Geoff Cannell

[Upstream]

I checked his manifesto for the last general election at www.iomelections.com and was quite surprised to find that although a TT enthusiast, he was in favour of an all-island speed limit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Geoff's maiden speech in Tynwald was on 16th June 1998 and he spoke at length in support of an All Island Speed Limit. The resolution was put forward by Mr Shimmin as:

 

That Tynwald is of the opinion that the Isle of Man Government should, as a priority, introduce legislation to establish an all-Island speed limit.

 

The motion was seconded by Geoff and he starts his speech at page 71.

The transcript from Tynwald is here:

th16061998.pdf

(The relevant topic starts at bottom of page 57)

 

The motion was defeated by the absolute minimum of margins, 10 – 10 in the Keys and 4 – 3 (for the motion) in the Legislative Council, but because the branches were not in line the motion failed. If you are interested in the Speed Limit debate, it makes quite good reading.

[Darth Vader]

I checked his manifesto for the last general election at www.iomelections.com and was quite surprised to find that although a TT enthusiast, he was in favour of an all-island speed limit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Geoff's maiden speech in Tynwald was on 16th June 1998 and he spoke at length in support of an All Island Speed Limit. The resolution was put forward by Mr Shimmin as:

 

That Tynwald is of the opinion that the Isle of Man Government should, as a priority, introduce legislation to establish an all-Island speed limit.

 

The motion was seconded by Geoff and he starts his speech at page 71.

The transcript from Tynwald is here:

th16061998.pdf

(The relevant topic starts at bottom of page 57)

 

The motion was defeated by the absolute minimum of margins, 10 – 10 in the Keys and 4 – 3 (for the motion) in the Legislative Council, but because the branches were not in line the motion failed. If you are interested in the Speed Limit debate, it makes quite good reading.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A classic example of a un-democratically elected body overthrowing the decision of a democratically elected one.

 

LEGCO! Be rid of it once and for all!

[Jonty]

???

 

How did Legco overthrow the decision? Keys voted against the motion.

 

Legco voted for the motion to have a speed limit. . Because there was a conflict, the Keys vote won.

 

Keys got there way. Legco no power at all. Whats the problem?

[Darth Vader]

???

 

How did Legco overthrow the decision?  Keys voted against the motion.

 

Legco voted for the motion to have a speed limit.  .  Because there was a conflict, the Keys vote won.

 

Keys got there way.  Legco no power at all.  Whats the problem?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It was a draw in the Keys so if there had been no LEGCO the Speaker of the Keys could have made a casting vote to pass the motion.

 

By virtue of the fact Tynwald is two bodies then the President cannot cast a casting vote if both houses do not agree. Think about it.

 

This is not democracy, it is medieval pompous nonsence!

 

Basically because Tynwald is composed of two chambers then democracy can be thwarted by dinosauric standing orders.

[Alias]

Screw off to England then, or stand for MHK.

[Jonty]

A tied vote in the Keys meant that the motion failed The casting vote of the Speaker always has to maintain the status quo, so the motion would have failed whether he had voted or not.

 

Therefore the final result matched up with their vote - Their will took precedence. The fact that the Legco voted the other way meant nothing in the end.

[sam_iom]

Geoff Cannell need to be "someone"

Voice of the TT or important Member of the house of Keys.

Its the oxygen of fame that he craves. Hope he has done his sums right as I understand the last time he was rejected by the public he went into a tail spin for months. At that time he still had the TT radio job and press officer, both since also lost.

Look forward to seeing how the dummy election matches the real thing.

(also in the section of Local News)

[Darth Vader]

A tied vote in the Keys meant that the motion failed  The casting vote of the Speaker always has to maintain the status quo, so the motion would have failed  whether he had voted or not. 

 

Therefore the final result matched up with their vote - Their will took precedence.  The fact that the Legco voted the other way meant nothing in the end.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The Speaker does not have to maintain the status quo in the Keys.

 

But in Tynwald where both chambers come together he/she does.

 

Please correct me if I am wrong because I take a serious interest in this stuff.

[Upstream]

There has been some interesting response to this point. The one they call Darth Vader should perhaps be given more respect in political matters than the forum sometimes credits him. Even if you don't agree with the ethos.

 

Anyway, a synopsis of the vote (incidently there had been a previous vote on an amendment put forward by Tony Brown MHK) is as follows:

 

 

A division was called for and voting resulted as follows:

In the Keys -

For: Messrs Gilbey, Quine, Mrs Crowe, Messrs Houghton, Braidwood, Mrs Cannell, Messrs Shimmin, Singer, Karran and Cannell - 10

Against: Messrs Cannan, North, Sir Miles Walker, Messrs Brown, Cretney, Duggan, Bell, Corkill, Gelling and the Speaker - 10

The Speaker: Mr President, the motion fails in the House with 10 votes cast for and 10 votes cast against.

In the Council -

For: The Lord Bishop, Messrs Lowey, Waft and Crowe - 4

Against: Dr Mann, Mr Radcliffe and Mrs Christian - 3

The President: In the Council 4 votes have been cast in favour of the resolution and 3 votes against. Having failed to carry in the House of Keys, although it has carried in the Council, the resolution fails to carry.

Mr Shimmin: Mr President, could I take some guidance on this? Under standing order 3.19 am I permitted to give notice of my intention to move the same motion at the July sitting?

The President: Yes, sir.

Mr Shimmin: Combined voting?

The President: I am perhaps premature in my reaction. Standing order 3.19: .Where the Council and Keys have voted separately in Tynwald on any motion and such motion has received an affirmative vote in the Keys but has been defeated in the Council, the Member who moved the motion may at any time during the same or next following sitting give notice of intention to move the same motion at a sitting, which shall be specified in the notice, to be held not later than six months after the sitting at which the motion was put and lost. Paragraph (1)

does not apply in respect of an amendment where the principal motion has been lost in both Branches.. The requirement of an affirmative vote in the Keys has not been achieved.

Mr Shimmin: Thank you, Mr President.

The President: I am sorry, hon. member, we can not have recourse to that.

 

 

So the two branches did not really conflict (ie one for the other against) but just that the Keys did not vote for the affirmative . . . so then, see Standing Orders for the twists and turns available, bearing in mind that the speaker had to correct himself on this one before he mis-interpreted Standing Order 3.19.

 

In any case, a very close call.

[Fred]

It looks like the Speaker has the casting vote when voting in the House of Keys,but when voting in Tynwald he votes just as any other MHK.By convention he may maintain the status quo,but his is the casting vote when voting in the Keys to use as he wishes?

 

If enough members of Keys back a bill it will eventually be passed.

A couple of quotes from Tynwald website :-

 

"Where a disagreement cannot be resolved, under the Isle of Man Constitution Act 1961 if a Bill is passed by the House of Keys and rejected by the Council, and is then passed by the House in the next session and not passed by the Council, it may proceed without the agreement of the Council. The power of the Council is, therefore, ultimately a delaying power."

 

"In most circumstances, a motion is carried by a majority in each Branch supporting the motion. Where there is an equality of votes in the Council, the President has a casting vote. If the motion is carried in the Keys but not in the Council, it may be brought before the Court at a subsequent sitting. It is then put to the Court voting as a single body and at least seventeen votes are then required for the motion to carry."