The New Bishop . . . .

[nipper]

The new Bishop Robert Paterson is upon us The Diocese of York Website

 

"Support For Bishop In Tynwald" Manx Radio Website

 

"There has been debate over recent years as to whether the Bishop should retain a seat in Tynwald"

 

I do not think the debate is so much as should he retain his seat, but rather, should the Bishop have a vote.

 

We have seen in recent months how just one vote from the unelected Legislative Council can over rule the will of our elected House of Keys. What on earth are we doing allowing yet another unelected person to have a vote in Tynwald? A person not even selected to the Legislative Council by our MHKs, let alone by us.

 

In the past I believe I have effectively and persuasively argued that the Bishop should have a vote in Tynwald. But that was when I was younger and more naive. Of course this guy is a good chap, but why should he have such control about matters which will directly effect us, in what is supposedly a democratic society.

 

I have personally seen too many air heads voting with the flow in Tynwald because they haven't an awful lot of clue or understanding what is going on and are quite incapable of forwarding an intelligent argument even if their minds had any worthwhile thought. With the very best will in the world our new Bishop cannot possibly have a good understanding for what he is going to be voting for, even if he is guided or even governed by his morals and religious learning.

 

We have seen and are experiencing the difficulties the House of Keys have in selecting members for the Legislative Council. What on earth are we doing bringing someone in from the Church and on who's say so?

 

All of a sudden I see and understand those arguments that have been forwarded on Manx forums over the past decade or so against the Bishop having a vote in Tynwald.

 

"Immensely valuable role in parliament". As an adviser yes, maybe.

 

... as a power wielder - NO.

 

Will someone please persuade me differently.

[Gladys]

On religious grounds (or rather anti-religious grounds) I would argue that the Bishop should not have voting rights; it is a bit of an anachronism, really.

 

However, most Bishops are highly intelligent and educated people and hold doctorates in divinity (which studying will have included philosophy and logic amongst other thought skills - my father bunked out of his 'Classics' degree at Trinity, Dublin; I later found out this was actually a DD - boy, did they back the wrong horse!) I think they probably do have a great deal to bring to the business of Tynwald and only have one vote in any case.

 

My only concern is that given that most Bishops are, indeed, highly intelligent and educated people, with a substantial grounding in analytical thought, why the hell do they still believe in Christianity?

[VinnieK]

However, most Bishops are highly intelligent and educated people and hold doctorates in divinity (which studying will have included philosophy and logic amongst other thought skills - my father bunked out of his 'Classics' degree at Trinity, Dublin; I later found out this was actually a DD - boy, did they back the wrong horse!) I think they probably do have a great deal to bring to the business of Tynwald and only have one vote in any case.

 

One vote is still a pretty hefty amount of influence for someone to have though, given the size of our government. Also, I don't think it's wise to place too much value on education: plenty of those in government across the world have had fantastic educations, and yet have been complete asshats. Hell, the UKIP guy who was standing for LegCo had a doctorate! On the other hand, many great statesmen throughout history have had mediocre or poor educations by the standards of their lesser peers. On that subject, one of my undergrad tutors once cautioned against being impressed by a PhD: "You don't have to be clever to get one, a lot of patience will do just as well - if not better".

 

My only concern is that given that most Bishops are indeed highly intelligent and educated people, with a substantial grounding in analytical thought, why the hell do they still believe in Christianity?

 

Same reason you find religious physicists, mathematicians, chemists or what have you - faith has little to do with analytical power or intelligence. Just as you get plenty of stupid atheists, you find intelligent, educated religious folk.

[Skeddan]

I'd think it make sense for the Bishop having a seat, but without a vote. (Unless of course people don't want to change the delicate system of checks and balances which allows the Executive to check the power of the Keys and puts the balance of power on their side).

 

nipper, I would be interested to hear your former arguments in favour of a voting Bishop.

 

Incidentally the Bishop's vote is something which brings down IoM's democracy index score (one of several things). Point is that such scores correlate to GDP as I noted before. So it's likely that the Bishop having a vote is a factor in reducing IoM's GDP. I wonder how much of a reduction could be apportioned to his having a vote. Probably no more than a few million a year.

[John Wright]

Skeddan.

 

Your first argument does not hold water

 

The checks and balances in a normal parliamentary system, even a presidential one, is that the executive is checked by not being able to get its legislation through in a hostile parliament, senate etc, sometimes needing special majorities

 

The executive must not be alowed to control the legislative, it has to be the pother way around

 

So in IOM, in theory we have small executive, Exco, ministers and a large legislature, Tynwald, Tynwald should be supreme. Of course Tynwald is divided, for legilsative purposes into two branches Keys and Legco in one of whicvh, Legco, the bishop sits

 

The problem with our checks and balances is

 

1. No party politics so we do not know the policies in advance of the executive which eventually is elected, we do not even have a choice

 

2. As ech departrment has a minister and a couple of political members who owe patronage to the executive in effect all members are in the executive, except PK and BM, so thye are unlikely to vote themselves out of jobs by getting rid of an executive

 

3. The undemocratic method of selection of the upper or revising chamber

[Skeddan]

John - don't want to be at cross-purposes here. I take it that you are objecting to what I said about checks and balances - not the suggestion that Bishop retains seat but loses vote.

