Member Of Legislative Council (mlc) Elections

[Freggyragh]

I think it is a shame Charles Cain didn't get in last time. He was a good MHK in his day.

[cheeky boy]

So Dr Dick is as popular as Mrs Crowe

 

Still worrying that 7 non LV MHKs were careless enough to vote for someone with such dodgy credentials

 

He is the sort of bloke that Peter Karran would normally be calling for a public enquiry into

[Declan]

So Dr Dick is as popular as Mrs Crowe

 

Still worrying that 7 non LV MHKs were careless enough to vote for someone with such dodgy credentials

 

He is the sort of bloke that Peter Karran would normally be calling for a public enquiry into

 

Quintin Gill's manifesto at the last election included some irrelevent ramblings about how the UK shouldn't be in Europe, so I guess he might be one of the 7.

[Charles Flynn]

I am surprised at the lack of choice. Whatever the merits of the present candidates, there are many others if nominated who would be better, or indeed worse. But where are they?

 

MHK's must know loads of potential candidates. It is as if these elections are simply the result of an MHK putting forward one of their allies without any thought as to what the electorate would like.

 

OK we do not like the way the second chamber is elected, but if this is what we are stuck with, please make it as appealing as possible with credible candidates - ones steeped in a love of the Isle of Man would be a minimum requirement.

[triskelion]

I am surprised at the lack of choice. Whatever the merits of the present candidates, there are many others if nominated who would be better, or indeed worse. But where are they?

 

MHK's must know loads of potential candidates. It is as if these elections are simply the result of an MHK putting forward one of their allies without any thought as to what the electorate would like.

 

OK we do not like the way the second chamber is elected, but if this is what we are stuck with, please make it as appealing as possible with credible candidates - ones steeped in a love of the Isle of Man would be a minimum requirement.

Who'd want to be an MLC though? Everything you do is branded illegitimate by just about everyone due to the whole "not popularly-elected thing." Thus you get little or no credit for any work you would do. Fair enough the abuse they get here is on the more extreme end of the spectrum, but being an MLC isn't exactly a major boast.

 

I cannot understand why it is so difficult to put this out to the electorate. Peter complains about the ministerial block, yet insisted MLC's should not become ministers, but goes to the trouble of nominating two of the candidates himself. Perhaps this inconsistency is unsurprising, but there just doesn't seem any real momentum towards the LC being popularly elected.

[John Wright]

The fear is that they will have larger constituencies, bigger voted mandatse and thus be a politicakl challenge

 

This is short sighted

 

If all members were voted into Tynwald, 24 in years 01 and 06 of each decade in 8 x 3 seat constituencies and 8 in years 03 and 08 and we reciognised that Tynwald was our Goverbnemnet where all policy and finance was debated, as one body there is no problem. As all voters woud have thre voites in 01 and 06 elections the chances of anyone in an 03 05 08 election having a gretaer number of votes is nil

 

The 01 and 06 lot are the keys for the purposes of legislation only and the 03 and 08 lot are the LC. The LC have only limited delay powers in relation to legislation. Only difference.

 

It isn't difficiult

t

[Lost Login]

Who'd want to be an MLC though? Everything you do is branded illegitimate by just about everyone due to the whole "not popularly-elected thing." Thus you get little or no credit for any work you would do. Fair enough the abuse they get here is on the more extreme end of the spectrum, but being an MLC isn't exactly a major boast.

 

I cannot understand why it is so difficult to put this out to the electorate. Peter complains about the ministerial block, yet insisted MLC's should not become ministers, but goes to the trouble of nominating two of the candidates himself. Perhaps this inconsistency is unsurprising, but there just doesn't seem any real momentum towards the LC being popularly elected.

 

I would quite like to be an MLC but not an MHK if I had the ability etc etc. If I was to stand it was on the basis I thought my knowledge and ability on issues was such that I could review and understand legislation etc and comment on it, make recommendations, advise on it in a way that would in my believe be good for the IoM as a whole. That might require making unpopular decisions either locally or nationally.

