Quality of MHKs

[Freggyragh]

In my opinion Tynwald should be for exchanging ideas, representing the people and debating the important issues of the day. They are paid to express opinions on the big issues. I respect Joney, Tim Johnson, Alex Allinson, Daphne Caine, John Wannenburg and Chris Thomas because I think they work hard and I kind of know what they stand for, even though I don't necessarily agree with them. I respect Stu for setting out his opinions, if not his work rate. There's always a place in politics for the hail-fellow-well-met, which you get in spades with Juan Watterson, and a bit with Sarah Maltby and Tim Crookall, and a place for the honest brokers who meticulously weigh up what they hear, eg; Lawrie Hooper and Rob Callister. To be honest, I'm not sure what skills most of the rest have or what they stand for beside looking after numero uno and being the big I Am - and one or two of those are jaw droppingly dull individuals. Still, that's a better mix than you get in most parliaments. 

Edited May 27, 2022 by Freggyragh

[cissolt]

13 minutes ago, Freggyragh said:

In my opinion Tynwald should be for exchanging ideas, representing the people and debating the important issues of the day. They are paid to express opinions on the big issues. I respect Joney, Tim Johnson, Alex Allinson, Daphne Caine, John Wannenburg and Chris Thomas because I think they work hard and I kind of know what they stand for, even though I don't necessarily agree with them. I respect Stu for setting out his opinions, if not his work rate. There's always a place in politics for the hail-fellow-well-met, which you get in spades with Juan Watterson, and a bit with Sarah Maltby and Tim Crookall, and a place for the honest brokers who meticulously weigh up what they hear, eg; Lawrie Hooper and Rob Callister. To be honest, I'm not sure what skills most of the rest have or what they stand for beside looking after numero uno and being the big I Am - and one or two of those are jaw droppingly dull individuals. Still, that's a better mix than you get in most parliaments. 

You lost me at Rob Callister being an honest broker. He is a self serving, pompous buffoon.  High on his own ego and grovelling for scraps from Alfs plate.

[Freggyragh]

12 minutes ago, cissolt said:

You lost me at Rob Callister being an honest broker. He is a self serving, pompous buffoon.  High on his own ego and grovelling for scraps from Alfs plate.

Hmmm, on second thoughts maybe I was being a bit generous there. 

[0bserver]

19 hours 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.

Drain that swamp!!

[SleepyJoe]

[Steve_Christian]

16 hours ago, buncha wankas said:

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

And you know this how? 

[cissolt]

23 minutes ago, Steve_Christian said:

And you know this how? 

I assume as he was head of the PAC for Dr Ransons testimony and was hailing the appointment of Malone, even after hearing of her involvement.

[Roger Mexico]

10 minutes ago, cissolt said:

I assume as [Hooper] was head of the PAC for Dr Ransons testimony and was hailing the appointment of Malone, even after hearing of her involvement.

While Hooper was on the PAC (though not Chair, that's Watterson), Malone doesn't really figure that much in Ranson's evidence, except that she seems to have been as lackadaisical as most of the rest of them about the coming Covid crisis.   The stuff about her colluding with Magson and the 'catty' exchanges didn't come out till the Tribunal.  Of course there may be even more damaging stuff to come out yet.

[buncha wankas]

8 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

While Hooper was on the PAC (though not Chair, that's Watterson), Malone doesn't really figure that much in Ranson's evidence, except that she seems to have been as lackadaisical as most of the rest of them about the coming Covid crisis.   The stuff about her colluding with Magson and the 'catty' exchanges didn't come out till the Tribunal.  Of course there may be even more damaging stuff to come out yet.

Hooper sanctioned the new CEO after the tribunal evidence.    He is worse that Ashford as he gambled on Ranson failing so he could sweep it all under the rug.   He has let his CEO fall on the proverbial sword to protect himself, he did worse than the CEO.

No change on horizon if someone can hear evidence last year and then did nothing when he got the Ministerial role heading a very small department. 

[Kopek]

Aren't CEOs appointed by Civil Service Comms???

[Roger Mexico]

6 hours ago, buncha wankas said:

Hooper sanctioned the new CEO after the tribunal evidence.    He is worse that Ashford as he gambled on Ranson failing so he could sweep it all under the rug.   He has let his CEO fall on the proverbial sword to protect himself, he did worse than the CEO.

No change on horizon if someone can hear evidence last year and then did nothing when he got the Ministerial role heading a very small department. 

I don't know if Hooper had much choice over Malone's appointment or not.  One of the problems with the previous set up was that Greenhow and the AG's Office seem to have been laying down the law about what Ministers could or couldn't do.  He may have had no power over the appointment or even its announcement  Malone was already interim CEO when the Tribunal started and the 'catty' texts didn't come out till during the Tribunal (see para 375) - part of the pattern of late disclosure. 

I suspect Hooper was just trying to keep out of the whole thing until the actual publication of the Decision confirmed  everything and then turn up like Fortinbras when the stage was strewn with corpses.  But he couldn't have known about the texts that sank Malone (though there may be a lot more stuff to come out) until January/February and only then through media coverage.