 

I was referring to such 'checks and balances' in a sardonic manner - and not proposing retaining this balance in favour of the Executive. I do however accept that this isn't 'checks and balances' proper - even the wrong way round. Rather it is part of an 'Executive bloc' in the legislature - without proper and healthy separation of powers.

 

However re what you go on to say, I'm unconvinced LegCo should be part of the Legislature or an upper or revising chamber in any shape or form. I can for example see reason in favour of LegCo being executive as per US Cabinet - which is closer to what historically it used to be in IoM. Here I'm not advocating one vs. other - just that I haven't seen proper discussion on pros and cons of all such alternatives. John, it's not that I disagree with what you are proposing - only that I am not yet convinced this proposal would be the best of the options.

 

Also does anyone know when 'Tynwald' came to be used as the term for the Keys+LegCo? As I understood it, this used to mean the general public assembly once (or sometimes twice) a year. It seems that this is pretty much mere ceremonial nowadays and is not a feature of 'true' democracy (i.e. all people involved in making laws). I suspect this change of language goes with a shift to having affairs run by the political bloc, and involvement in decisions being taken out of the hands of the 'general assembly'. IMO it seems like maybe a not-too-good bastardisation of language - a bit similar to if the UK started calling the PM and Cabinet 'Parliament'.

[Frances]

tynwald = open air gathering but Tynwald Court was used for this legislative gathering and then extended to cover meetings elsewhere - the 'court' was dropped in references (I'm sure you will find some pedantic complaints re this) but see www.manxnotebook.com/manxsoc/msvol31/foot_c.htm for late 19th footnote by Sir James Gell - search MNB for term "Tynwald court"

[John Wright]

Noted, I neither want bishop to have a seat or vote, why Anglicans and not methodists or catholics. I wouold be all in favour of clerics standing for election

 

Not sure that answering your obseessive quest for historical fact matters, it is as it is.

 

Clearly Tynwald had no money function before 1866, neither Keys nor Council and prior to 1961 little policy control, as that was with the Governor, 1961 is when we got the first exco, I think

 

The basic seems to be Tynwald either sat in Castle Rushen or at St Johns, and ceratinly by 19th Century more at Castle Rushen.

 

They then moved to Douglas and it was all at Douglas. What is clear is that consent of Keys and Council in Tynwald was necessary to legilation going far back, even before revestmant

 

The first I can find which is not the commons, officials and keys, at a Tynwald, ie a public agreement is the Treasure Trove Act 1565 which is Keys and two deemsters and the lord of mann

 

The next act which seems to be the start of the Council and Keys formula is the Turfe Act 1593, part of which is still in force which is said to be enacted by Ferdinand Earl of Derby with consent of his council and keys

 

Tynwald or an assembly of captain and official s and keys seems to have becone to the fore in early C17

[nipper]

It sounds clichéd and hackneyed, but the Bishop having a seat in Tynwald is an absolute anachronism.

 

How ridiculous.

 

Skeddan, my various arguments for keeping the Bishop's vote were more or less in line with what Gladys has posted.

 

I used to think that Manx shopkeepers, sparkies and farmers often need a bit of guidance in their political decision making. Also that in theory at least, the Bishop acted as an anchor as far as such matters as morals were concerned. I was that concerned when there were calls to remove the vote that I made quite a few phone calls on the matter.

 

Geoff Cannell MHK was at the time one of the main voices calling for the vote to be removed. I phoned him up from what I believed was an entirely neutral stance. He didn't want to discuss it and he knew what he wanted and that was the end of it as far as he was concerned, even though I was ready to be persuaded. Such was Geoff's way at times I suppose.

 

I tried to contact the Bishop himself regarding the matter but was put onto his sidekick The Arch Deacon's secretary. My telephone call was never returned.

 

Undeterred, I sat in quite a number of Tynwald sessions to study the form of our politicians and listen (watch!?) the various debates. I was quite sickened by some of what I saw. Those people weren't to be influenced by any greater thinking. In their stupidity and ego boosted know-it-all fashions, the influence of the Bishop or anyone else for that matter, could have little influence. It seemed to me that in any case, the Bishop would be happy to stay with the status quo, go with the flow. When he didn't I would have liked to have heard his reasons for doing so but he is not answerable to anyone who cares. Maybe the Manx Radio religious programme should have a monthly 10 minute "The Bishhop in Tynwald" slot, you know, like the Radio Doctor......

