Future Of The Legco

[manshimajin]

The LegCo have recently voted against any change to the way members are elected. According to a report at IOM Today:

Members (of the LegCo) were also concerned at how democratic it was to have a popularly elected revising chamber.

It could be interesting to see how Forum Members feel about the LegCo and the way members are elected.

 

This may be your only chance to vote on this topic.

[nipper]

They haven't voted against "any" change. They have voted against a particular proposed form of change.

 

That form of change was only voted in favour by 13 of the 24 Members of the House of Keys in the first place. That hardly inspires confidence, does it.

 

There are significant members of the Legislative Council who are emphatically in favour of a change but until an intelligent and workable alternative is offered there will be no change.

 

One of the main problems is that the present system is perceived as being, and in some cases I would suggest is, a Home of Rest For Old MHKs.

 

Perhaps suggestions how the Legislative Council should be formed might be useful.

[nipper]

The legislative Council needs to be retained in some form.

 

There is no problem with the House of Keys voting/appointing the Legislative Council, but as has been seen in recent years, there needs to be suitable candidates offered other than Old MHKs. That is not necessarily to say that suitable candidate/s have not been appointed in recent years.

 

There is no problem (er, in principle) with the Attorney General being an MLC but it seems he is there for a bit of a rest as he has no vote and rarely has much to say in proceedings. Not wanting to appear to be sitting on the fence, I will say that when I have heard him speak in Tynwald, what he has said has been fumbled and wishy-washy. He is present in an advisory capacity only anyway. For the amount of input he makes, he may as well be sat in his office doing some proper work and summoned as required.

 

The Bishop however, although a thoroughly nice bloke, does have a vote in the Legislative Council. Whereas I agree that perhaps he has a role to play, I no longer believe he should have a vote. Maybe he doesn't need to be present and could be at home doing some chores or something and summoned whenever (never?) he is required to offer some spiritual guidance on matters.

[jehovah]

Agree with the nub of the above argument, however, no member of LegCo should be a minister of head of department. Their power, if any, should just on a legislative basis. Why is Miss Kerruish in charge of planning? that is a government role and she isn't a member of government. We like to style LegCo as our house of lords and the house of lords ain't government across, why should it be here?

There is a place for the bishop in the House of Keys, in the public gallery with the other members of public.

[Slim]

Agreed. A public vote wouldn't serve the purpose of an alternative chamber and I bet nobody would turn out anyway. How are legco candidates proposed at present?

[Declan]

A public vote wouldn't serve the purpose of an alternative chamber

 

And one that relies on the patronage of the lower house does? For an MLC to keep his place in the house, and his salary, he has to keep the MHK's onside. A public vote would give the MLC's a mandate that liberates them from the patronage of the MHK's.

 

Personally, I'd switch the roles, I spelt out earlier why -

 

But they're not really independent are they? They rock the boat and the Keys gets rid of them.

 

My problem is that irrespective of whether Legco is elected we aren't particularly democratic. I can vote for my MHK, but I have no way of influencing who the Chief Minister will be or who will form the Government... .

 

If you can't vote for or against the Government of your country how is that democracy?

 

So I'd use the reform of LEGCO (which don't forget most candidates signed up for in their manifestos) as part of a wider process of democratising the Island. I'd have a series of elections -

 

1. Chief Minister - elected on a whole Island basis.

 

2. Legco - 9 or so members from which the Chief Minister selects his cabinet. These are again elected on an all-Island election.

 

3. Keys - 24 members elected on the current constituency basis. They would concentrate on constituency work (I'd probably cut back on local government at the same time) and have the role of scrutinising the policies proposed by the executive.

 

This way everybody is elected; everybody is accountable; the Chief Minister governs by persuasion rather than patronage.

 

Full Post Here

 

So in effect Legco becomes the legislative house, proposing new laws and running the Island. But the Keys which will be more rooted in local communities will be the revising house, but also the ultimate arbritor of what gets through.

[Lost Login]

There are significant members of the Legislative Council who are emphatically in favour of a change but until an intelligent and workable alternative is offered there will be no change.

 

One of the main problems is that the present system is perceived as being, and in some cases I would suggest is, a Home of Rest For Old MHKs.

 

Perhaps suggestions how the Legislative Council should be formed might be useful.