But you're right to implicitly raise the issue of the purpose of DHSC.  It now doesn't do much and much of that it shouldn't be doing as the inspection etc functions have to be done by outsiders or they're simply meaningless box-ticking at best.  The reality is that the whole split between DHSC and Manx Care has to be undone - it was all a tremendous waste of money designed to avoid politicians having to make any uncomfortable decisions and avoid blame and of course it hasn't even done that.

The purchaser/provider split didn't even work in England and was clearly nonsense when there is only one possible provider.  Michael's solution was really only telling MHKs what they wanted to hear - that there was a way to stop all these pesky constituents bothering them to get adequate medical treatment.  Incidentally neither Michael or Foster come particularly well out of the Decision.  Michael basically told Ranson not to make a fuss and discouraged whistleblowing.  Foster should have spotted that what Magson was saying was implausible, but chose not to find out what was going on.  Like MHKs having an easy life was the important thing. 

[buncha wankas]

3 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

I don't know if Hooper had much choice over Malone's appointment or not.  One of the problems with the previous set up was that Greenhow and the AG's Office seem to have been laying down the law about what Ministers could or couldn't do.  He may have had no power over the appointment or even its announcement  Malone was already interim CEO when the Tribunal started and the 'catty' texts didn't come out till during the Tribunal (see para 375) - part of the pattern of late disclosure. 

I suspect Hooper was just trying to keep out of the whole thing until the actual publication of the Decision confirmed  everything and then turn up like Fortinbras when the stage was strewn with corpses.  But he couldn't have known about the texts that sank Malone (though there may be a lot more stuff to come out) until January/February and only then through media coverage.

But you're right to implicitly raise the issue of the purpose of DHSC.  It now doesn't do much and much of that it shouldn't be doing as the inspection etc functions have to be done by outsiders or they're simply meaningless box-ticking at best.  The reality is that the whole split between DHSC and Manx Care has to be undone - it was all a tremendous waste of money designed to avoid politicians having to make any uncomfortable decisions and avoid blame and of course it hasn't even done that.

The purchaser/provider split didn't even work in England and was clearly nonsense when there is only one possible provider.  Michael's solution was really only telling MHKs what they wanted to hear - that there was a way to stop all these pesky constituents bothering them to get adequate medical treatment.  Incidentally neither Michael or Foster come particularly well out of the Decision.  Michael basically told Ranson not to make a fuss and discouraged whistleblowing.  Foster should have spotted that what Magson was saying was implausible, but chose not to find out what was going on.  Like MHKs having an easy life was the important thing. 

If Hooper doesn’t have much choice and is just a mouthpiece for Civil Servants. 

(Plus he ignored the evidence given to him in PAC !  He should be shouting as loudly as Robertshaw is doing.  DHSC as a tiny office grouping of 30 people is not ‘fit for purpose’ and should be a sub section of Cabinet as should DoE)
 

Isn’t Hooper just as weak and useless as the public demanded Ashford’s exit for?  Double standards 

 

[Kopek]

Do you think that Hooper appoints all the Doctors and Nurses as well?

[buncha wankas]

3 hours ago, Kopek said:

Do you think that Hooper appoints all the Doctors and Nurses as well?

They are in Manx care, Hooper is minister of DHSC where there are only 30 odd staff.   Minus 1 this week and minus a Medical Director in Jan 22

 

[Roger Mexico]

4 hours ago, buncha wankas said:

If Hooper doesn’t have much choice and is just a mouthpiece for Civil Servants. 

(Plus he ignored the evidence given to him in PAC !  He should be shouting as loudly as Robertshaw is doing.  DHSC as a tiny office grouping of 30 people is not ‘fit for purpose’ and should be a sub section of Cabinet as should DoE)
Isn’t Hooper just as weak and useless as the public demanded Ashford’s exit for?  Double standards 

As I said the PAC evidence didn't include that much about Malone and stuff that came out at the Tribunal wasn't published.  There were an interesting anecdote about interviewing for a CEO position in the Moulton chat, where Robertshaw was describing the Charters interview for the job.  He realised straight away the warning signs[1], but the other panel members (Quayle, Greenhow and someone from HR) though Charters was wonderful and out-voted him eventually.  If the other panel members for Malone had been her co-conspirators Greenhow and Conie, then Hooper may have similarly outvoted, though it would be difficult to find reasons against someone already effectively in post and picked for it by the previous administration.

The interesting thing (also raised in the Moulton discussion) is why Malone was confirmed so quickly - it took DJ Dan three and a half years at DHA to move from being 'acting', Malone was less than a month.  Presumably Greenhow's influence was important.

There's also a bit of confusion surrounding Hooper in that discussion because they keep on referring to his evidence to that Tribunal, but he doesn't appear in the list of witnesses or anywhere in the Decision.  So there may be evidence that isn't publicly available or it may be that they've got mixed up (there's evidence of both in the discussion).

 

[1]  As of course did practically everyone else, though I would imagine that Robertshaw has more interviewing experience than most.