 

I would not like to be an MHK as I would have no real interests in local constituency matters and where there was a conflict between the local good and the national good I would want to back the national interest. To me an MHK and an MLC have very different roles although this appears to be forgotten at times and whilst I am happy that as MHK's we have a whole cross section of the population, from the bright to the less so, as MLC's there are plenty I think are totally unsuited.

 

I am happy that MLC's should not be ministers, should not bring forth legislation and that they only have a reviewing & advising roll. I also believe that the main power should remain with the MHK's and ultimately they have the final say. I am also happy that MLC's are not publically elected as as soon as they are publically elected I can not see how you can have two different chambers with different powers because why should one publically elected official in the same parliament have more authority than others.

 

I would though like to see some change to how they are elected as the current policy does not appear to be working as it is not necessarily bringing what I would consider high calibre individuals to the table nor are they being elected. This is partly because the MHK's see it as their role to only elect past succesful MHK's and occasionally well known figures who have not stood for public election. Maybe it should remain to an extent by patronage but with an increaed selection panel rather than just MHK's. I am not sure how you would do that.

[Skeddan]

The US Cabinet is not elected either, and this might be a better model. i.e. Chief Minister would appoint whoever to be Ministers/Cabinet members (but if choosing an MHK, they could not keep their seat and still be part of cabinet). Cabinet Appointments would have to be approved by Keys.

 

That way the Chief Minister would not have power of patronage over MHK's with lure of ministerial office - or threat of losing it. MHK's would then have scrutiny and oversight over actions of Ministers/Cabinet members (and should be able to vote 'no confidence' to remove them - and/or Chief Minister), and of course MHK's would have all legislative power - Cabinet members would not have power to vote, sit in House of Keys etc. - though would be answerable to them.

 

This model has greater separation of powers between Executive and Legislature, and elected MHK's would effectively have more power because no longer under patronage and would have greater power over CM and Ministers. A good MHK or someone who can win a popular election is not necessarily a good minister, and this way gives access to a wider talent pool for ministerial positions while keeping power and control with elected MHKs.

 

As for second chamber for review of legislation - is this needed? NZ doesn't have a second chamber.

 

There is value in having review and scrutiny of draft legislation - but for what purpose? That review could be done by a Council or Committee of experts in Law, Constitutional and Admin Law, Human Rights, Civil Liberties, etc. who could then report on the impact and effect of legislation and make any concerns known to Keys and Public. Such 'Law Lords' experts are probably better appointed than elected.

[Lost Login]

As for second chamber for review of legislation - is this needed? NZ doesn't have a second chamber.

 

There is value in having review and scrutiny of draft legislation - but for what purpose? That review could be done by a Council or Committee of experts in Law, Constitutional and Admin Law, Human Rights, Civil Liberties, etc. who could then report on the impact and effect of legislation and make any concerns known to Keys and Public. Such 'Law Lords' experts are probably better appointed than elected.

 

I think the biggest problem we have with regard to Tynwald is that due to the size of the Island it has a limited number of members and the constituencies are generally of a very small size or if a bit bigger elect more than one member. 1,500 votes will generally get you elected.

 

To get elected it is generally just a local popularity poll and if you are local and have put a bit of time in on local issues, local assistance then you have a fair chance of getting in. We therefore have a fair view members who are probably very good local constiuuency MHKs, back bench MHKs etc but they are not those who you would want out there representing the IoM, leading policy, taking a global view, being at leading edge on matters etc. I see the election of MLC's as a way to widen the knowledge and experience base which is probably required in a small house but not in a larger house of say 100 or 200 members where by definition the their maybe a greater spread of knowledge, talent to choose from

[Skeddan]

Last Login, doesn't what you say argue for Ministers to be non-MHK's, and perhaps as I suggested, appointed in similar way to US Cabinet members? i.e. appointed by CM but subject to approval, removal and oversight of Keys.

