Spat between Chief Minister and Dr Glover

[Anyone]

1 hour ago, TheTeapot said:

You can just ignore 'scotty', their views on peoples characters is historically poor.

Took the words right out of my keypad. Ignore Dilli.

[Scotty]

8 minutes ago, the stinking enigma said:

A bad character reference from dilli is worth far more in reality than any piffling doctorate.

And the relevance is ?

[Anyone]

1 hour ago, rachomics said:

 

Thanks Roger, you get it. 

He’s not alone.

[BenFairfax]

14 minutes ago, Apple said:

Should this be part of the thread on Covid ?

Perhaps, will check that thread in a bit. The question I was really waiting to hear is: Have you been in contact with Dr Glover? And if not then how many tubes of reactive agent do we have left? 

[The Voice of Reason]

34 minutes ago, quilp said:

Democratically elected? Are you suggesting we actually have a fair and open administration which steadfastly operates in complete transparency with the wishes of this population at heart? 😶

Democratically elected - yes without a shadow of a doubt . Why would you put a question mark after that?. Are you suggesting the election process is corrupt in some form?

Fair and open administration - yes, but there are obviously things that must remain confidential but we have the FOI act. Tynwald proceedings are live on the radio for those who wish to follow them. Public consultations etc

Operating in complete transparency - see above

The wishes of this population at heart - this population have many wide and varied wishes, some diametrically opposed so they cannot be lumped together as one. But candidates issue manifestos and this population vote (or don’t) individually for them accordingly. That is democracy.

[Anyone]

5 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Democratically elected - yes without a shadow of a doubt . Why would you put a question mark after that?. Are you suggesting the election process is corrupt in some form?

Fair and open administration - yes, but there are obviously things that must remain confidential but we have the FOI act. Tynwald proceedings are live on the radio for those who wish to follow them. Public consultations etc

Operating in complete transparency - see above

The wishes of this population at heart - this population have many wide and varied wishes, some diametrically opposed so they cannot be lumped together as one. But candidates issue manifestos and this population vote (or don’t) individually for them accordingly. That is democracy.

Aye right.

[thesultanofsheight]

1 hour ago, Scotty said:

I wish Sheldon Cooper and Leonard Hofsteder were on here 😀

 

What would two more fictional characters add to this thread? 

[Scotty]

1 minute ago, thesultanofsheight said:

What would two more fictional characters add to this thread? 

😶

[thesultanofsheight]

9 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Democratically elected - yes without a shadow of a doubt . Why would you put a question mark after that?. Are you suggesting the election process is corrupt in some form?

I would agree here. There’s too much focus on the CM. He’s just the figurehead for most of this madness. The real issue is in the deep dark depths of the real unelected - the inhabitants of Cabinet Office. 

[Apple]

17 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Fair and open administration - yes, but there are obviously things that must remain confidential but we have the FOI act.

Contradictory surely. An open administration would not need FOI to try and drag information out of them.

19 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

The wishes of this population at heart

We all (surely) want effective and efficient health and social care practices based on good evidence, best practice, fairness and equality. Do we get that ? Read all the complaints in the report (reported after 3 years of delay). 

 

[Banker]

1 hour ago, Scotty said:

Which medics are not being listened to ? The ones I know are involved wouldn’t stand by and say nothing. 

Stop pretending that you know any medics other than your GP , it’s obvious that HOWIE & Ashie don’t listen to professional advice!

[Uhtred]

1 minute ago, Banker said:

 it’s obvious that HOWIE & Ashie don’t listen to professional advice!

And why should they? They’re utterly infallible geniuses who know everything about everything. The voices in their heads told them that. And it isn’t hyperbowl.

[BenFairfax]

2 hours ago, rachomics said:

He isn't pushed out each week. There are a whole host of professionals he could be bringing forward to talk to the nation (Dr. Khan and Dr. Ewart jump immediately to mind) but he chooses to do this himself. The press have been asking for the professionals for months now and he keeps putting himself out there instead. That speaks volumes. Just remember that he isn't a Dr (scientific or medical) and is educated by Dr. Google and his (fragile) ego. 

