The New Bishop . . . .

[bluemonday]

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.

 

Agreed. All that dross for 80,000.

[teapot]

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.

 

When did you try to contact the Bishop himself? Who put you onto his sidekick the Archdeacon's secretary? Because the Archdeacon doesn't have a secretary. Why not write to the Bishop now, he's about to arrive soon and put your case to him direct! Address: c/o The Bishop's PA, Bishop's House, The Falls, Tromode Road, Cronkboure, Douglas. IM4 4PZ

[nipper]

The bishop having a seat in Tynwald is simply a further

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.

 

Agreed. All that dross for 80,000.

 

. . . . and that, basically, is the bottom line.

 

Farcical, pharcical, farcycle.

[Albert Tatlock]

There seems to be a few people keen on bashing the bishop in this thread.

[nipper]

When did you try to contact the Bishop himself? Who put you onto his sidekick the Archdeacon's secretary?

 

This was some time before the general election of 2001.

 

Geoff Cannell* didn't get back in to do his stuff.

 

I would have actually spoken to the Bishop' s secretary who passed a message onto the Arch Deacon for him to contact me. Sorry if my terminolgy offends I'm not up there with the religious stuff, although I do have faith, spirituality and beliefs and morals broadly in line with what churches and that say.

 

Two elections ago I was on a crusade to ensure Bishop Bashers were exposed and not elected. As I said, I am now older, wiser and far more bitter, twisted and gnarled than I was then. I have also had my eyes opened to the ways of power in the Isle of Man.

 

I have no reason to contact the Bishop now.

 

 

 

* I had nothing against Geoff Cannell personally, it was just his way of doing politics I had a problem with.

 

 

Edited to add

 

There's nought wrong with Bashing the Bishop every now and again. Bad for the eyesight but good for the prostate.

[Skeddan]

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

Yes - you're right - and in a sense I am doing this with some reason. As I understand it Legco grew out of Council which initially was an executive body, but grew to become some half-baked second chamber - then Comin came to be the executive body - eventually chosen from MHKs, so the development itself is a bit confused - hence perhaps some of the anachronisms and oddities arising from making something into something it wasn't suited to, and making a pig's ear.

 

Personally I'd think option 2 - popularly elected president + cabinet composed of non Tynwald members (like US Cabinet) might be the best suited, particularly given scale and other considerations.

 

Why do you think two chambers is necessary? Why not just one? (NZ with 50x the population manages fine with just one). With 'president + cabinet' approach I'd think one chamber with 24 MHKs would be sufficient. With a system where ministers are chosen from elected members of either house, you would want a bigger pool to choose from and to prevent 'patronage' influence of CM becoming controlling over legislature. 50+ members of legislature is probably not practical or desirable for pop. 80,000 or even 1m.

 

With 'President+Cabinet' option I'd be inclined to ditch Legco completely (24 elected representatives for 80,000 should be enough, no need for more). However it might be an idea to have a review panel of experts who could pick on any issues of civil liberties, human rights etc. and call attention to these publicly - but with no power to veto.

 

Yes, absolutely - The executive (President+Cabinet) must and should be answerable to the elected representatives. And, as I'd see it, an elected House of Keys could block appointments to Cabinet and possibly also remove ministers, would have full powers of scrutiny - with CM and Ministers fully answerable to questions in House of Keys, and of course legislation could only be passed with approval of House of Keys.

 

I'd also like to see mechanisms for MHK's being 'de-elected' during term. i.e. upon petition by sufficient number of their constituents they would have to resign seat and a byelection would be held. (This would keep them accountable and responsive to electorate between elections).

[VinnieK]

Why do you think two chambers is necessary? Why not just one?

 

With 'President+Cabinet' option I'd be inclined to ditch Legco completely (24 elected representatives for 80,000 should be enough, no need for more). However it might be an idea to have a review panel of experts who could pick on any issues of civil liberties, human rights etc. and call attention to these publicly - but with no power to veto.

 

I quite like the idea of a unicameral legislature, but wouldn't such a review panel essentially be another chamber by a different name? It seems to me that in effect we'd just have a weak upper chamber (even if its membership were sporadic and changing) that existed only to complain about legislation. I'm also not entirely convinced your plan would eliminate patronage: I'm sure a way to perpetuate it would be found.

 

I'd also like to see mechanisms for MHK's being 'de-elected' during term. i.e. upon petition by sufficient number of their constituents they would have to resign seat and a byelection would be held. (This would keep them accountable and responsive to electorate between elections).

 

I've never been a big fan of "de-election". There's too great a chance of it increasing the influence of populism in politics by encouraging politicians to play it safe by public opinion even when a difficult choice has to be made that might run contrary to what the public wants or thinks should be done. Every controversial issue would in effect have the potential to turn into a referendum, which isn't very desirable. The very principal of representative democracy is that we entrust our elected government with making decisions that we can't, and sometimes the best or only decision may at first be unpopular.

