Middle

[Lost Login]

56 minutes ago, Declan said:

Exactly. This is fair because LEGCO is undemocratic there is no way to enter it and maintain democratic legitimacy. 

However, if JPW and KLB fail to be re-elected and carry on or unlucky losers fill their positions they'll have even less democratic legitimacy than the rest of LEGCO. 

I could argue it both ways. MHKs and MLCs should have completely different roles. There are people I would happily see elected as an MHK who I think should not be MLCs and vice versa. Look at KH he might make a great MHK but I think even he would admit that the principle role of an MLC, reviewing and revising legislation, are not his strengths. Somebody like Chris Thomas I think would actually be better suited to being an MLC. 

One rule I would like to see is that if you are an MHK or stand to be an MHK then a full parliamentary term, i,e. 5 years should pass from the date of the election or the date you stand down, whichever is longer, before you can stand as an MLC. If are an existing MLC and are unsuccessful then I think the same basic rule should apply except that you should be able to finish your current term before the mandatory gap period kicks in. The above is part of a raft of rule changes I would like to see brought in re MLCs including they cannot be part of Government and that MLCs stop trying to act as quasi MHKs. 

Whether we need two houses I remain uncertain. One the one hand I think that it would simply be better to have one house of 36 MHKs but equally I can see the merit of being having an upper chamber whose sole role to review and revise legislation without having any other considerations. If we could attract and elect the right mix to be MHKs we should not require MLCs but when you look at those elected as MHKs whilst many might be great at constituency level etc not many strike me as people who would be comfortable or confident at reading and understanding detailed legislation. Look at Chris Robertshaw who appears to like to think of himself as one of the more sophisticated and intellectual MHKs and then look at the landlord bill he tried to introduce which clearly demonstrated that he was out of his depth when actually reading and understanding the actual legislation no matter how good or bad the actual policy was.

 

   

[TheTeapot]

Personally I think they should have both resigned the day the nominations were confirmed. It just seems like that would be the right thing to do.

[SleepyJoe]

7 hours ago, Lost Login said:

I could argue it both ways. MHKs and MLCs should have completely different roles. There are people I would happily see elected as an MHK who I think should not be MLCs and vice versa. Look at KH he might make a great MHK but I think even he would admit that the principle role of an MLC, reviewing and revising legislation, are not his strengths. Somebody like Chris Thomas I think would actually be better suited to being an MLC. 

One rule I would like to see is that if you are an MHK or stand to be an MHK then a full parliamentary term, i,e. 5 years should pass from the date of the election or the date you stand down, whichever is longer, before you can stand as an MLC. If are an existing MLC and are unsuccessful then I think the same basic rule should apply except that you should be able to finish your current term before the mandatory gap period kicks in. The above is part of a raft of rule changes I would like to see brought in re MLCs including they cannot be part of Government and that MLCs stop trying to act as quasi MHKs. 

Whether we need two houses I remain uncertain. One the one hand I think that it would simply be better to have one house of 36 MHKs but equally I can see the merit of being having an upper chamber whose sole role to review and revise legislation without having any other considerations. If we could attract and elect the right mix to be MHKs we should not require MLCs but when you look at those elected as MHKs whilst many might be great at constituency level etc not many strike me as people who would be comfortable or confident at reading and understanding detailed legislation. Look at Chris Robertshaw who appears to like to think of himself as one of the more sophisticated and intellectual MHKs and then look at the landlord bill he tried to introduce which clearly demonstrated that he was out of his depth when actually reading and understanding the actual legislation no matter how good or bad the actual policy was.

 

   

You just have not got a clue as to the contribution Chris Thomas makes to Manx politics

[Lost Login]

35 minutes ago, SleepyJoe said:

You just have not got a clue as to the contribution Chris Thomas makes to Manx politics

Pray tell, although I would suggest that if you are a politician and some of the electorate have not got a clue as to what you have contributed that is a bit of a failing as politician.

I presume that you are suggesting that his contributions have been very positive rather than negative and he has tweaked a few things here and there but the Government is criticised for its performance over the last 5 years. For much of that time CT was Minister for Policy & Reform. I think it is very hard to argue on one hand that a Minister has made a great positive contribution and on the other hand the Government has been useless.

My views of CT are only my opinions and others, like you, may hold completely different views. My views my be ill founded but whilst I accept that CT is a very clever individual I have never held him in the sort of reverence others do. He has some experience in the private sector but he appear to have spent a large section of his working life pre politics in Academia. To me he comes across as a person who can talk a good game without necessarily playing a good game.  I used to listen to his interviews on Manx Radio and whilst they sounded very impressive when you drilled down into the actual contents often they did not stand up to scrutiny or there was surprisingly little.

