Middle

[quilp]

This government were prepared to throw £80m+ at a new cruise ship berth in an effort to boost our economy, they could surely find a few quid to be in on this. 

[Stu Peters]

1 hour ago, b4mbi said:

@Keiran Hannifin@Stu Peters

I have a question...

"Wouldn't it be much easier and quicker to meet our net zero targets with a potential £8bn windfall?"

Yes, absolutely. My only proviso to unequivocal support for this is that IOMG shouldn't bear the burden of exploration, and should get a reasonable return on any product. We should have cheap gas for all consumers, leading to cheaper electricity and revenue to complete every possible bit of infrastructure, pay off the PS pension defecit and support moves to net zero. Field of dreams...

[SleepyJoe]

2 hours ago, quilp said:

Are we the flutter of the Butterfly's wing then, Joe? 

Edited September 14, 2021 by SleepyJoe

[Keiran Hannifin]

Wouldn't touch it. 

[quilp]

What? An elephant's arse? 

[manxman1980]

Sorry, am I reading this correctly, the same group of people who constantly bitch and moan about the Isle of Man Governments overspending on major projects over the years are now proposing that the Manx Government has the capacity and competence to exploit an alleged offshore gas field?

If that gas field exists, and if it is viable, then we have no expertise on Island to extract it.  That would mean inviting in someone who does and that would mean that the Manx government and population would see virtually no benefit other than perhaps a licence fee allowing for the extraction.  

 

[Gladys]

20 hours ago, quilp said:

I recently found myself in the company of my son and his mates, aged between 19 and 27. We were sitting around having a smoke, listening to music and talking about everything and nothing. I happened to ask if anyone was going to vote this election, the answer was provided in a mix of giggles and groans. All 7 of them never had the impulse to vote, they just weren't interested in local politics. Only a couple of lads admitted that their parents voted or discussed politics at home. Most of them felt they'd never vote. Virtually the same reactions were observed when I brought up the subject of climate-change and green matters. One lad mentioned the effect it was having on Polar Bears, and plastic in the oceans, another called it out as a conspiracy, to nods of agreement, but generally the conversation was short-lived though one lad suggested that it was all a pointless exercise unless the whole planet was on board at the same time and in agreement with the rules; that too much global industry had too much to lose against the global markets. That lad's probably near the mark...

I don't know how prevalent this naive and cynical outlook is amongst that age group but I got the feeling that all these lads felt a bit disenfranchised and disinterested in the Manx political arena, with little conviction to do become involved and do anything about it.

How do you win over people like them because I'd say they're more than minority? 

By party politics, very simply.  People tend to ally themselves to a certain socio-political ideology, from left to right.  When you find the party that most closely aligns with your own view then it is more likely you will take an interest in politics and will vote for the person in that party because you think you know what you are voting for. It is no more sophisticated than that. 

Without party politics, it is really just a beauty parade with lots of statements about this or that issue, but no underlying ideology that identifies the approach to matters not covered in your manifesto wishlist.  Selecting the candidate to vote for is difficult and you really don't know what you will get. 

IMHO, lack of party politics is a major failing in our democratic process. 

[manxman1980]

56 minutes ago, Gladys said:

IMHO, lack of party politics is a major failing in our democratic process. 

What we don't need is a two party system like the United Kingdom.  In that first past the post system the elected representatives do not really represent the majority view and it actively encourages tactical voting which kills the smaller parties.

In terms of electoral reform I think parties may be beneficial but that must be balanced by the use of proportional representation (which our system is reasonably good at) and there must be protection from one party changing the electoral system for its own benefit.  See the redrawing of the constituency boundaries in the UK as an example as well as the removal of fixed term parliaments which all benefit the Conservative Party but deliver no real benefits to the UK electorate. 

[Barlow]

21 hours ago, quilp said:

I recently found myself in the company of my son and his mates, aged between 19 and 27. We were sitting around having a smoke, listening to music and talking about everything and nothing. I happened to ask if anyone was going to vote this election, the answer was provided in a mix of giggles and groans. All 7 of them never had the impulse to vote, they just weren't interested in local politics. Only a couple of lads admitted that their parents voted or discussed politics at home. Most of them felt they'd never vote. Virtually the same reactions were observed when I brought up the subject of climate-change and green matters. One lad mentioned the effect it was having on Polar Bears, and plastic in the oceans, another called it out as a conspiracy, to nods of agreement, but generally the conversation was short-lived though one lad suggested that it was all a pointless exercise unless the whole planet was on board at the same time and in agreement with the rules; that too much global industry had too much to lose against the global markets. That lad's probably near the mark...

I don't know how prevalent this naive and cynical outlook is amongst that age group but I got the feeling that all these lads felt a bit disenfranchised and disinterested in the Manx political arena, with little conviction to do become involved and do anything about it.

How do you win over people like them because I'd say they're more than minority? 

Do you remember the same crowd at 16-24?

When I was 16-24, certainly 16-18, the last thing on my mind was politics, especially local politics.

Giving 16 year-olds the vote was an imposition on the lives of young people. If someone came up to me asking if I knew who was my MHK or what I thought about politics etc I would tell them roundly and soundly to fuck off (although actually I didn't swear when I was a cherub).

