Quality of MHKs

[buncha wankas]

7 hours ago, ManxTaxPayer said:

Hey, yeah, but what would we call them? I know, how about Community Volunteers? Although I have alternatives. 

We have thousands of community volunteers on the island who quietly make a difference to our island.   The problem we have is the ‘shopkeeper’ populist opportunist mentality. People who pretend to be involved or use media self promotion to try and raise their profile to convince people they should be given power and influence, are the scariest.

superficial people trying to get easy ride into income level they would never get elsewhere.  Until we remove hundreds of local councillors posts and stop people who are not employable thinking they can get easy route, due to so many political posts, where you either need no votes or a few hundred, then we are in a dis functioning democracy.   
we will reap what we let be sown. 

[Mr. Sausages]

3 hours ago, Declan said:

Which one?

I’ve narrowed it down to Kevin Woodford and the guy who got caught wanking in the lane behind his restaurant 

[Two-lane]

2 hours ago, The Phantom said:

I'm assuming that we'll just be using the Manx Militia to hold some sternly worded placards? 

Is Phil Gawne still around?

[Passing Time]

3 hours ago, Declan said:

There's no need to explain other people's jokes.

Two different people - even you should know that...

[Stu Peters]

On 5/25/2022 at 6:49 PM, Boris Johnson said:

Stu, no offence aimed at you but can't you see now YOU CANT MAKE A DIFFERENCE?

One man against the rest of the independent MHKs and the CS will never win.

It is like this because the HMG likes it so, we are a tame crown dependency.

What it means is we, as in the public, have no input or say in what happens here.

You Stu, as an MHK, may be able to get a fence fixed or a pot hole filled but that is about the sum total of your "Power"

That's a fair point - individually none of us can do much but hope to influence colleagues. Alex Allinson has brought forward two major bills over the last few years, so one person CAN make a difference. It's like wading in treacle at times but I hope I have made a difference already. I was the only MHK to express public support for the Crogga licence extension, to the point of talking on the radio about it and hosting a briefing by the firm to Tynwald members. Realistically it may have had little impact on the eventual CoMin decision (Vlad probably made a stronger case), but I was thanked by a couple of people who thought it was a rational option and agreed with my reasoning but couldn't be seen to express public support for anything not Kermit-hued.

And just to be clear, I'm not 'against' the rest of Tynwald or the CS, I see my role more as cutting through some of the systemic bull and bluster with pertinent comments and questions that others may not feel comfortable with - most recently a number of parliamentary questions about the airport management, private consultants and car parking. It's probably true that some members want to spend the rest of their lives in high elected office so are more careful than me about obeying the rules of that game, I'm more ZFG but not in an anarchic way, and certainly don't seek 'power'. And don't think that public opinion doesn't count - heads have rolled this last week and that's mostly because of an angry Manx public.

[HiVibes]

6 hours ago, Stu Peters said:

That's a fair point - individually none of us can do much but hope to influence colleagues. Alex Allinson has brought forward two major bills over the last few years, so one person CAN make a difference. It's like wading in treacle at times but I hope I have made a difference already. I was the only MHK to express public support for the Crogga licence extension, to the point of talking on the radio about it and hosting a briefing by the firm to Tynwald members. Realistically it may have had little impact on the eventual CoMin decision (Vlad probably made a stronger case), but I was thanked by a couple of people who thought it was a rational option and agreed with my reasoning but couldn't be seen to express public support for anything not Kermit-hued.

And just to be clear, I'm not 'against' the rest of Tynwald or the CS, I see my role more as cutting through some of the systemic bull and bluster with pertinent comments and questions that others may not feel comfortable with - most recently a number of parliamentary questions about the airport management, private consultants and car parking. It's probably true that some members want to spend the rest of their lives in high elected office so are more careful than me about obeying the rules of that game, I'm more ZFG but not in an anarchic way, and certainly don't seek 'power'. And don't think that public opinion doesn't count - heads have rolled this last week and that's mostly because of an angry Manx public.

That's a lot of self congratulation for very little. 

[cissolt]

8 hours ago, Stu Peters said:

 

And i'm more ZFG but not in an anarchic way, and certainly don't seek 'power'. And don't think that public opinion doesn't count - heads have rolled this last week and that's mostly because of an angry Manx public.