[triskelion]

We therefore have a fair view members who are probably very good local constiuuency MHKs, back bench MHKs etc but they are not those who you would want out there representing the IoM, leading policy, taking a global view, being at leading edge on matters etc. I see the election of MLC's as a way to widen the knowledge and experience base which is probably required in a small house but not in a larger house of say 100 or 200 members where by definition the their maybe a greater spread of knowledge, talent to choose from

Surely though that is an argument for allowing MLC's to have ministerial posts? It has been pointed out (and Juan Watterson ran his campaign on it) that MHKs often do not seem to fully understand the nature of the financial legislation one which they vote. If we are to have MHKs that represent the constituents, then let them focus on that. That way they can focus on health, education, environment, crime etc and then the LC would have jurisdiction over finance and economic development. Having the LC as a revising chamber only is an expensive waste of time. It either has to do something or be done without. At least if the Treasury and Dti ministers are drawn from the LC it will reduce the ministerial voting bloc in the Keys.

[Lost Login]

Last Login, doesn't what you say argue for Ministers to be non-MHK's, and perhaps as I suggested, appointed in similar way to US Cabinet members? i.e. appointed by CM but subject to approval, removal and oversight of Keys.

 

It could do but I am not sure the IoM really wants non elected individuals to be ministers

[Lost Login]

Surely though that is an argument for allowing MLC's to have ministerial posts? It has been pointed out (and Juan Watterson ran his campaign on it) that MHKs often do not seem to fully understand the nature of the financial legislation one which they vote. If we are to have MHKs that represent the constituents, then let them focus on that. That way they can focus on health, education, environment, crime etc and then the LC would have jurisdiction over finance and economic development. Having the LC as a revising chamber only is an expensive waste of time. It either has to do something or be done without. At least if the Treasury and Dti ministers are drawn from the LC it will reduce the ministerial voting bloc in the Keys.

 

It is an argument for MLC's being Minsiters but I have based my responses on the fact that in general there appears to be a belief that MLC's should not be ministers unless they are elected.

 

Being blunt in my view there are plenty of good constituency MHKS but few I would really believe are of the rounded calibre and interlect that I would ideally want to be out there in the real world representing the IoM in difficult negotiations etc. However having a large choice does not always give you a good result either as I would not really want Bush arguing my case.

 

The MLC route to me seems to be a way of getting in the professionals, business men, succesful entrepeaneaurs etc who do not seem to stand as MHK's.

[Skeddan]

Lost Login - the MLC route (with them not being Ministers) is a kind of halfway house - neither here nor there - and I don't see how that addresses the points you raise.

 

I'd think the main thing would be to do with accountability - if CoMin appointments have to be approved by MHK's, they could remove them, and had proper scrutiny and Ministers fully answerable to Keys, what is the problem? Is the US non-democratic because cabinet are not elected?

[Lost Login]

Lost Login - the MLC route (with them not being Ministers) is a kind of halfway house - neither here nor there - and I don't see how that addresses the points you raise.

 

I'd think the main thing would be to do with accountability - if CoMin appointments have to be approved by MHK's, they could remove them, and had proper scrutiny and Ministers fully answerable to Keys, what is the problem? Is the US non-democratic because cabinet are not elected?

 

I appreciate that it is a half way house but my responses have been briefish and also reflect what I understand what the majority to currently want. It is not what I personally would like.

 

My personal view is that I like two chambers, one not popularily elected. The latter because I can see no way that you can have two elected with different powers.

I have no problem with MLC's being ministers if they are the best person for the job. I do not want MHK's to have the power to remove ministers, except the Chief Minister if that is the system we have. If they are removable by MHK's then they havethe ability to decide who the Chief Ministers minsters are. I believe that it should be his decsision in the current set up.

I do think that MLC's should be able to vote but onlyhave the power to ratify or veto the decisions of the other house. The alternative is if we have everybody elected is only one house but whilst in a democracy we have a place for the likes of Peter Karran and they have a useful purpose, I would not want the likes have him to actually wield any authority

 

Utimately I do not care greatly what system we really have as much as I care about having a much better calibre of candidate and members. Whatever system produced that i would back.