 

I have not seen presently a better alternative proposed as ideally you want individuals elected who are not concerned with local parish pumb politics. If they are elected by the public you will get that especially on an Island this small. There also needs to be a serious consideration with regard to remuneration as presently the amount paid is nowhere near what many of the more serious business people and entrepeneurs presently earn. OK they should not expect to earn that but there should be much better remuneration to entice with £100k per year secure jobs to take up one with less pay and less security.

 

Until they come up with a better system I would consider changing the LC as follows:

 

1) To be eligible for election you must not be an ex MHK who has been elected to either of the previous two parliaments.

 

2) Maximum terms of say two sittings or ten years

 

3) No minimum no of votes required to be elected and one nomination period. MHk's vote on those until the required number have a majority of votes cast. If no majority on first vote bottom candidates drops out and they revote, continue as required. Very much as the way the UK speaker was elected.

 

This way you at least prevent it from becoming a "rest home for old MHK's" and you prevent the farce of having numerous elections because an individual does not receive the required minimum number of votes.

 

It is not perfect but it would be a start.

[triskelion]

Didn't vote because I don't really agree with either of the options for the second question, however:

 

Should the LegCo be retained? - Yes; otherwise we end up with a Unicameral system like the UK, where the only purpose the Lords serves is to get unelected types into Government posts.

 

I personally think paying 9 people 50k a year solely to be a 'revising chamber' (ie. excluding them being ministers and making them unable to raise legislation) is a complete waste of time and money. If I were, say, a senior manager; or a respected GP; a successful lawyer or whatever, then what possible motivation would I have to move from this career to perform a such a role unless I was looking for something a bit cushy to do after retiring from my main job. Frankly, it barely even counts as public service.

 

No, better they have full legislative powers and are not barred from any participation within IoMG. There seems to be a tendency among some members, like Bill Malarkey, to tackle the whole problem in reverse - "The LegCo isn't popularly-elected, so we should try and strip them of all power and influence" - as if removing a second chamber as a means of checks and balances is some how conducive to an effective legislative system.

 

To be honest I think there are bigger issues with the IoMG; like the institutionalisation of departments.

[manshimajin]

1) To be eligible for election you must not be an ex MHK who has been elected to either of the previous two parliaments.

 

2) Maximum terms of say two sittings or ten years

 

3) No minimum no of votes required to be elected and one nomination period. MHk's vote on those until the required number have a majority of votes cast. If no majority on first vote bottom candidates drops out and they revote, continue as required. Very much as the way the UK speaker was elected.

 

This way you at least prevent it from becoming a "rest home for old MHK's" and you prevent the farce of having numerous elections because an individual does not receive the required minimum number of votes.

 

It is not perfect but it would be a start.

I do not see why we assume that a popular vote will necessarily be driven by Parish issues - particularly if you take ex-politicians out of the running as you suggest.

 

The first thing is that there has to be a clear 'revising' mandate for the Legco not part revising chamber part ministerial chamber. That way anyone putting up for election will understand that their role is not roadworks in Castletown or scaffolding in Douglas.

 

Secondly it would be good as you suggest to have people with a different perspective and the ability to truly oversee legislation and government actions - ex-politicians wanting to keep in a job are less likely to have true detachment if they depend on a cosy relationship with The Keys to keep their job. A popular elected chamber may in fact ensure that the members do their job better and give them the power to be detached and professional in their revising role.

 

Thirdly anyone standing would be knowingly standing for an 'island-wide' job. Australian Senators for example are elected on a State wide basis. Of course it would mean having a much bigger 'field' to choose from and some form of preference voting (say for example vote for your 10 preferences) but there are plenty of vote counting systems to choose from for dealing with a wide field of candidates. To overcome 'voter reluctance' the election for the LegCo could coincide with the election for the Keys - bot chambers run the same time course and the electorate turn out to vote once.

 

I accept the comments in the thread that the LegCo have not said that they are rejecting any form of change - however they were pretty clear that they were rejecting the idea of democratic mandate. It is also strange that a chamber whose job is 'revising' simply rejected the idea of reform without recommending 'revisions' - surely that is what their job is about?

[John Wright]

Having sat on the last Boundary Commission and prepared the report on the Electoral register, as an ex candidate for the Keys and an ex returning officer my idea is we are governed by Tynwald from which the Executive, Chief Minister and other Ministers should be chosen.

