The Lisvane Review

[WTF]

1 hour ago, La Colombe said:

Quirk? His disappearance can be explained easily enough. 

didn't he get into a taxi??

[Donald Trumps]

2 hours ago, Uhtred said:

Not exactly this year's biggest political shock. Paragon of the status quo Quayle, a man with no imagination but a firm grasp on self-interest, won't want Tynwald moving in the direction of democracy which is what, despite a number of visible failings, Lisvane does. The cozy inter-relationship between Tynwald and government, entwined in a mutual feast of self-serving gravy consumption, delivers far too much to our political cadre for any forward-looking boat-rocking thank you. Perhaps it's unsurprising that reactionary Quayle knows how to keep his bread buttered but the (apparent) disinterest in parliamentary advancement demonstrated by the newly elected - and seemingly subservient - MHKs is as depressing as it is unsurprising. Let's see who speaks up for reform in the debate. Don't hold your breath.

On the theme of the newbies, are Moorhouse, Corlett and Quirk dead? It's the only explanation that seems to fit their current disappearance from society.

 

Good post, but I think we can rely on newbies to speak (& vote) for many of the Lisvane recommendations

A constitutional crisis will arise tho' if Globetrotter & his LegCo goons manage to quosh the majority of recommendations

[Ham_N_Eggs]

7 hours ago, Donald Trumps said:

Good post, but I think we can rely on newbies to speak (& vote) for many of the Lisvane recommendations

A constitutional crisis will arise tho' if Globetrotter & his LegCo goons manage to quosh the majority of recommendations

They'll kick it into the long grass or just vote against it in it's entirety. Who on earth would vote for a £12,000 paycut? We live in a representative democracy but when they are taking the govt shilling who do they actually represent?

[Max Power]

This is the point where we see who has the guts to stand up and be counted and who the self serving patsies are!

I'll be watching with interest....

[Lost Login]

12 hours ago, Uhtred said:

Not exactly this year's biggest political shock. Paragon of the status quo Quayle, a man with no imagination but a firm grasp on self-interest, won't want Tynwald moving in the direction of democracy which is what, despite a number of visible failings, Lisvane does. The cozy inter-relationship between Tynwald and government, entwined in a mutual feast of self-serving gravy consumption, delivers far too much to our political cadre for any forward-looking boat-rocking thank you. Perhaps it's unsurprising that reactionary Quayle knows how to keep his bread buttered but the (apparent) disinterest in parliamentary advancement demonstrated by the newly elected - and seemingly subservient - MHKs is as depressing as it is unsurprising. Let's see who speaks up for reform in the debate. Don't hold your breath.

On the theme of the newbies, are Moorhouse, Corlett and Quirk dead? It's the only explanation that seems to fit their current disappearance from society.

 

So both you and asitis have read the Lisvane report and agree with all he recommendations then. I will admit I have not but from what I have heard and read there are bits I think are good, bits not so good and bits that need a bit of tweaking.

From what I have heard one of the bits that Quayle disagrees with is Lisvane's suggestion that after the Chief Minister is elected 4 are chosen to head scrutiny committees therefore not being available to be ministers or part of Government. Quayle questions whether when we only have 24 MHKs do you immediately want to potentially take away the best 4 from being ministers. I have to admit I agree. It appears that at the best of times they struggle to find MHK's who could be capable ministers so making it harder does not seem logical.

The are of the Lisvane report that I have concerns with are ideas are those where he seem to have overlooked that we do not have a parliament of 100s.

For what it is worth I would change Tynwald to 32 or 33 elected members. One becomes CM, one is president/speaker and 8 become members of the upper house whose job is to review and scrutinise. They can not be ministers or members of departments. The remaining members are in the lower house. Maximum of 8 Ministers and & members of departments. Everybody apart from possibly the chief minister gets paid the same it can not be alleged those who act as ministers etc. are afraid to resign or vote against Govt as they fear loss of pay.

I would also provide that government ministers should be allowed free vote when council of ministers have not agreed matters either unanimously or with only 1 or 2 against.  

 

  

 

[Uhtred]

2 hours ago, Lost Login said:

So both you and asitis have read the Lisvane report and agree with all he recommendations then. I will admit I have not but from what I have heard and read there are bits I think are good, bits not so good and bits that need a bit of tweaking.

From what I have heard one of the bits that Quayle disagrees with is Lisvane's suggestion that after the Chief Minister is elected 4 are chosen to head scrutiny committees therefore not being available to be ministers or part of Government. Quayle questions whether when we only have 24 MHKs do you immediately want to potentially take away the best 4 from being ministers. I have to admit I agree. It appears that at the best of times they struggle to find MHK's who could be capable ministers so making it harder does not seem logical.

The are of the Lisvane report that I have concerns with are ideas are those where he seem to have overlooked that we do not have a parliament of 100s.