[Skeddan]

I quite like the idea of a unicameral legislature, but wouldn't such a review panel essentially be another chamber by a different name? It seems to me that in effect we'd just have a weak upper chamber (even if its membership were sporadic and changing) that existed only to complain about legislation. I'm also not entirely convinced your plan would eliminate patronage: I'm sure a way to perpetuate it would be found.

Review panel - I see your point. I'm not so sure. Suppose one were to retain a law firm to advise and report, then this wouldn't be another chamber by a different name or a 'weak upper chamber'. It could also be a judicial body for review. A 'Clerk of Tynwald' type expertise. It would probably be mainly to assist Keys in scrutiny of legislation from Exec - rather than comment and revise legislation from Keys.

 

Re patronage - no, it probably wouldn't eliminate it, and this alone certainly wouldn't be nearly enough (should have FOI, whistleblower legislation etc. etc.) - and should of course be vigilant to find how to combat the ways it does and might perpetuate. Might be a start though. Present system seems positively geared towards it.

 

I'd think the unicameral system with checks and balance to Exec (of a nationally elected CM and his appointed cabinet) could be the most effective in eradicating patronage - moreso than an elected LegCo.

 

The big thing will be in making sure the checks, balances, powers to ratify appointments, remove cabinet members, scrutiny etc. are all as they should be. i.e. that MHKs are not just a rubber stamp to a nationally elected CM.

 

I've never been a big fan of "de-election". There's too great a chance of it increasing the influence of populism in politics by encouraging politicians to play it safe by public opinion even when a difficult choice has to be made that might run contrary to what the public wants or thinks should be done. Every controversial issue would in effect have the potential to turn into a referendum, which isn't very desirable. The very principal of representative democracy is that we entrust our elected government with making decisions that we can't, and sometimes the best or only decision may at first be unpopular.

I share same concerns over populism. On the other hand, one sees more things which run contrary to what the public wants - as for example Iraq, and way UK govts have managed to do pursue unpopular agendas - the 'will of the people' is no bad thing. In the end I think that 'will of the people' outweighs fears of populism - rather I think that this will mean greater efforts to inform and educate the electorate on issues.

 

I would set quite a high barrier on the 'de-election' - 50% of electorate for example. I'd think the thing would be that people would have to learn that this would be something to be used responsibly (not want byelections every month), and soon would learn this. Also I'd think that this would keep politicians on their toes and people more engaged with political affairs. Maybe it should only be allowed once a year (Tynwald Day?) as a 'petition' type measure.

[triskelion]

Personally I can't see an appointed cabinet-style system being anything other than horrendus. It would stifle debate, as the you would either be with or against the executive and issues would become polarised and where the Keys would be completely disempowered, becoming little more than a revising chamber. Better to have two Houses; the Keys responsible for local and social issues (absorbing the responsibilities of local government as well) with the LegCo elected on an all-Island basis and responsible for economy, business and finance. That way each (plus Tynwald) would be a forum, rather than merely a block on the executive.

 

This has descended into yet another talking shop on the Manx constitution, then.

[Skeddan]

Personally I can't see an appointed cabinet-style system being anything other than horrendus. It would stifle debate, as the you would either be with or against the executive

either for or against the executive - like a real political system with two or more parties? I don't see that stifles debate. At the moment it is pretty limp stuff - it seems if one strays too far from toeing the line, then one won't be in line for a nice appointment.

 

the Keys would be completely disempowered, becoming little more than a revising chamber.

I don't see why this would make the Keys completely disempowered. They'd be able to do a lot more than just revise legislation

[P.K.]

Unfortunately these discussions always end up in the same place....

 

Change is needed, possibly radical change, but under the current system it can only come from within. And do you honestly think that those with skeletons in their cupboards and their noses in the trough of government largesse are going to deliberately put themselves and their pasts into the hands of the electorate?

 

The "system" is so discredited little wonder that apathy reigns supreme - just how those in cushy numbers like it.

[VinnieK]

This has descended into yet another talking shop on the Manx constitution, then.

 

Wasn't it pretty much that from the very start? For that matter, isn't an internet forum little but a talking shop?

[Skeddan]

This has descended into yet another talking shop on the Manx constitution, then.

 

Wasn't it pretty much that from the very start?

Sort of, but somehow it descended further than just bashing the bishop.

 

(Maybe something might come of bashing the bishop, but not of talking about more extensive constitutional change?).

[Skeddan]

Unfortunately these discussions always end up in the same place....

 

Change is needed, possibly radical change, but under the current system it can only come from within. And do you honestly think that those with skeletons in their cupboards and their noses in the trough of government largesse are going to deliberately put themselves and their pasts into the hands of the electorate?

 

The "system" is so discredited little wonder that apathy reigns supreme - just how those in cushy numbers like it.

Isn't that a cop out?

 

http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php...st&p=315955

[P.K.]

Isn't that a cop out?

 

http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php...st&p=315955

Not at all. You've obviously forgotten the Golden Rule i.e. those with the gold make the rules.....

 

You must have missed my "apathy reigns supreme" bit, because motivated for change this lot most certainly are not.