(Please note that 11 year-olds of today will be able to vote at the next General Election).

Edited September 15, 2021 by Barlow

[Lost Login]

51 minutes ago, Gladys said:

By party politics, very simply.  People tend to ally themselves to a certain socio-political ideology, from left to right.  When you find the party that most closely aligns with your own view then it is more likely you will take an interest in politics and will vote for the person in that party because you think you know what you are voting for. It is no more sophisticated than that. 

Without party politics, it is really just a beauty parade with lots of statements about this or that issue, but no underlying ideology that identifies the approach to matters not covered in your manifesto wishlist.  Selecting the candidate to vote for is difficult and you really don't know what you will get. 

IMHO, lack of party politics is a major failing in our democratic process. 

To an extent I agree and also with Manxman that where there is party politics there needs a form of PR.

Manifestos should be sufficient to identify a candidates underlying principles and beliefs together with probably a couple of specific matters they wish to target and push forward as ultimately an individual manifesto is not likely to get acted upon. As a voter I tend to pay more attention to an individuals background and the broadcasts etc as I am looking for somebody who I think, if elected, can actually understand proposed legislation and see proposed strengths and weaknesses in the legislation, who could critique it try and understand the benefits, downsides and how it will interact with existing legislation, affect business etc.

With only 24 MHK's I want most to be people who I think are capable of being a minister, running a department, questioining advice received and officials. In general that is not what we get. When you look at those standing you don't get the impression many would get a leadership/senior role running a large organisation, and most have not, or that being an MHK would see a reduction in remuneration. Consequently we tend to get those standing who are retired or about to retire, have other means or being an MHK will see a step up in remuneration. 

If you had a professional business, how many of the candidates would you trust to run or have a leadership position in it? A minority in my view of those  standing and who get elected yet these are the people who get elected into "power".

 

[SleepyJoe]

These people are not in politics to run departments, they are there to create policy & ensure it is implemented - that's what we pay them for

It's tragic that so many manifestos promise so very little

[Lost Login]

37 minutes ago, SleepyJoe said:

These people are not in politics to run departments, they are there to create policy & ensure it is implemented - that's what we pay them for

It's tragic that so many manifestos promise so very little

But what can they promise except to follow their beliefs and possibly that they might try and bring forward one or very possible two private bills?

To create policy and ensure it is implemented they effectively have to become a minister and get it adopted as government policy. They then have to run a department to the extent that the department implements the policy.

With the system in the UK whichever party wins the election can say these are our policies and this what we are going to do.  In the IoM if an individual is elected, at best, all they can say is I will try and get some of my policies adopted by Government. That even applies to the CM as it appears to be a case of horse trading between ministers when to become ministers or set government policy. The CM effectively has little power apart from to sack people as unlike the UK there are not a group of people, who hold a majority, who have all been elected on the same platform.

Our system effectively neuters everybody so we see much of a muchness whoever is CM etc. The only real difference is in tone.

[b4mbi]

3 hours ago, manxman1980 said:

Sorry, am I reading this correctly, the same group of people who constantly bitch and moan about the Isle of Man Governments overspending on major projects over the years are now proposing that the Manx Government has the capacity and competence to exploit an alleged offshore gas field?

If that gas field exists, and if it is viable, then we have no expertise on Island to extract it.  That would mean inviting in someone who does and that would mean that the Manx government and population would see virtually no benefit other than perhaps a licence fee allowing for the extraction.  

 

Sorry but you're not reading it correctly at all. And no-one in their right mind would suggest the Government do it themselves (given their track record)

IOMG only facilitate the process by issuing (and charging for) the licence, and potentially reap the enormous benefit through hydrocarbon tax & VAT receipts, as IOMG purchased the economic rights to all resources in and beneath it's territorial waters in the early 90's I think.

[The Phantom]

15 minutes ago, b4mbi said:

Sorry but you're not reading it correctly at all. And no-one in their right mind would suggest the Government do it themselves (given their track record)

IOMG only facilitate the process by issuing (and charging for) the licence, and potentially reap the enormous benefit through hydrocarbon tax & VAT receipts, as IOMG purchased the economic rights to all resources in and beneath it's territorial waters in the early 90's I think.

Correct.  Licenses and Tax only (hopefully).

To be honest, it's entirely likely we would never even 'see' any of the gas here.  Due to the complete absence of infrastructure, the most sensible option would be to pipe it directly to wherever the Morecambe gas fields process theirs.  

[b4mbi]

14 minutes ago, The Phantom said:

Correct.  Licenses and Tax only (hopefully).

To be honest, it's entirely likely we would never even 'see' any of the gas here.  Due to the complete absence of infrastructure, the most sensible option would be to pipe it directly to wherever the Morecambe gas fields process theirs.  

We have a gas interconnector cable that T's of one connecting Ireland and Scotland and lands at Glen Mooar and provides the gas for the power station.

Crucially, we could export through this.

I'm uncertain but I imagine to get the VAT benefit, the gas would need to land here anyway.

Granted we'd need a pipeline from north east of the island to the one transversing the Island, but that's very much do-able (old railway line perhaps?)