Ripsaw Posted November 27, 2004 Share Posted November 27, 2004 *Sighs * I know what I mean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addie Posted November 27, 2004 Author Share Posted November 27, 2004 Or think of well organised multilevel government a bit like a Moussaka. Each layer offering different qualities. A layer of ground lamb or beef in a rich sauce, highly flavoured and satisfying. Above that some sliced aubergines offering a little something here for the veggies. Then a cheese or bechamel sauce, creamy and fairly bland. Finally the sprinkled cheese on the top adds a tangy little crust. The whole being baked in a stout earthernware dish forming a coherent and satisfying meal. Clear? No, it's all Greek to me too. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripsaw Posted November 27, 2004 Share Posted November 27, 2004 Addie, thank you with all my heart. There I was worrying that I had begun to loose the plot and all the time there was at one person on my level already waiting for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shamus Posted November 28, 2004 Share Posted November 28, 2004 So at present they have decided in the Keys to have 8 areas with 4 candidates in each to be elected to Tynwald. Then 8 people will form the Legislative Committee and the rest the House of keys. Why not just have one area as Ripsaw suggested and have a 32 seat Tynwald. And why bother with a House of keys or a Legislative Committee? From Tynwald they could elect a Council of Ministers and not have any other department members clinging to them so Tynwald numerically has the over all power. In addition the members of the Council of Ministers should get no extra pay so they do the job out of conviction and not fiscal gain. Let the Attorney General be an ex-officio member of Tynwald to give legal advice but the Bishop should not have any part of it. The Church and state must be seperated in the true interests of democracy. The present Bishop is quite a good guy but he could do more by hammering away from the pulpit that having lunch in the den. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addie Posted November 28, 2004 Author Share Posted November 28, 2004 Or, cheap as chips option, why not just have one person in Westminster? Or maybe two, one to suck up to new labour and one to suck up to any opposition. For maximum representaion he/she/it should be a tennis player to have the odd little knock-about with Blair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCMR Posted November 28, 2004 Share Posted November 28, 2004 So at present they have decided in the Keys to have 8 areas with 4 candidates in each to be elected to Tynwald. Then 8 people will form the Legislative Committee and the rest the House of keys. Why not just have one area as Ripsaw suggested and have a 32 seat Tynwald. And why bother with a House of keys or a Legislative Committee? From Tynwald they could elect a Council of Ministers and not have any other department members clinging to them so Tynwald numerically has the over all power. In addition the members of the Council of Ministers should get no extra pay so they do the job out of conviction and not fiscal gain. Let the Attorney General be an ex-officio member of Tynwald to give legal advice but the Bishop should not have any part of it. The Church and state must be seperated in the true interests of democracy. The present Bishop is quite a good guy but he could do more by hammering away from the pulpit that having lunch in the den. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I cant understan how stupid some of you are, Tynwald can vote as much as they like but if its a vote on something thats against the CMs policy, the CM can ask the AG to void the vote, on some legal terms. If You need the proof, let me give it to you, I have it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upstream Posted November 28, 2004 Share Posted November 28, 2004 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? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yep, good point. You might find though, that virtually everyone on the Island voted for Peter Karran - and probably David Cannan too. Don't believe me? Next election go and watch the Onchan count returned. Say what you may about Peter Karran, but honesty and integrity is what the electorate really want. Regarding Local Government Reform. Anything that prevents our current set of MHKs gaining more power is a good thing. In my opinion, if anything, on this Island the political power (read ego) needs diluting not damn well concentrating and handing it on a plate to our MHKs. I know its a small Island but at least now we have good easy access to our commissioners/councillors for the local matters. Maybe its all a plan to make Isle of Man one big 'happy' city a la Hong Kong. And while I'm on one, what's all this "Isle of Man Airport" they keep going on about. When did the name change from Ronaldsway Airport. It will have the word "International" sneaked in there soon. That FattunziKatten bloke who was on here a few weeks ago about the airport knows a lot more than he's letting on. FattunziKatten re Airport Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.