Congratulations Stu Peters

[SleepyJoe]

Tynwald members should not frivolously fly around the planet to no obvious good purpose and at public expense 

If they feel obliged to do so they must fund it out of their own pockets & pay carbon offsets as they go

[Declan]

6 minutes ago, P.K. said:

All the more reason then to judge on performance because, as you of all people know, words are cheap...

Have to say it's a bit rich all this vitriol coming from someone who voted for JW. I had to laugh to read the word "integrity" in his manifesto. After he showed such contempt for the gravitas of his position anyone with any integrity would have resigned forthwith. Not JW. Sure lots of them are in it for self-aggrandisement and frankly I think he is the worst. He is paid from the public purse to be around at the beck and call of his constituents. He is not paid to go swanning around on every trip he can arrange with the flimsiest of reasons to dress up and ponce about like a latter-day Little Lord Fauntleroy. Then come back and bang in the most pathetic, penny-pinching x's you could imagine.

Time that all travel and expenses had to have proper justification and be signed off by the CM or similar before anyone went anywhere on the public purse.

I explained my reasons, it was to provide continuity to the PAC investigations, I wouldn't like that shelved and somebody would have been Speaker anyway if he didn't get in. But whoever you vote for will be flawed in some way, it has to be compromise, it was a choice between compromises. 

[P.K.]

24 minutes ago, Declan said:

I explained my reasons, it was to provide continuity to the PAC investigations, I wouldn't like that shelved and somebody would have been Speaker anyway if he didn't get in. But whoever you vote for will be flawed in some way, it has to be compromise, it was a choice between compromises. 

I would prefer whoever headed up the PAC had less naked self interest than JW.

[Declan]

They're politicians - they're all self-interested.

[P.K.]

2 minutes ago, Declan said:

They're politicians - they're all self-interested.

You have let cynicsm overcome judgement.

A bad mistake...

[Ramseyboi]

I think mr Peters‘ success highlights how many people vote for a name they know rather than the actual candidate.

It has been a shocker to me to speak to people about the election and their thought process about vote casting.

We forget on here that we are people who are generally politically engaged and go to the meetings and do research.

Most don’t.  They are basing their decision on recognisability or what someone else told them.

I would love to see some of the manifestos anonymised then sent out to a sample group with transcripts of some of the hustings with only candidate number rather than names and see how the results came back.

Peters and Glover in particular would be nowhere.

[manxman1980]

24 minutes ago, Ramseyboi said:

I think mr Peters‘ success highlights how many people vote for a name they know rather than the actual candidate.

I think it highlights the paucity of good candidates in certain areas.  Rushen, for instance, had a much better choice of candidates in my opinion.

[Declan]

10 minutes ago, P.K. said:

You have let cynicsm overcome judgement.

No I voted for the candidate that I thought was best placed to hold the executive to account. It was actually a leap of faith. 

[Lost Login]

3 minutes ago, Ramseyboi said:

I think mr Peters‘ success highlights how many people vote for a name they know rather than the actual candidate.

It has been a shocker to me to speak to people about the election and their thought process about vote casting.

We forget on here that we are people who are generally politically engaged and go to the meetings and do research.

Most don’t.  They are basing their decision on recognisability or what someone else told them.

I would love to see some of the manifestos anonymised then sent out to a sample group with transcripts of some of the hustings with only candidate number rather than names and see how the results came back.

Peters and Glover in particular would be nowhere.

It has always been so and, as I have posted previously, we saw so many postmen etc elected. Talking to many people they simply vote for a name they know/recognise.

I don't quite do that, i base on what I know or can find about the person, what they have done and the various debates. The manifesto plays very little part in my thought process unless it includes anything particular starting as most are much the same and most are meaningless as even if elected you have little chance of getting any of your policies that are implemented. I am therefore looking for somebody who probably shares similar views to me, gives every indication that they can review and understand legislation and that they could do a great job as a minister or representing the IoM. I don't want some dead wood  sitting on the bank benches as we only have 24MHKs, I on't those on the back benches to be as sharp as those who form part of the government.

I do think that we possibly need root and branch and reform. What we currently have may work well when everybody is pulling in the same direction but when you have people who basically say they want to be part of the opposition then, in my opinion you start to need to go down the party politics route so that you have two different sets of policies put before the people. You could do by electing the CM but that basically means as he is the only one with a public wide mandate it could be argued MHK's must effectively follow what he says and what is the point of MHKs then putting manifesto's forward.

It would take a far better mind than mind to find a way to come up with a better system whilst we don't have party politics. 

 

 

[Ramseyboi]

Agree.  We need to somehow get away from people voting for “local representatives”.  Some of what used to be Onchan are already grumpy that they now vote in Garff ffs.

years ago when there was was limited transport, no internet etc then voting the the bloke you knew or who had knocked on your door was the best solution.

Now we can travel all over the island, have the internet and the days of door knocking or voting for people you know should be gone.

An all island vote wouldn’t fix it as people can’t be arsed researching the candidates they have never mind 65.

 

 

[thommo2010]

45 minutes ago, Ramseyboi said:

I think mr Peters‘ success highlights how many people vote for a name they know rather than the actual candidate.

It has been a shocker to me to speak to people about the election and their thought process about vote casting.

We forget on here that we are people who are generally politically engaged and go to the meetings and do research.

Most don’t.  They are basing their decision on recognisability or what someone else told them.

I would love to see some of the manifestos anonymised then sent out to a sample group with transcripts of some of the hustings with only candidate number rather than names and see how the results came back.

Peters and Glover in particular would be nowhere.

In my area I had 5 candidates and to be honest all their manifestos could have been written by the same person. 

[Declan]

All Island vote would be - 

Ashy, Watterson, Allinson, Han-FX, Stu, Glover, Josem, Hooper, 3 Labour, 2 Green, KLB, JPW, Nick Crowe, James Corrin, Mr Sausages, Juan Turner, Dot Tilbury, the nominee of the Farmer's Union, Phil Gawne, Rob, a candidate endorsed by POW and Alan Shea. 

[Happier diner]

3 minutes ago, thommo2010 said:

In my area I had 5 candidates and to be honest all their manifestos could have been written by the same person. 

at the same time

[ellanvannin2010]

39 minutes ago, Declan said:

No I voted for the candidate that I thought was best placed to hold the executive to account. It was actually a leap of faith. 

A Bob Beamon  leap I feel

[Declan]

3 minutes ago, thommo2010 said:

In my area I had 5 candidates and to be honest all their manifestos could have been written by the same person. 

In mine the four manifestos were very different - 1 was waffley, 1 was slight, 1 was about the candidates record, 1 was looking to the future. But they all basically agreed on policy.