Shake me up Judy Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 It's now in the Listen Again section of manxradio.com for your listening pleasure. People should be advised though that listening to this broadcast may be injurious to your health. Possible dangers include severe whiplash, and cranial keyboard impact. In severe injury cases the second usually follows the first, and you or a near relative should call a doctor immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 It's now in the Listen Again section of manxradio.com for your listening pleasure. Thanks for that. Hope it's a sign of things to come at MR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
censorship Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 Thanks for that. Hope it's a sign of things to come at MR. I'd be very interested in hearing your views once you've listened Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wheels Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 It's a pity it wasn't filmed. They could have sent it to Harry Hill. . Future headline 'Minister hails cash income generated by you've been framed film industry' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopek Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 Having listened, not as bad as is being made out on MF. Nervously presented and poorly spoken but first speech nerves would explain most of that. Not being able to deviate from the written word when invited to do so is was a problem for KB but again nerves. I would say that it was KBs own writing, her usual style of diction. As to the content, negative politics, yes but there is nothing wrong with that if executed properly. Perhaps KB is not ssarcastic or pithy enough to carry it off. The content was nothing less than many of us on here have been saying about AB, why is it wrong for KB to say it, apart of course, than it had the adverse affect to that sought. Towards the end, when she started promoting her candidate she did much better. Too late by then of course. Similarly with Zac Hall, when he got to promoting PKs social policies he sounded quite good and would have done some good for PKs cause if not his votes. Poorly thought out speeches and nervously presented but not any worse than we on MF can be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moghrey Mie Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 I have just had look through Standing Orders and cannot find anything which says that an address nominating an election candidate has to take a particular form. Anyone care to challenge this point? Common sense would say, 'Least said soonest mended.' All Kate had to do was just nominate Peter as candidate and say a few words of praise in his favour. The same for Zac Hall who seconded the nomination. This was a total disaster for Liberal Vannin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shake me up Judy Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 I think you're being overly generous there Kopek. It was a terrible day for LibVan, managing to lose votes for their candidate and gifting the result on a landslide. They demonstrated that Allan Bell was the only serious candidate (even though many of us have expressed doubts about his record many times). Even if Peter had picked up a few more votes, as I'm sure he could have done, he would at least have gone down with dignity intact. LibVan let themselves and the Manx people down today and by failing to act responsibly and as a serious party they denied the people the election we deserved. They have put back their own cause and that of political parties on the Island, breeding more cynicism and mistrust that we could well do without, and ruined the debut of two new members and the party they represent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
censorship Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 Poorly thought out speeches and nervously presented but not any worse than we on MF can be. But none of us is standing up in a national parliament proposing our party boss is appointed leader of government for the next five years. What we do and say on here has virtually fuck all impact on anything, other than our own egos. The impact of Beecroft's speech was that just 2 papers were spoilt and 27 people voted for Bell, rising to 29 in the final equation - the only dissenteres were LibVan. Bell now has the ultimate mandate, virtually complete backing from Tynwald. For an ego-driven politician like Bell, this could lead to any idea of reforming his behaviour being forgotten. I firmly believe there were people who went in there this morning willing to give Karran a shot, or at leats unwilling to support Bell whose minds were actually changed when they heard the style of Beecroft's speech. 75% of it was the worst of politics, looking back, back-biting, embittered and, in areas, wrong. If she had stood up and delivered just the final 25%, regardless of nerves, it would have been fine. It was good stuff about Peter and his love for the Island, and record for fighting for the common man etc. Zac was okay until he went off on some bizzare rant about airline safety - wasn't the time or the place. I don't think Karran could have won the election, I don't what Bell's vote would have been without these speeches. One thing I am sure about is that there would have been less support for Bell without them and, even if he had still won, he woudl have had to show some humility in his new role. Now he goes into his ivory tower thinking he is untouchable, and it is all thanks to Kate Beecroft. It's taken her three goes to get in, and the first thing she does is fuck the entire Island over. Brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 The main point is that they didn't do what they were there to do - nominate their candidate. They weren't meant to go off and put Bell down or go on about airline safety. For doing what they did they made themselves look like incompetent fools. And for Karran to suddenly leap up and attempt to withdraw his candidature was pathetic. I don't feel President Christian did a very good job, but feel it was right for her to state what they were expected to be doing and to tell them they weren't doing it and to stick to job of nominating their candidate. For me I it just shows how badly we need reform of the way the chief minister is chosen. The whole thing is done in the back rooms and via private lobbying without even a formal debate. I don't feel that it is wrong to bring up the fact that Bell was censured by the Mount Murray report, or to show he was merrilly making Civil Service hay when he knew (or should have known) that it was all going to end. I agree Bell's manifesto and Karran's were in large parts identical - but that to me simply shows how trivial this process is, limited to platitudes. The normal way these things are done is proposer 1, seconder 1, statement 1, proposer 2, seconder 2, statement 2, rebuttal 1, rebuttal 2, vote. Tynwald doesn't bother with that and its just proposer 1 seconder 1, proposer 2, seconder 2, vote. The lack of debate this causes really limits the issue and is a real problem - but did Lib Van raise our consciousness about this problem. No, they just made themselves look incompetent. In a proper debate Bell would have been made to face his past - and Karran would have been shown up to be the poor Chief Minister material he is. The Island needs a process where something like this happens, but for Lib Van to try to shoe horn this into its proposer and seconder speeches wasn't the way to do it. They came over terribly. Not that I'm surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 As to the content, negative politics, yes but there is nothing wrong with that if executed properly. Perhaps KB is not ssarcastic or pithy enough to carry it off. The content was nothing less than many of us on here have been saying about AB, why is it wrong for KB to say it, apart of course, than it had the adverse affect to that sought. Towards the end, when she started promoting her candidate she did much better. Too late by then of course. KB though was meant to be proposing PK and she appeared to have forgotten that. That is in the main was what was wrong with her speech. It was not a debate where you are called to oppose a motion etc. If there had been a motion to discuss the suitability of X or Y then the tone of her speech may have been fine If she had wanted to play the man and not the ball she could have done it easily and in a few sentences e.g every time that she outlined a quality of her candidate she could have simply finished by saying and I contrast that with X who has done ABC. Point made quickly Her speech rather reminded me of the Manx Radio debate for Douglas South which I commentated on at the time that KB seemed to have let the LVP's vendettor with Malarchy become all consuming over other issues. This morning seemed to be the similar. They had got carried away with the chance to have a go at Bell and forgot what the actual point of today was about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarne Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 I'd say that today's episode episode revealed what most already knew or suspected. The LibVans are unable to be anything other than a party of opposition. Unable, or incapable, of lauding the virtues of their leader, they chose (or were directed) to attack his opponent. Well said Terse - people want their politicians to stand for something and lead, not to just whine about their opponents from the side lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 I'd say that today's episode episode revealed what most already knew or suspected. The LibVans are unable to be anything other than a party of opposition. Unable, or incapable, of lauding the virtues of their leader, they chose (or were directed) to attack his opponent. Well said Terse - people want their politicians to stand for something and lead, not to just whine about their opponents from the side lines. The other thing that strikes me is that in a new house, with the LVP having 3 members and potentially having a bit more influence the one thing that you do not want to do is alienate on day one those who might support you on some matters in the future. Surely all they have done is make it slightly more difficult for themselves in the future as I would have thought they will find it harder now to earn trust and support of others. Maybe that is what they want though so they can sit back, not get involved and be able to say in the future "It wasn't me" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempus Fugit Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 it's a sad situation that there were so few candidates considered vaguely capable of leading the country what a dearth of talent ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelo Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 Well, thank goodness the good voters of Ramsey upset the cabal's plans for indefinite terms of office. No doubt they'll all have to go on another fact-finding tour of Hong Kong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 there will be more of that to come. I hope not. That was an embarrassed mess of a LV performance, they've done themselves no favours at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.