Experts in a field should be presenting evidence, and advising government; this includes economics aspects. I do not have data but idea on purely risk adjusted economic point of view we should move significantly to open borders I just do not buy. Government has access to economist who have all data the need and can run scenarios and medics can then weight those scenarios by their likelihood of occuring against differing border policies. Endless nonsense on need to balance economy with health, where as, as I see it, only way to support economy is to control pathogen. [When talking economy I am referring to aggregate effect, though I accept individuals may well be effected disproportionally and they should for taking hit for greater good be supported.] 

 

 

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, Apple said:

Everything. Our health and social care services have been remorselessly poorly managed and the information is all out there if you look for it. Not easy to find and much distraction and obfuscation is used to ensure a real picture is not easily obtained.

[...] Complaints data as noted previously. Read and digest - believe me this is only the bare minimum:-

https://www.tynwald.org.im/business/opqp/sittings/20182021/2020-GD-0068.pdf

It's quite interesting when you look at it.  It's clear that the actual complaints process continued, it was just that nobody in administration could be bothered to put the details together to produce the annual report as they were (presumably legally) obliged to do.  It's not just the public they hold in contempt, it's their political masters as well.

It's also telling that, though by far the most complaints were about Nobles, that the area which is least comprehensively covered,

[quilp]

1 hour ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Democratically elected - yes without a shadow of a doubt . Why would you put a question mark after that?. Are you suggesting the election process is corrupt in some form?

The position of Chief Minister is not decided upon by the people of this Island and I believe that the process should be changed so that the post be filled by a suitable politician who in the public's opinion has earned his stripes, someone with a modicum of independent thought and oversight, not a position that is decided upon as it is currently. It comes across as too cosy, open to vested interest and undue influence. To infer that the system is corrupt is not the word I would use and it's your word not mine. But there are those who would say that it is open to corruption...

1 hour ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Fair and open administration - yes, but there are obviously things that must remain confidential but we have the FOI act. Tynwald proceedings are live on the radio for those who wish to follow them. Public consultations etc

How long did it take for the FoI act to be brought about? The proposal to have it in place took many years and met with obfuscation, procrastination and doubt as to its purpose. There have been numerous instances where the reponses to FoI requests have been described as vague and imprecise by those asking for information, especially when the requests were put to certain departments with the government sphere. How many Manx people do you believe actually listen to Tynwald proceedings? I would suggest not very many. To a lot of people, Manx politics is wrapped up in tradition and ceremony, that there's nothing 'modern' about it and because of this, unfortunately there is generally very little interest in it amongst the population, as evidenced by the amount of locals who can be bothered to vote or have a genuine interest in discerning the candidates and actually thinking about who they choose to vote for at election time. There are a great many Manxies who lack confidence that their vote will make any difference anyway so they have become apathetic and disinterested. Same applies to public consultations. They've heard it all before and feel politically disempowered. And this works well for the fortunes of those who are re-elected time after time.

1 hour ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Operating in complete transparency - see above

The wishes of this population at heart - this population have many wide and varied wishes, some diametrically opposed so they cannot be lumped together as one. But candidates issue manifestos and this population vote (or don’t) individually for them accordingly. That is democracy.

The greatest relevance here is the "(or don’t)" when it comes to voting figures. And how many times have manifestos been put forward and when a candidate is voted in on a seemingly promising edict they get in and the content and substance of the manifesto becomes meaningless? It is my belief that if voting was compulsory then over time we might have a more focused administration which evolves into a collective with a greater awareness of the needs of the electorate instead of the tokenism and misrepresentation I feel exists now, in its current form. Granted, it would take time but if more Manx people were encouraged to realise the importance of voting, and who they vote for, that they could actually make a difference, it can only be a positive and fairer move. That's democracy.