Chief Minister: Allan Bell V Peter Karran

[censorship]

Whether you liked the contents or not is, as you say, up to the individual. Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue.

I didn't have a problem with the content, in so much as I don't care about LibVan drawing attention to Bell's history, former government performance or whatever. What I dislike is that they hijacked an important parliamentary process purely for point-scoring purposes and undermined what is already a pretty flawed system. It appears they had no intention of helping Peter to win, but ensuring everyone knew just how bad Bell is, once again being the party of pointing out what's wrong without offering solutions. The politically naive and immature handling of this hijacking ensured it, like Peter Karran's bid, could not succeed and ended up delivering a situation which the Island will come to regret - allan bell at the helm of government with an overwhelming mandate and a feeling of invincibility. They managed, by their fuckwitted political 'operating', to turn staunch anti-Bell critics into supporters in just minutes. It took Bell decades to make these enemies, and LibVan the proverbial 15 minutes of fame to make adversaries friends.

[Lost Login]

Yes they were speaking to nominate & second, it's just that they weren't allowed to finish their speeches in the context in which they were written. Whether you liked the contents or not is, as you say, up to the individual. Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue.

 

Were they speaking to nominate and second or where they speaking to castigate AB and raise other issues?

 

It came across as the latter.

 

If they had half an once of common sense as I said before they could have managed if they had decided to say praise PK on an issue and then compare castignate Bell. But they did not they started off with a rant, made themselves look as though they were totally off subject and when asked to adjust could not.

 

There end of their speeches may have been fine but once you have lost your audience you have zero chance of recovery. As I said they may have got away with if the start or parts throughtout the speech had been supporting PK but by leaving that until almost a quick round up at the end they got a) what they deserved and b) exactly they wanted

[groudleho]

Whether you liked the contents or not is, as you say, up to the individual. Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue.

I didn't have a problem with the content, in so much as I don't care about LibVan drawing attention to Bell's history, former government performance or whatever. What I dislike is that they hijacked an important parliamentary process purely for point-scoring purposes and undermined what is already a pretty flawed system. It appears they had no intention of helping Peter to win, but ensuring everyone knew just how bad Bell is, once again being the party of pointing out what's wrong without offering solutions. The politically naive and immature handling of this hijacking ensured it, like Peter Karran's bid, could not succeed and ended up delivering a situation which the Island will come to regret - allan bell at the helm of government with an overwhelming mandate and a feeling of invincibility. They managed, by their fuckwitted political 'operating', to turn staunch anti-Bell critics into supporters in just minutes. It took Bell decades to make these enemies, and LibVan the proverbial 15 minutes of fame to make adversaries friends.

 

Our the MHK's who are Bells enemies so thick and so easily misguided that fifteen minutes could turn them into supporters? God help us all.

[censorship]

Our the MHK's who are Bells enemies so thick and so easily misguided that fifteen minutes could turn them into supporters? God help us all.

apparently

[interestedman]

Whether you liked the contents or not is, as you say, up to the individual. Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue.

I didn't have a problem with the content, in so much as I don't care about LibVan drawing attention to Bell's history, former government performance or whatever. What I dislike is that they hijacked an important parliamentary process purely for point-scoring purposes and undermined what is already a pretty flawed system. It appears they had no intention of helping Peter to win, but ensuring everyone knew just how bad Bell is, once again being the party of pointing out what's wrong without offering solutions. The politically naive and immature handling of this hijacking ensured it, like Peter Karran's bid, could not succeed and ended up delivering a situation which the Island will come to regret - allan bell at the helm of government with an overwhelming mandate and a feeling of invincibility. They managed, by their fuckwitted political 'operating', to turn staunch anti-Bell critics into supporters in just minutes. It took Bell decades to make these enemies, and LibVan the proverbial 15 minutes of fame to make adversaries friends.

 

Our the MHK's who are Bells enemies so thick and so easily misguided that fifteen minutes could turn them into supporters? God help us all.

I think they would have looked thick if they had supported Karran after that nonsense. The point is that this was not the time or place for such a ridiculous attack and was well outside the remit of what they were supposed to do - Nominate Peter Karan, not slag off Bell. I don't blame anyone for supporting Bell after that............they had absolutely no choice - the LibVans managed to do, as has been pointed out, force Bells enemies to vote for him ! I feel sorry for Zac Hall and Beecroft - their reputations in tatters before they have started. And to think they could have been an effective opposition, thats the sorry part.

[Addie]

I feel sorry for Zac Hall and Beecroft - their reputations in tatters before they have started. And to think they could have been an effective opposition, thats the sorry part.

 

I don't know anything about Hall, and care less. But I am not unfamiliar with Beecroft, and I wouldn't waste your sympathy. She's one tough cookie and can more than look after herself. She needs to keep her head down, learn a few things and keep her councel until she learns her way. And it wouldn't do if everything anyone did was dragged up years later, now would it?