 

 

There is much I have seen wrong and injust on the Isle of Man and in the political system.

 

The fact that a religious chappie has a vote in Tynwald simply because he is a, well, a religious chappie, does not add confidence.

[Skeddan]

nipper - I agree it is an anachronism - and perhaps a half-invented one at that.

 

John - to be clearer - if the bishop has a seat, there is as I see it no justification whatsoever for bishop having a vote. I can fully see argument against bishop having a seat. With reflection I'm leaning towards view that if the bishop has a seat anywhere (if at all) it should be in a 'cabinet' body as part of the executive, not in a legislative body.

 

Re Council and Keys. As I understood it, Council were like Privy Council and officers appointed by the Lord of Mann - much like US Cabinet. It seemed the Bishop had a seat there, but that's in the executive, not the legislature.

 

The thing that I question is whether Council should be an 'upper house' or part of an elected legislature at all.

 

A separately elected CM (like President, with role as head of executive - akin to Governor, and who is not an MHK) and who appoints Council members (subject to approval of majority of Keys), and where all policy by Council is under scrutiny of Keys (who of course would have to approve any legislation) might not be a bad system.

 

Each candidate for CM would effectively have to lead a 'party' - if only in terms of leadership of their Council / cabinet group.

 

With checks, balances, separation of power and scrutiny, it might be more effective than a popularly elected LegCo. Filling ministerial positions by popular elections strikes me as a bit like electing a sheriff or Lord Chancellor - not necessarily going to be the best thing, nor would it be a good way of selecting the best person for the job.

[triskelion]

The likelihood that the Bishop is a highly educated man is somewhat irrelevant, as he does not sit on that basis, but rather by virtue of being a prominent member of the Anglican faith, of which the majority of the Island's residents are not practicing members.

 

Nipper, I'm not sure why you consider the Bishop to be some kind of 'moral anchor,' and whilst I do not wish to claim he is an immoral person, this seems to be mostly based on his religious status, and value judgements have a debateable importance in a legislature in any case.

 

All members of the LegCo should be elected. There would be nothing preventing the Bishop from standing.

[Skeddan]

All members of the LegCo should be elected.

Why? You state this as if it is self-evident.

 

US Cabinet members are not elected (though their appointments are ratified). The idea that these key members of the Administration should be elected wasn't self-evident to the people when drew up the American Constitution - and who sought checks, balances, separation of powers and democratic government.

 

Do you think it will be more democratic that way, more efficient, get better candidates in the role or what?

[John Wright]

Skeddan you confuse Legco, the second chamber or revising chamber for legislative purposes, with Comin, which is the executive, in all these argumenst

 

I have no problem with either a fully popularly elected Tynwald with two Chambers, no bishop, and an executive composed of a chief minister and 7 or 8 other ministers from either chamber or a popularly elected "president and a cabinet composed of non tynwald members

 

as long as

 

Both would be answerable to an elected Tynwald

 

an elected Tynwald could remove or block either

 

The only thing separating Keys and Council is their powers when passing legislation, ie one house or chamber or branch has delaying powers only

 

Keys and Council only sit separately for legislation, policy and finance and questions of the executive take plave in Tynwald

[Lonan3]

The bishop having a seat in Tynwald is simply a further argument for the 'upper' chamber to be elected by universal suffrage. The bishop would be fully entitled to stand and, if there are sufficient supporters among the numbers of Anglicans (and other christians) then he would earn the privilege of being there.

It would also be necessary, of course, to call a by-election if a new bishop was appointed during the course of a Tynwald.

 

the unfortunate thing is that minor issues such as this tend to bog down the real issues involved in a system that is rotten to the core and which is barely on nodding terms with democracy.

[John Wright]

The ords Council was indeed a Privy Council but whether it was an executive is open to dispute It had different members at different periods but ended up, pre 1919 as consisting Bishop, AG, Vicar General, Arch Deacon, Water Bailiff and other odd appointees plus the deemsters and sometimes the cerk of the rolls. None were executive members or civil servants or ministers, the only minister was the Governor.

 

In 1919 the clergy, with exceotion of bishop were got rid of. Two were alowed to be appointed by the keys, Over the yeras the keys came to elect them all execpt bishop and AG and the deemsters slowly went as it was recognised that they were judiciary, not executive.

 

So we got to today

 

The old lords council was really the people who enforced the law and the keys were the commoners

 

In 1961 an executive council was set up, the for runner of Comin. Before that Governemnt was the Governor, Government Secretary and Treasurer and the civil service heads of the boards. Yes there were Boards but not under political control, again thnat came in 1961

 

Practically our system now is tynwald for finance and policy keys and legco for legislation and comin for executive government