For what it is worth I would change Tynwald to 32 or 33 elected members. One becomes CM, one is president/speaker and 8 become members of the upper house whose job is to review and scrutinise. They can not be ministers or members of departments. The remaining members are in the lower house. Maximum of 8 Ministers and & members of departments. Everybody apart from possibly the chief minister gets paid the same it can not be alleged those who act as ministers etc. are afraid to resign or vote against Govt as they fear loss of pay.

I would also provide that government ministers should be allowed free vote when council of ministers have not agreed matters either unanimously or with only 1 or 2 against.  

 

  

 

I have read Lisvane and I agree with much of it, not all of it, but I certainly support the overriding principle he drives at of improving parliamentary performance and accountability. As to your point about removing 4 potential quality Ministers from a small assembly, yes I see that it potentially reduces the Ministerial pool still further, but at the moment there is a shameful lack of proper scrutiny of government policy and performance which removing the scrutineers from the government entirely would help overcome. At present it's a case of quis custodiet ipsos custodes because we're expected to believe that the annual bunfight where all of Tynwald debate the policy programme is a genuine assessment of that programme, Yeah, obviously a parliament where every bloody member bar Robertshaw is receiving the government's shilling, well twelve grand, is going to critically evaluate that same government...not. 

Of course to a certain extent Lisvane is trying to find the most effective way of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic because an equally fundamental improvement alongside his procedural reforms is a parliament comprised of genuine talent, intelligence and ability. Not what we have today. Let's face it, a government of which Quayle is the head, and the parliament which supported his appointment, is not something that represents an effectively functioning administration.

 

Edit for typos 

Edited June 7, 2017 by Uhtred

[asitis]

LL has a point I haven't read the report in full, neither do I need to, when the dysfunction of a system where renumeration overrides scrutiny is plain for all to see !

The corrosive elements of the "old boys club" need to be dismantled for the island to move forward with a true democratic administration.

[Max Power]

Lisvane suggests, four large departments, four ministers, and four members of departments, there will be no need to be looking for others to be ministers. He suggests that the ministers contribute significantly to the running of the four departments, not as now where they wait to be told what to do and say by the civil servants. 

I'd suggest that the departments could all run satisfactorily without having a minister at their head, they are only there to give direction as to the wishes of government! There is some myth that politicians are really clever people and have all the answers, they exist on rhetoric and what they say, not what they actually do! 

[Donald Trumps]

This is the problem with single entity government, we may end up with one amorphous government blob - the government bloat as a massive quivering (untransparent)  jelly, impossible to hold to account in any way

 

[forestboy]

8 hours ago, asitis said:

LL has a point I haven't read the report in full, neither do I need to, when the dysfunction of a system where renumeration overrides scrutiny is plain for all to see !

The corrosive elements of the "old boys club" need to be dismantled for the island to move forward with a true democratic administration.

It'll never happen sadly. 

[La Colombe]

1 hour ago, Donald Trumps said:

 we may end up with one amorphous government blob 

I think we've already got one of those. 

[paswt]

"we" , don't you live in your 'constituency' in the UK ?

[Kopek]

Max Power, ''...I'd suggest that the departments could all run satisfactorily without having a minister at their head, they are only there to give direction as to the wishes of government! ...''

Politicians at least have to have an eye on the next election. Just suppose that in the Couch/Beecroft row, Couch wanted to withdraw all medical treatment for the over 65s, ( your Mum and Dad ) and KB was vehemently opposed to this cold hearted civil servant measure. Would you still want a CS in charge?

[Max Power]

10 minutes ago, Kopek said:

Max Power, ''...I'd suggest that the departments could all run satisfactorily without having a minister at their head, they are only there to give direction as to the wishes of government! ...''

Politicians at least have to have an eye on the next election. Just suppose that in the Couch/Beecroft row, Couch wanted to withdraw all medical treatment for the over 65s, ( your Mum and Dad ) and KB was vehemently opposed to this cold hearted civil servant measure. Would you still want a CS in charge?

That's not what I'm saying, the departments have to carry out the policy of the elected government.

[John Wright]

1 hour ago, Max Power said:

That's not what I'm saying, the departments have to carry out the policy of the elected government.

And isn't that the real problem. We have a democratic deficit because we don't elect a government. We elect 24 independents, all with differing policies and priorities, who then do a horse trade for jobs and power in the proverbial smoke filled room.

we aren't given a choice of electing a government, or even choosing policies.

That is where real reform needs to start.

im a believer in only one politician per department. I don't think reducing departments to 4 would really work. It would concentrate power in too few hands.

If each department were shadowed by a scrutiny select committee, voted for only by back benchers, not ministers, then by the the time the statutory boards etc were filled no one would lose out. So we don't worry about having to persuade turkeys to vote.

i also don't think it matters if  a minister is from Keys or LegCo, as long as they are popularly elected. I don't think it's beyond possibility to build in checks and balances to deal with any difference of opinion.

Tynwald is our parliament. Keys and LegCo are, effectively, committees sitting separately to consider legislation. Lisvane completely overlooked this historic fact.