[macmannin]

Thats all well and good if the person guilty of a wrongdoing was punished at the time.

[Declan]

 

It is nothing to do with Freedom of Speech. They were asked to propose and second PK for Chief Minister. They chose not to do that.

 

 

Actually that is precisely what they did, despite constant interruptions from people who disagreed with them. Just because you don't like what was said doesn't mean you can pretend what's recorded in Hansard is anything but a nomination speech - they extolled the virtues of their candidate in contrast to his opponent.

 

Skelly's speech I would hardly describe as contentious.

 

 

That's because you agreed with it. Simply saying "Bell for CM" is contentious. Because there are some people who disagreed with it.

 

 

Similarly, the shameful conduct of Braidwood, Lowey & Christian trawling up vague and irrelevant rules only succeeded in denying a fair hearing to Karran's case. This wasn't a Radio 4 panel game where no deviation or repetition is allowed. It was a speech by democratically elected members of Tynwald attempting to advance the platform they were elected upon. One doesn't need to agree with them or what they said to recognise that petty rules were being used for partisan ends by the Legco members.

Fine, but again I expect consistancy on whatever side.

 

I didn't hear (and Hansard doesn't record) Liberal Vannin members interrupting Teare or Skelly's speeches with pointless points of order.

[Lost Login]

 

It is nothing to do with Freedom of Speech. They were asked to propose and second PK for Chief Minister. They chose not to do that.

 

 

Actually that is precisely what they did, despite constant interruptions from people who disagreed with them. Just because you don't like what was said doesn't mean you can pretend what's recorded in Hansard is anything but a nomination speech - they extolled the virtues of their candidate in contrast to his opponent.

I disagree, I have listened again and in general much of what the LVP said was not in my opinion a nomination speech, especially the initial parts. They were not nominating PK they were critisising AB. I have not argued those critisisms were not accurate just that the LVP were called to nominate they chose to initially critisise.

 

As for constant interuptions, if you listen to again you may note that once KB actually spoke about PK rather than critise AB she was not interupted and listened to respectfully.

Skelly's speech I would hardly describe as contentious.

 

 

That's because you agreed with it. Simply saying "Bell for CM" is contentious. Because there are some people who disagreed with it.

No it is not contentious becuase he stuck to his brief to nominate and speak in favour of his candidate even if the contents was pure bullshit and balloney. He did not stray away from that. It is nothing to do with what he said about Bell and for the record Bell would not have been my choice as CM and if there had been better candidates in Ramsey I would not have been sorry to see him loose his seat.

 

Similarly, the shameful conduct of Braidwood, Lowey & Christian trawling up vague and irrelevant rules only succeeded in denying a fair hearing to Karran's case. This wasn't a Radio 4 panel game where no deviation or repetition is allowed. It was a speech by democratically elected members of Tynwald attempting to advance the platform they were elected upon. One doesn't need to agree with them or what they said to recognise that petty rules were being used for partisan ends by the Legco members.

Fine, but again I expect consistancy on whatever side.

 

I didn't hear (and Hansard doesn't record) Liberal Vannin members interrupting Teare or Skelly's speeches with pointless points of order.

 

No but that was possibly because Teare & Skelly chose to stick with what was expected and nominatd their candidate. If they had chosen to critisise PK I would have hoped they would have also been interuppted but that is conjecture bbecause they did not. I also repeat that if you listen again especially to the last part of KB's speech when she actually got on to talking about PK she was listened to in silence and not interupted

 

In addition Hall was also listened to in silence except when he started to discuss Manx 2. com He was stopped once by the President who requsted/instructed he return to the current topic i.e. nominating PK. She also dealt with two points of order one from PK and one from possibly EL. She dealt with both identically stating that unless they could detail the relevent point of order they should sit down and Hall should carry on.

[Cronky]

_{Frankly I don't think we would be having this discussion if the President and other members of Legco had simply kept quiet and let Kate Beecroft and Zac Hall read out their statements without interruption. The voting would probably have been the same and this issue would have gone away much more quietly. The sitting was poorly chaired - and that was the cause of the unpleasantness. The Keys, I note, kept a dignified silence.}

 

_{You can argue until the cows come home as to whether what was said was strictly part of a nomination speech. Personally I think Beecroft and Hall come across as tough cookies who wont be pushed around. You never know, we might all be grateful for their pugnacious attitude one day. I think we're in for a few years of 'we have to stand together and drive things forward in times of adversity' bullshit . There's a lot that might get swept under the carpet if some people are not half sharp.}

 

_{A lot of candidates campaigned on the platform that we've had a rubbish Government and they can do better. What's the betting those types will now say it's 'shoulders to the wheel' and vote with COMIN regardless?}

_{Democracy is about Government and Opposition - and it's the awkward squad who make that happen!}

[hboy]

_{Frankly I don't think we would be having this discussion if the President and other members of Legco had simply kept quiet and let Kate Beecroft and Zac Hall read out their statements without interruption.}

 

I agree - fuck them. What they said was not that bad but the fact is that a bunch of total w@nkers have been used to brow beating MHKs and maintaining the status quo for too long and even the slightest bit of protest bothers them. The reason this has happened is that most MHKs are gutless tossers more worried about their pensions than their constituents. Hideous gutless arse kissers most of them. I hope this is a sign of more to come and we can hope to see that expat sweaty sock President banging his gavel more and more as Lib Van try to create some waves to shake us out of this political rut we are in. All good stuff in my book!