Now as I said I may be wrong in my views and when CT is re-elected I hope he proves me wrong just like if SP got elected I hope his performance as an MHK rams my opinions about him back down my throat. 

Actions speak louder than words and for far to long we have seen far to many words, although I do give this current government a bit of latitude as I think whoever was in this time around Brexit and then Covid would have dominated their time. 

Finally I would say that I don't think I have been totally negative about CT. I think he has many very useful skills which would be great in a leadership team but I just don't see him as a leader and I would want to him to be reviewing and assessing legislation or proposals rather than having to deal with a constituent complaining about dog poor in the locality or more mundane matters.

 

[Keiran Hannifin]

1 hour ago, Lost Login said:

Pray tell, although I would suggest that if you are a politician and some of the electorate have not got a clue as to what you have contributed that is a bit of a failing as politician.

I presume that you are suggesting that his contributions have been very positive rather than negative and he has tweaked a few things here and there but the Government is criticised for its performance over the last 5 years. For much of that time CT was Minister for Policy & Reform. I think it is very hard to argue on one hand that a Minister has made a great positive contribution and on the other hand the Government has been useless.

My views of CT are only my opinions and others, like you, may hold completely different views. My views my be ill founded but whilst I accept that CT is a very clever individual I have never held him in the sort of reverence others do. He has some experience in the private sector but he appear to have spent a large section of his working life pre politics in Academia. To me he comes across as a person who can talk a good game without necessarily playing a good game.  I used to listen to his interviews on Manx Radio and whilst they sounded very impressive when you drilled down into the actual contents often they did not stand up to scrutiny or there was surprisingly little.

Now as I said I may be wrong in my views and when CT is re-elected I hope he proves me wrong just like if SP got elected I hope his performance as an MHK rams my opinions about him back down my throat. 

Actions speak louder than words and for far to long we have seen far to many words, although I do give this current government a bit of latitude as I think whoever was in this time around Brexit and then Covid would have dominated their time. 

Finally I would say that I don't think I have been totally negative about CT. I think he has many very useful skills which would be great in a leadership team but I just don't see him as a leader and I would want to him to be reviewing and assessing legislation or proposals rather than having to deal with a constituent complaining about dog poor in the locality or more mundane matters.

 

Chris has been absolutely instrumental in alot of the positive reform we have had. 

Legco not voting for CM, extended time to get CM, manifesto outweighing collective responsibility. And that's a way from his constituency work and his character aside. He is one of the better people I can remember in tynwald. It doesn't all have to be charisma and "x factor" 

Doing work quietly, is just as good, if not better, than doing it loudly. 

Well, in 48 hours, I'll be chewing my finger nails and hoping you have all voted, and voted well. 

Cheers for taking the time to challenge me in here, thanks to everyone who has heard and supported me. 

[Declan]

14 minutes ago, Keiran Hannifin said:

Cheers for taking the time to challenge me in here, thanks to everyone who has heard and supported me. 

 

Good luck, I think if anyone's approach to the election deserves to be successful it's yours.

[747-400]

1 hour ago, Keiran Hannifin said:

Chris has been absolutely instrumental in alot of the positive reform we have had. 

Legco not voting for CM, extended time to get CM, manifesto outweighing collective responsibility. And that's a way from his constituency work and his character aside. He is one of the better people I can remember in tynwald. It doesn't all have to be charisma and "x factor" 

Doing work quietly, is just as good, if not better, than doing it loudly. 

Well, in 48 hours, I'll be chewing my finger nails and hoping you have all voted, and voted well. 

Cheers for taking the time to challenge me in here, thanks to everyone who has heard and supported me. 

 

Has he been pushing for implementation of Lord Lisvane’s recommendations. 

 

That is a monumental failing of all the current crop. Not heard anyone pushing it. Even those most vocal. 

[747-400]

1 hour ago, Declan said:

Good luck, I think if anyone's approach to the election deserves to be successful it's yours.

I agree. Don’t know you Keiran, but feel your passion for getting things done and making a positive change. You started early and I believe you are doing this for the right reasons. It’s important to have a diverse range of experiences in Parliament to collectively form and drive new policies. Rooting for you and JPW to represent Middle 👍

[Lost Login]

3 hours ago, Keiran Hannifin said:

Chris has been absolutely instrumental in alot of the positive reform we have had. 

Legco not voting for CM, extended time to get CM, manifesto outweighing collective responsibility. And that's a way from his constituency work and his character aside. He is one of the better people I can remember in tynwald. It doesn't all have to be charisma and "x factor" 

Doing work quietly, is just as good, if not better, than doing it loudly. 

