Asthehills Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 3 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said: What you were talking was absolute bollocks as usual. Who needs £60k people on a committee of a useless local authority. Nobody, which is why I was talking about MHK’s Do try and keep up 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 Those people must be indecent. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoops Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 1 minute ago, offshoremanxman said: So you chose a thread about Douglas Corporation to have some oblique conversation about MHKs? 😂 Wish I hadn't said anything now! It was him alluding to people who studied law being honest that was tickling me, given one of today's stories. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asthehills Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 2 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said: So you chose a thread about Douglas Corporation to have some oblique conversation about MHKs? 😂 In response to other comments and the way the conversation developed - yes. Someone asked Amadeus if he would be standing for keys. He said no. Someone else mentioned the cushy salary. I then pointed out it’s not actually high enough to encourage decent candidates. Obviously, I wasn’t talking about councillors who don’t get a salary. Try reading what you are commenting on in future 🙄 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asthehills Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 2 minutes ago, Hoops said: Wish I hadn't said anything now! It was him alluding to people who studied law being honest that was tickling me, given one of today's stories. You should also try reading what you quote. I never mentioned lawyers being honest, although I did use the word in a sentence. Maybe try reading it back Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 On 2/5/2023 at 10:37 AM, Gladys said: It's a dilemma as you observe and I am sympathetic to your view for the reasons you state. But there downsides to each approach. No, or nominal, remuneration will exclude those who simply cannot afford to devote the time even though they may be the best for the job. Similarly, it will attract only certain types of candidates who may have a particular view on life (traditionally right wing) and want to see the status quo which has served them so well preserved. On the other hand, an above average remuneration will attract those who see it as a way of enhancing their standard of living even if only for a few years. It is this type of candidate who seem more prone to granny farming, IMO. In both cases, the prime motivator could so easily be self-interest rather than public service. But, either is not necessarily the best way to secure the quality candidates. I do think that party politics can help with a clear party manifesto that candidates sign up to and discharge their role in pursuit of the principles of their party and its manifesto. This may lessen the impact of remuneration as the candidate would have to prove their commitment to the party aims and the party can weed out those who are "in it" just for the money. No system is perfect, but we do seem to be unable to attract quality candidates. Perhaps there is quality there, but because of the lack of party politics, they are just one voice unable to put weight behind the aims of their manifesto. Gladys can I pick you up on your use of the term “ granny farming” When the world in which we live has become so woke this term can be seen as a little offensive. My grannies ( no longer with us I’m afraid) were both strong women who were perfectly capable of making their own mind up about whom they would vote for in any particular election. The suggestion/implication that they were just little old ladies who could be easily swayed or their votes be “farmed” would be anathema to them and an insult ( although I don’t believe you meant it as such) to those ladies who have fought for women's rights over the decades or even centuries. Their ( grannies) votes are as equally valid as everyone else’s. I know you meant no disrespect. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 21 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said: Gladys can I pick you up on your use of the term “ granny farming” When the world in which we live has become so woke this term can be seen as a little offensive. My grannies ( no longer with us I’m afraid) were both strong women who were perfectly capable of making their own mind up about whom they would vote for in any particular election. The suggestion/implication that they were just little old ladies who could be easily swayed or their votes be “farmed” would be anathema to them and an insult ( although I don’t believe you meant it as such) to those ladies who have fought for women's rights over the decades or even centuries. Their ( grannies) votes are as equally valid as everyone else’s. I know you meant no disrespect. Not at all, the disrespect was towards those politicians who focus on that sector of society in the hopes of garnering votes. It is a well used term and was in no way disrespectful to grannies everywhere. I have had two grannies too, and my mum was one and now I find myself in that category too, carrying on a long line of grannies. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Helmut Fromage Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 Andrew Bentley - can’t get my head around him - makes a big statement about redevelopment of a place that was redeveloped 5 years ago from a derelict hall to a commercial entity with private money - pat yourself on the back Sir https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/redevelopment-of-market-hall-welcomed-by-councils-regeneration-chair/ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0bserver Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 27 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said: Gladys can I pick you up on your use of the term “ granny farming” When the world in which we live has become so woke this term can be seen as a little offensive. My grannies ( no longer with us I’m afraid) were both strong women who were perfectly capable of making their own mind up about whom they would vote for in any particular election. The suggestion/implication that they were just little old ladies who could be easily swayed or their votes be “farmed” would be anathema to them and an insult ( although I don’t believe you meant it as such) to those ladies who have fought for women's rights over the decades or even centuries. Their ( grannies) votes are as equally valid as everyone else’s. I know you meant no disrespect. I think you misunderstand the term or you've over-analysed it. It's simply politicians promoting policies that are popular among the elderly population. Free bus passes, free TV licences, increasing the state pension etc. In turn that cultivates their popularity among that demographic. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Buggane Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 56 minutes ago, Mercenary said: Not a bad mixture really is it? Reasonably representative. The only oddity for Manx politics is that there is not a farmer in sight, but then it is the bit city. Thank fuck the last one turned out to be one waste of skin and integrity. Also his appointments were the biggest fuck up the island had to endure in a long time. And then the new clown prince appeared. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoops Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 40 minutes ago, Asthehills said: You should also try reading what you quote. I never mentioned lawyers being honest, although I did use the word in a sentence. Maybe try reading it back Ok, we could both read it back, you said " just the sort of person we wanted to be honest," and not "just the sort of person we wanted, to be honest". Grudgingly accept your point on what you meant on that one, although not about lawyers per se. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asthehills Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 5 minutes ago, Hoops said: Ok, we could both read it back, you said " just the sort of person we wanted to be honest," and not "just the sort of person we wanted, to be honest". Grudgingly accept your point on what you meant on that one, although not about lawyers per se. If you read the whole paragraph, there is no way anyone would interpret it like you did. Unless they hadn’t actually read the whole paragraph properly. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoops Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 Just now, Asthehills said: If you read the whole paragraph, there is no way anyone would interpret it like you did. Unless they hadn’t actually read the whole paragraph properly. just add the effing coma next time! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted February 8, 2023 Share Posted February 8, 2023 2 hours ago, Hoops said: just add the effing coma next time! His posts, are enough, to put me, in a coma... 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoops Posted February 8, 2023 Share Posted February 8, 2023 6 hours ago, quilp said: His posts, are enough, to put me, in a coma... Ah, and there's me telling people to get things right! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.