Future Of The Legco

[triskelion]

Only if you assume an oligarchy such as the current CoMin is the only form a Government can take.

[Declan]

That doesn't answer my question.

[thesultanofsheight]

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.

 

Gosh. I find myself agreeing with this and your later post about possible alternative structures.

 

Fact is that by having an elected 'President' we are certainly conferring too much status in one individual. A Chief Minister is just that - a Minister elevated by other Ministers (ie, Keys). A President? Well, that's a step too far in my view.

 

The fact is that the individual would still be some bumpkin that turns up in Westminster in a cheap suit and a haircut that's 35 years out of date and whilst that may confer an air of rudimentary charm its not really Presidential material is it? Therefore I think moving to Presidential style elections is a step too far as it suggests we chose this person and that he's the best we could think of.

 

I do, however, think that Legco should be fully elected and that this vote against refrlects terribly on thoose currently in Legco.

[Declan]

It's not a bad point you make, but I feel overflating the CM's role & ego is a small price to pay for making voting actually worthwhile. At the moment there is no point voting because our votes have no impact on who forms the Government and what direction it takes.

 

Is there an alternative that allows ordinary folk the opportunity to influence the direction policy will go that doesn't give more power to one man, then let's hear it, because I'm utterly disillusioned with the whole process.

[thesultanofsheight]

It's not a bad point you make, but I feel overflating the CM's role & ego is a small price to pay for making voting actually worthwhile. At the moment there is no point voting because our votes have no impact on who forms the Government and what direction it takes.

 

But then its back to the quality of MHK's standing issue. If the best that you're ever going to get as head of government is Forrest Gump does it really matter if he is elected by us, or by the panel of other other Forrest Gumps in Keys?

 

If we go down the route of selecting a 'President' I'd like to think that in matters of external relations and external perception that by having had a majority of individual votes for that person you end up with someone that projects to the outside world what we want to be projected. Not another bumphkin who sees the role as a move up from running their own business or better than working for a living.

[jehovah]

It's not a bad point you make, but I feel overflating the CM's role & ego is a small price to pay for making voting actually worthwhile. At the moment there is no point voting because our votes have no impact on who forms the Government and what direction it takes.

 

Is there an alternative that allows ordinary folk the opportunity to influence the direction policy will go that doesn't give more power to one man, then let's hear it, because I'm utterly disillusioned with the whole process.

 

How about the power to vote for a party with stated policies and constitution, not a system where every candidate has a manifesto that is worthless once they take a government position and are bound by the ministerial code?

Ask yourself, when is the last time you even heard an MHK mention their manifesto?

We are ruled by a political party already. As stated by Peter Karran, "A one party state based on patronage"

[John Wright]

The beauty and simplicity of what I am proposing is that out of 34 members one has no vote, one has no seat and only a presiding role so with a Chief Minister and 8 othsre there are 21 outsiders with no departmental roles and no jobs for boys patronage

 

So CoMin is going to have to satisfy a large number of independenst, only way of doing that is to develop party lines and discipline

 

A directly elected Chief Minister is probably unworkable without parties

 

Mimisters under my proposals are directly answerabel to Tynwald, which sets policy

 

You would develop Select Committees to shadow departments as well

[triskelion]

Is there an alternative that allows ordinary folk the opportunity to influence the direction policy will go that doesn't give more power to one man, then let's hear it, because I'm utterly disillusioned with the whole process.

Well, I would reform LegCo so that is it is elected either a) a single-member constituency basis or b) an all-Island basis using a single transferable vote system. Probably the latter, as it reduces the chance of a "wasted vote," helping to fulfill your criteria of increasing voter influence.

 

I would abandon the ministerial system on the basis that, to my mind at least, it seems to reduce accountability. For example, the runway forex debacle: no one knows who was responsible or if fair disciplinary action was taken. Alan Bell may very well say he is ultimately responsible, but at the moment the only way he could be removed was if Tony Brown was to do it, or if the fine voters of Ramsey oust him a few years down the line.

 

It also seems to create a bizarre situation where people with no experience in whatever field end up in charge of departments. For example, Eddie Teare, who I believe to be a former retail bank manager, is in charge of the DHSS. John Shimmin, former deputy head, is DOLGE minister. Adrian Earnshaw (another bank manager?) heads DHA.

 

Have departmental (or division) heads responsible and accountable to Tynwald instead. This would eliminate Government by patronage.

 

To be honest Declan this doesn't seem a million miles away from your 'LegCo should be the cabinet' idea, except that there's no Chief Minister in overall control.

[John Wright]

The problem with that view is you confuse politics and policy setting and overseeing achievment with actual day to day inplementation and adminsitrtaion

 

A minister should not be involved in latter. That is the job of the Civil Servant, whose other job at high level is tio advise

[La_Dolce_Vita]

How about the power to vote for a party with stated policies and constitution, not a system where every candidate has a manifesto that is worthless once they take a government position and are bound by the ministerial code?

Ask yourself, when is the last time you even heard an MHK mention their manifesto?