Well, in 48 hours, I'll be chewing my finger nails and hoping you have all voted, and voted well. 

Cheers for taking the time to challenge me in here, thanks to everyone who has heard and supported me. 

I thought manifesto commitments always had outweighed collective responsibilities? Changes re voting in respect of CM are what I referred to as tinkering around the edges as in the big scheme of things such as costs of civil service, addressing issues in education & health services and staffing shortages, pension deficit costs, over run in costs of capital schemes, restructuring & scope of Government, growing the economy, costs of housing the changes re the election of the CM are small fry. The changes re CM voting were nice to have but are not fundamental in respect of the many of the issues that people appear to be complaining about or want addressing. Extending the time  to vote in the CM or excluding Legco from voting surely cannot have been time consuming matters.

I agree with regard to doing work quietly but when you are in a job that requires people to recognise what you have done to keep your job you do need to be able to evidence it. As I said I do not have a complete downer on CT because he has skills which would be very useful in a leadership team. I just don't think he is the guy to be leading the team. You obviously disagree which is fine. I am also viewing from a distance and judging purely in isolation on what I consider to be his merits and may have an idealistic view as if you asked me to who would be my choice as CM I would be struggling as I don't think it is a particularly high calibre field. I think all of the main candidates have strengths and weaknesses and just view that the strengths of CT would provide better value away from being CM which I view as little more than a figurehead/PR position apart from keeping the Council of Ministers roughly together. To bring in cricket analogy England invariably choose their best payer as captain whose form then drops off. Sometimes it would be better for the team to let somebody else captain and let the player concentrate on his batting or bowling.

Good luck on Thursday. I have already submitted a postal vote and whether you are elected or not I think you can be proud of the campaign you have run and how you have come across. People may not vote for you because they are not in favour of your policies but I think you have thought more about the issues, and are more passionate and articulate about them than many who will be elected on Thursday. I may not agree with a person's policies but if I can see how and why they have reached their opinion I have far more respect for that person than somebody who just sits there as a nodding dog as ultimately how you consider the best way to dealing with a problem is often only a matter of opinion. It will be no consolation if you do not get elected on Thursday but as has been said in this in this thread previously only you and JPW have come across, to me, as potential MHKs, not allowing for any policy differences. 

[Ham_N_Eggs]

9 hours ago, 747-400 said:

Has he been pushing for implementation of Lord Lisvane’s recommendations. 

 

That is a monumental failing of all the current crop. Not heard anyone pushing it. Even those most vocal. 

That's because Peter Karran batted the Lisvane report off to the new House to decide; and then the 12 new Members of the House were duped by Juan Watterson into voting on his interpretion / watered down version of the report.

[Lost Login]

26 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

I agree with this. They’ve both been paid handsomely to canvass for public office and when pressed the other day Lord-Brennan said she didn’t rule out a return to Legco if she didn’t get in. So it’s 100% risk free for them unlike any other candidate standing. 

I have posted before my views on MLCs standing down and reforms I would like to see but I don't think it is right to say "So it’s 100% risk free for them unlike any other candidate standing." In the majority of cases if you are any good your job it is  held open so at worst it is an unpaid leave of absence. 

[Roger Mexico]

17 hours ago, TheTeapot said:

Personally I think they should have both resigned the day the nominations were confirmed. It just seems like that would be the right thing to do.

I think you've got to realise that things have changed since previous elections.  The law seems to have been altered so that civil servants and other public employees don't need to resign to stand for the House of Keys anymore - though they do have to straight away if elected.  This seems to have had a knock-on effect for MLCs.

[ellanvannin2010]

7 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

I think you've got to realise that things have changed since previous elections.  The law seems to have been altered so that civil servants and other public employees don't need to resign to stand for the House of Keys anymore - though they do have to straight away if elected.  This seems to have had a knock-on effect for MLCs.

If either lost badly in the election (unlikely I think) , would their position as an MLC become untenable?.

I think unpaid leave would be sufficient up to polling day. 

[Barlow]

Just now, ellanvannin2010 said:

If either lost badly in the election (unlikely I think) , would their position as an MLC become untenable?.

Well, to paraphrase Kate Lord-Brennan retort, do you think any of the other candidates position in their jobs should become untenable if they were unsuccessful?

 

[ellanvannin2010]

2 minutes ago, Barlow said:

Well, to paraphrase Kate Lord-Brennan retort, do you think any of the other candidates position in their jobs should become untenable if they were unsuccessful?

 

Two different electorate, perhaps you should resign after defeat and let the new mlc electorate decide if they wish you to continue?.

Personally I see no place for a second chamber.