[Celt]

, once again being the party of pointing out what's wrong

 

The unfortunate reality behind that is that someone has to. Most of the other MHK's, Ministers and Legco are patting each other on the backs and saying how well they've done and what a good job they've been doing.

 

No-one, except the Libvan it seems, has the balls or any ounce of loyalty to the electorate, to stand up and remind the house about Allan Bells foul ups, shady dealings and misinforming Tynwald. Instead, they elected him adhoc instead. Neither P Karran or A Bell are up to the job and spoilt papers could have shown that.

[P.K.]

I disagree, I have listened again and in general much of what the LVP said was not in my opinion a nomination speech, especially the initial parts. They were not nominating PK they were critisising AB. I have not argued those critisisms were not accurate just that the LVP were called to nominate they chose to initially critisise.

 

Dear oh dear oh dear oh dear. Go ahead LL, point out the nomination protocol that states that during a nomination all that can be said is x, y and z? Go on LL, try and justify El Presidente's showboating? Go on LL, let's see your and her justification for the bullying, patronising and just downright bad behaviour...

 

What sort of nomination are you expecting "He want's to travel and work with disadvantaged children"? I was expecting "The election of candidate X would be a travesty of democracy as he has been shown in the past to have deliberately misled Tynwald. Whereas you all know my candidate Y, he's just done three years in Parkhurst, he's as honest as the day is long and you can trust him...." etc etc etc. You all get the idea.

 

Are they running a government or a circus here? Because the distinctions are blurring....

[Cronky]

_{Frankly I don't think we would be having this discussion if the President and other members of Legco had simply kept quiet and let Kate Beecroft and Zac Hall read out their statements without interruption.}

 

I agree - fuck them. What they said was not that bad but the fact is that a bunch of total w@nkers have been used to brow beating MHKs and maintaining the status quo for too long and even the slightest bit of protest bothers them. The reason this has happened is that most MHKs are gutless tossers more worried about their pensions than their constituents. Hideous gutless arse kissers most of them. I hope this is a sign of more to come and we can hope to see that expat sweaty sock President banging his gavel more and more as Lib Van try to create some waves to shake us out of this political rut we are in. All good stuff in my book!

[Lost Login]

I disagree, I have listened again and in general much of what the LVP said was not in my opinion a nomination speech, especially the initial parts. They were not nominating PK they were critisising AB. I have not argued those critisisms were not accurate just that the LVP were called to nominate they chose to initially critisise.

 

Dear oh dear oh dear oh dear. Go ahead LL, point out the nomination protocol that states that during a nomination all that can be said is x, y and z? Go on LL, try and justify El Presidente's showboating? Go on LL, let's see your and her justification for the bullying, patronising and just downright bad behaviour...

 

I believe the president pointed out the relevent standing order at the time. As for her behaviour as I have stated when LVP stuck with convention and to the topic at hand they were not interuppted but listened to in silence. When they deviated they were pulled up. I would expect that to happen to any member and as I again pointed out it happens during most questions time and in many debates. Tell me how discussing the crash at Cork had anything to do with nominating PK. In my view it did not.

 

My views are not because it was the LVP I would have had the same view if any other member had tried to do the same. Ultimatly though I expect the PK/LVP got exactly the reaction they wanted as I doubt very much they expected or wanted the speeches to be listed to in full without interuption. They chose to seek attention and I expect that they would have been rather miffed if they had been ignorned

 

 

Are they running a government or a circus here? Because the distinctions are blurring....

 

Hard to argue with that point but again I would apply it to many parties in the house. I wish it would improve but I fear that it is not going to judging from this week. Hopefully all sides will learn to get there points across in a civilised way but I fear that there are some on all sides are more concerned about making headlines about themselves than making their point. I fear this week was a classic example because as I said several times it would have been easy for the LVP to have made the points they wanted without getting pulled up. It was simply a matter of drafting so that praise for their own was mixed with critisism of AB. They appear though to have chosen to present their speeches in a way that was virtually sure to get them pulled up which as I say leads me to believe the primary purpose on Tuesday was not to critisise Bell but to cause a reaction and get themselves noticed.