extra to use those amenities when you are in that area <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Like residents' discount cards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 All Island Rates, Bin the Commissioners/councillors in favour of a single Ammenities & Services Board and an all Island election for the Government. Equality in the payments for services and equality in the services that we receive. Either that or abolish rates as we know them and devise a "User Pays" system (no thanks). So goddam simple. Now I'm confused. I think that these issue are surely covered by the Local Government Reform proposals - I've started a different thread about that issue here. I believe (but may be wrong) that this thread is confusing issues which relate to local government with issues which relate to the national government. Rates are a matter for local authorities - though, currently, many of the authorities have their rates collected by the Treasury. Some might argue that we have no need for more than a single level of government. I wonder whether this thread is confusing National Electoral Reform with Local Government Reform. The two different issues have been news simultaneously. EDIT: to be clear - issues relating to the rates, local services and to the division of areas for local government are being addressed by the DOLGE proposals for Local Government Reform. The initial post in this thread addresses different issues which relate to the election of MHKs. These are two different subjects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripsaw Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 I wonder whether this thread is confusing National Electoral Reform with Local Government Reform. The two different issues have been news simultaneously. The two items are seperate, I just threw them together as I am of the opinion that the beurocracy (sp?) should be thinned out to the bone. If we were an Island 4 or 5 times the physical size and population I could understand to an extent some justification for multi levels of Government, but the whole Island is "local" and could/should be run far more efficiently. Multiple levels, and within that multiple zones creates inequalities beyond that of city, town, village etc., these inequalities are there for all to see. I'm not saying that Port Erin or Ramsey should be treated exactly the same as Douglas, each has it's own pros and cons, but so many resources could be shared that would save money for the taxpayer. Rip's almost legendary analogy alert!!... Think of multilevel government a bit like the footpaths round Douglas centre... Wind a route of only 100 yards in any direction and you cover 20 different surface types, colours and levels of maintenaince. (You can stop "huh'ing" now ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 Nope... even I'm Huh'ing at the last sentence. Lost(ish) x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripsaw Posted November 27, 2004 Share Posted November 27, 2004 A lack of consistency or cohesion. What is applied in one area has nothing in common with the adjacent area and sends out a message of confusion and a lack of co-ordination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addie Posted November 27, 2004 Author Share Posted November 27, 2004 and sends out a message of confusion Erm ... ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.