Rob Callister

[thesultanofsheight]

19 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

As far as Callister goes - he's about 50, no kids, and I assume with his wife's salary they are probably a 100k per annum household. With no kids.  He rarely seems to drink. Doesn't smoke to my knowledge.  So probably has disposable.  It's up to him what he does with it surely?

If Quayle, as a millionaire, suddenly started blitzing Facebook with bought for ads saying how ace he is I’m sure there would equally be some sort of public outcry (probably on IOM News and Politics) not dissimilar to the above. It amounts to the same. It’s buying publicity with money that’s been given to you by the same taxpayers you are trying to impress. And expenses are there to assist you to support services to your constituents. Not to buy ads to big up yourself online. As I said this is nothing to do with Callister directly but his silly self funded Facebook antics exemplify the point perfectly - there should be rules on disclosure of bought for social media spend even outside of election corridors. 

Edited September 21, 2019 by thesultanofsheight

[John Wright]

24 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

 

John Wright also seems to think you are wrong.  

 

I’ve posted nothing to indicate my thoughts either way. I remain open minded, awaiting evidence.

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

Quayle can spend his money how he likes.  As I said what right is it of yours or mine to dictate just because they are employees of government?

In your example of Qauyle - he has enough money that any media advertising wouldn't be a scratch on what he has.  He isn't rich because he got paid an MHK salary.   

Any MHK could get loads of free publicity.  It isn't difficult.  Is that an issue too?

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

2 minutes ago, John Wright said:

I’ve posted nothing to indicate my thoughts either way. I remain open minded, awaiting evidence.

Ok. You've challenged his view.  As I have.  There is no evidence really which is why I challenged it.

We can't go dictating what people who receive income from government spend their money on. 

[thesultanofsheight]

13 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

Quayle can spend his money how he likes.  As I said what right is it of yours or mine to dictate just because they are employees of government?

Not if it’s to buy public office he can’t as I’m sure he and others already appreciate otherwise they’d have done it and resorted to these sort of awful bought for publicity Facebook stunts as well. But they haven’t bought good publicity for themselves online (which they could easily do if they tried as they have the resources) despite being slated in the mainstream public media almost every week for being awful. That’s why I’m suggesting Tynwald needs to have at least a disclosure requirement on bought for media spend outside of election times. Trump effectively bought the White House you clearly see no issue with that either. As usual Callister seems to be the idiot trailblazer raising all these issues for debate through his attention seeking online behaviour and, as I said above, expenses aren’t there to give you the means to big up yourself and your profile online - they’re there to help you support services to support your constituents.

Edited September 21, 2019 by thesultanofsheight

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

Hang on - you're comparing Donald Trump being voted in as U S President ( when the country was largely in a mess and what got him in was a largely disenfranchised country) and a manx politician using social media?

So if a iom politician uses social media and the internet to publicise themselves by using some savvy (say he has a mate who's handy with SEO etc) at no cost that's ok?

Should they also be disclosing what else they spend their money on so we can sense check it?  

This is small time politics in a tiny island.  If RC or anyone else is going to get elected it wont be because they bombarded you with paid or unpaid social media content.  If anything it'll have the mob like you feeling the opposite.  I'm no fan of RC but there is 70 odd pages here and your agenda is spewed all over them.

[thesultanofsheight]

1 hour ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

I'm no fan of RC but there is 70 odd pages here and your agenda is spewed all over them.

It’s odd that the first thing someone who has made 6 posts on a forum would do is read one specific 70 page thread right the way through. As a private citizen I don’t have an agenda and I think it’s clear that I’m one of many who has commented in this thread from time to time and, as I have said four times at least now, my issue is a much wider issue than Mr Callister and his paid for attention seeking. As I have consistently made clear. Although as I have said he exemplifies the situation on paid for content perfectly. A politician paying for paid for social media content about themselves is just wrong in my book - and the costs of buying the content should be fully and publicly disclosed. Whoever does it, and whether it’s at an election or not. 

Edited September 21, 2019 by thesultanofsheight

[John Wright]

OK, @thesultanofsheight And @The Dog's Dangly Bits, either get a private room or stop winding each up, Turn of The Screw like.

