Middle

[Lost Login]

16 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.

Those civil servants who I have known who have stood in previous elections all told me when I asked that whilst they had formally resigned they would be going back to their old jobs if they were not elected. Maybe that does not apply to senior positions but it seemed very much a case of being seen to resign.  

 

[Lost Login]

1 hour ago, offshoremanxman said:

Stu Peters had to resign so did Glover and quite a few of those standing this time are self employed so the time out is costing them in terms of lost work. Civil servants also normally have to resign. 

I thought that SP was self employed. I am not sure about TG but I expect that if either are not elected we will see them back on the radio fairly soon if that is what they want.

If you are self employed it is your choice how you spend your time. You could if you wish canvass around your working hours or work less hours and spend more time canvassing. similarly if employed you can canvass around working hours or take time off either holiday, unpaid leave or by resigning.

If MLCs and MHKs are in a position to carry on performing their duties whilst standing for election I see no reason why they must stand down but I would have no problem if those were the rules. It is the idea that it is only MLCs that do not have to resign etc that I do not agree with as I don't think it is anywhere that black and white.

 

 

[Roger Mexico]

2 hours 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. 

But I think that applies to candidates who were MHKs as well.  They still get paid at their previous rate up to election day, even if they are no longer officially MHKs and whether they are standing again or not.  And most other candidates will have jobs or businesses to go back to.

However one little scam I've only just noticed, relates to the way the changes in the salary structure have been introduced.  Rather than starting everyone afresh after Thursday, your salary will depend on whether you were "elected or re-elected, after 01 July 2021".  So current MLCs will not get a reduction in their salary and will continue to get paid more if they join Departments.  Bill Henderson in particular will do very nicely if he'r reappointed to the Treasury.  But the date is set at 1 July rather than 22 September so that Skelly will benefit from the increase that the President gets in the new scheme.

[Barlow]

32 minutes ago, Lost Login said:

If MLCs and MHKs are in a position to carry on performing their duties whilst standing for election I see no reason why they must stand down but I would have no problem if those were the rules. 

 

So, you are happy for someone to be paid out of the public purse to go round canvassing for another job which is paid out of the public purse. And if they fail to get the job they now desire they just carry on in their old job paid for out of the public purse. 

Plus, I can't see they will be in a position to continue that job(MLC) as effectively, having clearly demonstrated they wish to do the job as MHK. 

How can that MLC-MHK relationship ever be the same again?

These two women should have made a clear statement and resigned their positions from the Legislative Council, just as others have done before them.

[Barlow]

50 minutes ago, ellanvannin2010 said:

Personally I see no place for a second chamber. 

For details, refer to the Kate Lord-Brennan and Jane Poole-Wilson situation.

[Roger Mexico]

51 minutes ago, Lost Login said:

Those civil servants who I have known who have stood in previous elections all told me when I asked that whilst they had formally resigned they would be going back to their old jobs if they were not elected. Maybe that does not apply to senior positions but it seemed very much a case of being seen to resign.  

I don't think that applies any more.  There have been quite a few changes in the law since 2016 and I think public employees no longer need to resign.   Presumably they take unpaid leave and/or use up holidays or they may even have to continue working.

Being taken back on wasn't an automatic right either, though it seems to have happened in most cases.  Wasn't Mark Kemp not re-employed as a teacher after 2016?

The cases of Stu Peters and Tim Glover are rather different from these because they are broadcasters and broadcasting is supposed to be impartial.  But that would apply if they were employed by a commercial broadcaster as well.

Peters is a freelancer anyway and has been for some time, so all they would need to do is stop using him.  Glover was news editor and if he remained in post, even if on leave, he could clearly been seen as having some influence still.  As far as I can tell he seems to have been effectively replaced by Phil Gawne, who is everywhere, so the Arbory Mafia continues.

[Lost Login]

8 minutes ago, Barlow said:

So, you are happy for someone to be paid out of the public purse to go round canvassing for another job which is paid out of the public purse. And if they fail to get the job they now desire they just carry on in their old job paid for out of the public purse. 

Plus, I can't see they will be in a position to continue that job(MLC) as effectively, having clearly demonstrated they wish to do the job as MHK. 

How can that MLC-MHK relationship ever be the same again?

These two women should have made a clear statement and resigned their positions from the Legislative Council, just as others have done before them.

I am indifferent rather than happy and I would take issue that they are being "paid out of the public purse to go round canvassing." They, like all other MLCs are presently being paid to fulfill their roles as MLCs. Providing they are doing that they are canvassing in their own free time which is the same as that of MLCs who are not seeking election. How they choose to use their free time is down to them. If they are not doing their duties as MLCs because they are campaigning then I would have a huge issue with it. 

It is not unusual for people to apply for other jobs and if they don't get it they stay in their old job. I am more bothered about whether they are good at the job and if they are I would prefer to see them stay in position not just required to resign as a matter of principle. With regard to the two individuals we are talking about I would far prefer them to be MLC's than Bill Henderson and I expect that if they stood down, did not get elected as MHK's and stood for the position of MLC to replace the position they vacated they would get elected as an MLC

I am much more bothered about MHK's seeking election as MLC's and then staying as an MHK if not elected than vice versa.

 

[Declan]

MLCs are also members of Tynwald. You cannot have a situation where the public rejects you as a Tynwald member and you are at the next meeting with an MLC name tag. 

@Lost Login raises an interesting point - "They, like all other MLCs are presently being paid to fulfill their roles as MLCs. Providing they are doing that they are canvassing in their own free time which is the same as that of MLCs who are not seeking election. How they choose to use their free time is down to them." 

But what do MLCs do when there's an election on? Who even checks that they're doing it and not canvassing?

@Roger Mexico asks "Wasn't Mark Kemp not re-employed as a teacher after 2016?" I don't think he did, he hints he can never go back to teaching for exposing something, but I'm not sure that was during the election. 

 

 

Edited September 22, 2021 by Declan

[ellanvannin2010]

31 minutes ago, Declan said:

MLCs are also members of Tynwald. You cannot have a situation where the public rejects you as a Tynwald member and you are at the next meeting with an MLC name tag. 

@Lost Login

@Roger Mexico

 

 

You could though as in reality the public has never accepted them as an MLC in the first place. 

The only people that can approve or reject their membership of Tynwald are the MHKs at the time of their initial election. 

 

Edited September 22, 2021 by ellanvannin2010
Additional

[Ham_N_Eggs]

4 hours 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.

It's in the guidance for public servants seeking election (which can be found online) that they only have to resign if their manager / CEO thinks it's appropriate. 

[Keiran Hannifin]

If anyone needs a lift to a Polling station tomorrow, let me know. 

 

Picture for attention, though, they will be comfortable cars. 

[Chef Raekwon]

1 hour ago, Declan said:

 

@Roger Mexico asks "Wasn't Mark Kemp not re-employed as a teacher after 2016?" I don't think he did, he hints he can never go back to teaching for exposing something, but I'm not sure that was during the election. 

 

 

I don't know if you did that deliberately or not, but either way....

[Declan]

It wasn’t deliberate but I noticed it before submitting, I didn’t think whistleblowing was an upgrade. 

[code99]

Keiran Hannifin has good ideas, he ran a sterling campaign and he deserves to be elected, in my opinion of course.

Edited September 22, 2021 by code99

[SleepyJoe]

Yes indeed