 

I favour the AG sitting in Tynwald to be answerable for administration of the law and to give legal advice and be answerable for his advice, I do not favour the Bishop, Monsignor or the President of the IOM Methodist Circuit, rabbi or local mullah having a seat

 

All questions should be in Tynwald and all financial matters should be in Tynwald. For these matters and matters of policy, confidence there should be unified voting, ie not as Keys and Council.

 

The Keys members would be elected to Tynwald by first past post in 8 three seats constituencies with each voter having three votes but being allowed to plump or vote only two or three times. The term would be 5 years

 

The Council or Senate members would be elected at the half way stage of each Keys life 8 members from 8 x 1 seat constituencies

 

There would be no restriction on being Chief or any other minister and being elected to Tynwald as a Council or Senate member after all they would be answerable to Tynwald

 

The only time Keys and Council/Senate would sit separately would be for legislation process. Council would have a power to amend and delay but not reject a CoMin promoted bill. If a private members bill is introduced into one branch and pased by that branch the other branch will only only have power to amend or delay, not wholly reject.

 

Officers

 

Tynwald A President elected from the ranks of Tynwald to act as Chair and effectively Speaker of Tynwald. This person will be Deputy Governor as well. He or she will be elected for a period of 2.5 years at a time (just before a keys or council/senate election) and on election will vacate his/her seat. He or she can be re elected for up to four terms in total

 

Council a Chairperson

 

Keys a Speaker

[Declan]

That's improvement on the current situation, but it does little to address the fact that there is no point voting, because my vote has no way of affecting who the Chief Minister is and what policys he makes.

 

This bit in particular, perpetuates the situation -

 

The Council or Senate members would be elected at the half way stage of each Keys life 8 members from 8 x 1 seat constituencies

 

Unless you can persuade the candidates to form parties, or at least declare who they will support for Chief Minister publically before the election, then we continue with the undemocratic situation where it is impossible to cast a vote for or against the Government at the General Election.

[John Wright]

I agree we need a party sytem, but that is not reform of the institutions

 

the half way stage elections with one quarter of the total up for election could tip the balance and could mean a vote for a new Chief Minister

 

I would ensure the development of a party system by not having departmental members just the Ministerial team

 

Chief Minister policy external relations Leader of Central Government

Deputy Chief Minister Government administration and Supervision of regulated bodies Local Governmemt supervisor

Finance Minister taxation and pensions and benefits

Interior police prison probation immigration passports broadcasting

Commerce Industry Training and tertiary training and post A level Education work permits

Education and Childrens welfare

Health and Social Services

Agriculture, Fisheries Forestry the envirionment built and undeveloped Planning

Attorney General Courts admin, prosecution offenders, the legal system tribunals

National Enterprises ie nationalised industries which will supervise

 

Commercial and semi commercial entities. Non political membership, to be run as commercially as remit allows

Airports

Ports

Roads

Housing

Electricity

Post

Buses

Trains

Tourism

Culture

Sport

Film

Heritage and Museums

Refuse, recycling and energy from waste

 

This would also need the wholesale reform of local government

 

Douglas and Onchan

 

Ramsey North and East

 

Peel and west

 

South

 

with local first stage planning and contrcating with the agencies for delivery of services in their areas.

[Declan]

I agree we need a party sytem, but that is not reform of the institutions

 

the half way stage elections with one quarter of the total up for election could tip the balance and could mean a vote for a new Chief Minister

 

But you can't force people into political parties, especially where the MHK's benefit from not having to express an allegiance. Right now they can get support from pro and anti Government voters, why join a party or even express an opinion that puts them in one camp?

 

The mid-term elections might tip the balance and remove a CM, but that's irrelevant, if they won't tell you in advance whether they are going to remove the CM.

 

How does your system give me the opportunity to vote for or against the government?

[triskelion]

Wouldn't electing a Chief Minister make him too Presidential? Are we really going to benefit from one person deciding policy? What we will end up with is a tedious and inefficient system where the rest of the legislature is trivialised as all focus is on whether you are for or against whoever is Chief Minister. If you have a primary legislative body, like the LegCo could be, or the Senate in the US is supposed to be, won't you have a more open and accountable system, even simply on the basis that not all accountability will be placed in the hands of one (almost certainly) man?

 

Also, John's post has made we wonder why we need ministers? Surely a better system would be to have the head of each branch responsible and accountable for the delivery of certain objectives as decided by Tynwald?

[Declan]

Well how else can I vote for or against the government? That's pretty fundamental to democracy.