[Donald Trumps]

4 hours ago, thesultanofsheight said:

The issue of paid for content in general raises too many issues for me. Not least disclosure of spend. Say an existing MHK, any MHK, stands for election next time round and spends all their £7,500 expenses on heavily sponsored social media content (which they can do as they do not need to produce receipts for anything) whereas a new candidate with no expenses funds behind them could not compete to reach the same audience as they don’t have the cash to spend to promote themselves. It’s just thoroughly wrong in my book to allow people to secure paid for content as it puts them at a clear advantage over other candidates. It’s simply not a fair fight get once money is involved and puts new candidates at a disadvantage (unless they’re rich and can buy similar coverage) over sitting candidates with expense allowances. I think Tynwald needs to ASAP create very clear rules and disclosure requirements around this sort of stuff before every idiot resorts to these sort of desperation tactics with expenses money that we fund. 

Ah, general election spending is a different matter - they should all be limited to a total print/online media budget for the duration of perhaps £5,000.00 each

Edited September 21, 2019 by Donald Trumps

[Donald Trumps]

1 hour ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

Hang on - you're comparing Donald Trump being voted in as U S President ( when the country was largely in a mess and what got him in was a largely disenfranchised country) and a manx politician using social media?

So if a iom politician uses social media and the internet to publicise themselves by using some savvy (say he has a mate who's handy with SEO etc) at no cost that's ok?

Should they also be disclosing what else they spend their money on so we can sense check it?  

This is small time politics in a tiny island.  If RC or anyone else is going to get elected it wont be because they bombarded you with paid or unpaid social media content.  If anything it'll have the mob like you feeling the opposite.  I'm no fan of RC but there is 70 odd pages here and your agenda is spewed all over them.

SEO on it's own won't get you far nowadays

You do have to pay to get your product in front of the faces of your desired readership

[Donald Trumps]

2 hours ago, thesultanofsheight said:

If Quayle, as a millionaire, suddenly started blitzing Facebook with bought for ads saying how ace he is I’m sure there would equally be some sort of public outcry (probably on IOM News and Politics) not dissimilar to the above. It amounts to the same. It’s buying publicity with money that’s been given to you by the same taxpayers you are trying to impress. And expenses are there to assist you to support services to your constituents. Not to buy ads to big up yourself online. As I said this is nothing to do with Callister directly but his silly self funded Facebook antics exemplify the point perfectly - there should be rules on disclosure of bought for social media spend even outside of election corridors. 

He'd never pay to have the public openly deride him

He steers well clear of encounters with the plebs, especially media engagements where the electorate get to ask questions he isn't prepared for

[Kopek]

Would any money spent on self-promotion be counted as ''Election Expenses''?

One MHK spends a good lump of his yearly expenses allowance on newsletters. Is that informing his constituents or electioneering?

[John Wright]

26 minutes ago, Donald Trumps said:

Ah, general election spending is a different matter - they should all be limited to a total print/online media budget for the duration of perhaps £5,000.00 each

That’s what the limit is in effect, now that constituencies and electorates are more or less standardised.

[Rushen Spy]

3 hours ago, thesultanofsheight said:

If Quayle, as a millionaire, suddenly started blitzing Facebook with bought for ads saying how ace he is I’m sure there would equally be some sort of public outcry (probably on IOM News and Politics) not dissimilar to the above. It amounts to the same. It’s buying publicity with money that’s been given to you by the same taxpayers you are trying to impress. And expenses are there to assist you to support services to your constituents. Not to buy ads to big up yourself online. As I said this is nothing to do with Callister directly but his silly self funded Facebook antics exemplify the point perfectly - there should be rules on disclosure of bought for social media spend even outside of election corridors. 

Definitely and if it's done throughout the year or in the run up to a General Election then any spending on it needs to be factored as part of the spending rules for elections. It's just a protracted form of electioneering, doing it slowly over the long run instead of during the General Election campaign itself. I think this kind of spending and paid advertising needs to be kept in mind as part of a full review of the Election rules.

[Rushen Spy]

3 hours ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

Hang on - you're comparing Donald Trump being voted in as U S President ( when the country was largely in a mess and what got him in was a largely disenfranchised country) and a manx politician using social media?

The issue here isn't Rob spamming social media. He can do that, however irritating it is. The issue is protracted SPENDING on SPONSORED ADs --- should they be counted as part of election spending limits? I can't think of any other reason for a politician to be paying to advertise their social media page except as a self-promotion to be re-elected, especially when the same page will be used as part of their re-election campaign.