We are ruled by a political party already. As stated by Peter Karran, "A one party state based on patronage"

 

Though I think it has to be said that political parties in the UK get a lot of brief for not sticking to their manifesto pledges.

 

Lost Login -

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.

 

No minimum for votes? How is that the right way to go?

[nipper]

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

Of course the position of Attorney General is necessary and yep, let him sit somewhere during the proceedings. There is no need however, for the AG to be a 'member of the Legislative Council'. Perhaps he should be sitting next to the Clerk of Tynwald.

 

Sitting, listening, waiting . . . . ready to pounce into action like a tightly coiled spring.

 

But I would say the rare times he has been called into action, he has only served to confuse the proceedings of the court. Aye, far be it from me to question his razor-sharp legally trained mind and many years of experience, but on the couple of occasions I heard him speak his answer was incorrect. Spoke loads of words in legalise but the bottom line was, he was wrong.

 

Over the years Tynwald has got rid of various positions from the Legislative Council such as Receiver-General, Archdeacon, Vicar-General and Diocesan Registrar, The Second Deemster, Clerk of the Rolls/First Deemster and even the Governor himself.

 

Why on earth we still have a sleepy Attorney General sitting as a Member of the Legislative Council and for that matter the Bishop, is beyond me. I'm not denying they have jobs to do, but I rather think they are no longer required to have their Tuesdays used up sitting round a table with the others.

[manshimajin]

John, excuse me for adding in comments part way through your text but I have just lot my previous attempt and am not technologically up to much!

 

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

 

Absolutely agree with your comments on the religious - maybe they could pop in from time to time to lead ecumenical prayers! If the AG were to give advice on the law and (I assume practicality of legislation) what need is there for a 'revising' chamber?

 

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.

 

If there is unified voting why do we need a second chamber at all? My impression from the LegCo orders is that they get involved in issues that as a body that has not been democratically elected they should keep out of on grounds of propriety - for example planning, questions abut scaffolding and TT entertainment (this month's crop). IMO a revising chamber if one is needed should be strictly, and legislatively limited to that function. This implies competence in acting in the 'revising' capacity which is a very specialised skill. Perhaps this is why the LegCo currently get involved in issues that appropriately should be dealt with by democratically elected MHKs!

 

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

 

Why 5 years? The most effective hold that the electorate has over politicians is the frequency of elections. The more often they are the more effective the 'hold'. We seem to follow the UK system on this, but why? I recognise that the counter argument is that parliaments need 5 years to be able to plan strategically. My counters to that are - Australia seems more effectively governed than the UK and has 3 year (max) parliaments - there is little evidence that MHKs use the 5 year term to think really strategically.

 

The other thought you provoke is why not have 1/2 term elections anyway so that there would be a 'rolling' membership of the Keys i.e. as we don't have a party political system why not have 1/2 the seats in each constituency up for re-election every 2.5 years, or 1.5 years? That would keep members focused on real 'issues' and much more accountable to the people. We are a small (and parochial) Island so we may need a different and more democratically active solution than the UK.

 

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.

 

I wondered again reading this what actually would the role be for the LegCo if it is sitting as part of a unified body with the Keys. Wouldn't MHKs and MLCs be doing the same role? Wouldn't it be better to just have one chamber with a clear role rather than two that seem to second guess each other at present?

[John Wright]

My suggestion does separate out legislative and revision from Governing

 

As fr 5 years it used to be 7 here and across. I don't want such a short period that it is alays election time a la US

 

I am trying to acheive biggest difference with smalles cchange on bvasis it could get through

 

More radical changes have no chance, step at a time

[jehovah]

"I would abandon the ministerial system on the basis that, to my mind at least, it seems to reduce accountability. For example, the runway forex debacle: no one knows who was responsible or if fair disciplinary action was taken. Alan Bell may very well say he is ultimately responsible, but at the moment the only way he could be removed was if Tony Brown was to do it, or if the fine voters of Ramsey oust him a few years down the line."

 

Even if he were voted out in Ramsey he would remain minister until Brown replaced him. If that took 3, 6 or 9 mths, so what, he would still be acting as a minister and drawing a minister's salary. So the only way he could be removed would be for Tony Brown to do it, and he would be chief minister and drawing his salary if he lost his seat also, until a replacement were voted in.

[manshimajin]

John, thanks for your reply. I am still a bit confused as to how a 'unified' chamber would actually work:

 

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.

 

If the 'revising' chamber is simply there to check-out legislation wouldn't it be very confusing for it to also get involved in matters of policy, finance and members questions? I recognise that in your model the 'revisers' are elected by constituency not on an island-wide basis but doesn't that in fact add to the potential for their roles to duplicate and second guess MHK's roles? If a second chamber is really needed (and I have my doubts) then IMO its role should be strictly confined to adding value to legislation not to involvement in representative democracy.

 

IMO it is better to have more frequent elections (or 1/2 chamber elections) and keep politicians on their toes than to let them feel secure for 5 years!

 

I accet what you say about change - in a legislature where politicians refuse even rudimentary elements of 'open' government their own self-interests would be hard to overcome without a revolution.