Stu, do you think any of these changes would have been made if the tribunal findings were not public?

Similar issues have arisen during the covid, steampacket and Dr Glover but no action was taken.

[Stu Peters]

1 hour ago, cissolt said:

Stu, do you think any of these changes would have been made if the tribunal findings were not public?

Similar issues have arisen during the covid, steampacket and Dr Glover but no action was taken.

No. I think the bureaucrats have historically done far too much sweeping bad news under the carpet. I think the combination of a new administration keen to address issues where the public (understandably) has little confidence and the publication of the tribunal have caused a sea change. There will be more revelations and more blood letting and hopefully a new ethos will flourish as a result. I know of a number of people who gave up whistleblowing or claiming workplace bullying because they were intimidated or simply didn't have the resources.

[cissolt]

15 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

No. I think the bureaucrats have historically done far too much sweeping bad news under the carpet. I think the combination of a new administration keen to address issues where the public (understandably) has little confidence and the publication of the tribunal have caused a sea change. There will be more revelations and more blood letting and hopefully a new ethos will flourish as a result. I know of a number of people who gave up whistleblowing or claiming workplace bullying because they were intimidated or simply didn't have the resources.

Thanks Stu, I appreciate the reply.  You confirm my suspicions that we have seen the ugly tip of the iceberg and government has been forced to act. 

I look forward to the blood letting.

[SleepyJoe]

1 hour ago, Stu Peters said:

No. I think the bureaucrats have historically done far too much sweeping bad news under the carpet. I think the combination of a new administration keen to address issues where the public (understandably) has little confidence and the publication of the tribunal have caused a sea change. There will be more revelations and more blood letting and hopefully a new ethos will flourish as a result. I know of a number of people who gave up whistleblowing or claiming workplace bullying because they were intimidated or simply didn't have the resources.

Do you think it would have happened without publication of the Tribunal?

[quilp]

Of course not. 

[Non-Believer]

51 minutes ago, SleepyJoe said:

Do you think it would have happened without publication of the Tribunal?

Put quite simply, no. But Govt had no control over the publication of the Tribunal's findings and now has to accept and act on the fallout.

Now consider all the other with-holdings, refusals and reactions that it still engages in, even on FOI requests, where it does have control. The commissioned Reports that it buries.

As @cissolt has posted above - the tip of the iceberg.

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, SleepyJoe said:

Do you think it would have happened without publication of the Tribunal?

It's a question that doesn't make much sense, because the Tribunal always seems to publish their decisions if they can.  The better question is whether it would have happened without the publicity about not just the actual tribunal, but also the pre-tribunal hearings and before that.  Once that happened, blanket coverage of the result was guaranteed.

What I do think is true is that this all wouldn't have happened without the General Election.  Previously similar embarrassments would be shrugged off by the untouchable, assuming that their politician-shields would let them continue in return for an easy life.  But four Ministers lost their seats (and Skelly and Quayle would have gone too if they stood) and similarly inclined MHKs such as Perkins also went.  It meant a new CoMin who could no longer be relied on to do the bidding of the Chief Secretary.  Cannan may have wanted to keep things as they were[1], but even if he did most of the rest of CoMin wouldn't let him - too many of them were infuriated by too many things that had happened with DHSC in the past and wanted change.

I suspect Greenhow tried to block and slow down any action when discussions were taking place after the decision came out on Wednesday (Thursday's CoMin must have been interesting) and that is why he had to go and quickly.  Moulton's rumour of him being presented with a 'sign-here' on Monday morning has plausibility.

The wording of the Decision also meant that it was easy to get rid of both Malone and Conie and there was enough there to make Ashford's going inevitable[2] - and his behaviour since has only convinced nearly everyone it was the right thing.

 

[1]  The fact he didn't make Callister a Minister might suggest he had some leanings to reform, though there may have been other reasons that contributed to that, including Allinson wanting DfE and the farce over the scoreboard.

[2]  Also can you imagine having to sit in a meeting with Ashford every week when he droned on in his self-important way, not saying very much useful.  It must have made his CoMin colleagues less supportive. 

[SleepyJoe]

[buncha wankas]

5 hours ago, SleepyJoe said:

Do you think it would have happened without publication of the Tribunal?

No. Even Hooper sat hoping Dr Ranson would fail, he sat and knew her story.  So NO nothing will change.