Bishop V Hooper

[Holte End]

5 hours ago, Stu Peters said:

Good questions Chie, and I don’t know all the answers, but suggest that tendering is a requirement in most projects 

 

Mr Peters why not just put everything into a arms-length company, then no tenders needed, Mr Allison mislead the House when he implied that MCD have the same process as any Government department for tender process. Jason should have asked for the documentation of all the tender processes MCD have placed on the Government in-tend portal.

[Gladys]

16 minutes ago, Beelzebub3 said:

Outsourcing only works if it is managed correctly if not  you have a Douglas promenade/Liverpool landing stage /NSC flume etc. I am sure there is a lot more government projects that have been poorly managed. I have yet to hear any MHK ask what action will be taken to ensure this mis-management does not re-occur in the future all I hear is "lesson's have been learned" clearly they have not and its business as usual.

It is doubtful that any of the projects you mention could have been done without contracting out the delivery even if there was still an internal construction or maintenance capability.  However, I would suggest that outsourcing all 'doing' capability has lead to a loss of practical in-house experience, knowledge and capability to manage these big projects. 

Chie's example above of outsourcing an office move is a good example.  With no in-house humpers, not only has the ability to actually pick up the desks and move them been lost, but the ability to recognise and say 'no, that is an extortionate amount, it will take us half a day and we already know that (for example) that desk has a wobbly leg that will fall off if moved'. 

[display name]

1 hour ago, Beelzebub3 said:

A monkey!

Just one?  That'd be far too cost effective.  We'd need a chief monkey and lots of MHK chimps with an ever increasing wage demand.  Oh!,hang on.

[Mercenary]

9 hours ago, Stu Peters said:

 

I’ve said before but it bears repeating: if you have a pothole, I’d prefer to send a bloke round tomorrow with a bucket of tar and a bucket of gravel to fix it. Instead we have to have surveys, priority lists, budget approvals, an engineer’s report, sign-offs by various people and put the work out to tender, then organise road closures, consultations with stakeholders and all that other bureaucratic BS to try to ensure efficiency and best value, all the time recording every action as it almost certainly WILL be challenged by somebody, sometime.

 

I know you're in that Department but I'm doubting you on this one.

 

I've reported a few potholes where it pretty much exactly goes that the two blokes show up the next day in the van and fill it in (except for the odd one where they didn't bother). It's still a bumpy ride but realistically they're not going to be retarmacing the estate road in a hurry.

 

On the TT course they seem to spray them up and do a more substantial job but that's understandable with the racing speeds.

[Barlow]

On 12/7/2023 at 6:22 AM, Chie said:

We could always go back to the days of Tynwald being an oligarchy, where you had to own over a certain amount of land to be an MHK and be popular enough among the other MHKs to be "voted" in. And the job was for life, or until you stood down.

I see where you are coming from, but your extreme thought is interesting but hardly relevant,

The Isle of Man has an identity and self-determination is a fair enough right for any country. That is hardly the case when there are so many importees in our Tynwald, and indeed of course in the the electorate.

 

On 12/7/2023 at 7:10 AM, Andy Onchan said:

May be I'm wrong but I haven't heard of either Faragher or Hooper saying they want the bishop out on religious grounds. They're saying it's undemocratic.

Democracy? I haven't seen many people protesting in the streets about the Bishop having a vote in Tynwald. No groups of people carrying out a silent protest on our National Day etc. Has anyone been wrongly done by? In much the same way no 16-17 year olds went crying to their Mummy that they didn't have a vote, yet (Steve Rodan will be dining out and sipping single malts on that one for a while yet).

In fact, all I've heard is a few self-grandiosing winging MHKs bleating in Tynwald for the Bishop's vote to be removed. Again.

No democracy is perfect and our system is far from it, but better than many throughout the world. The Bishop having a vote in Tynwald has to be the very least of anyone's concern in this respect. 

Hooper is being 'naughty' and getting his thrill kicking against the establishment. It looks like a few MHKs are similarly minded. 

[Jarndyce]

1 hour ago, Barlow said:

Hooper is being 'naughty' and getting his thrill kicking against the establishment.

No: Hooper is using the “Bishop’s vote” issue as a dead cat, to distract attention from Manx Care/ DHSC and the many many issues which he is failing to deal with (and one or two that he is actively making worse - eg, HSCC debacle)

[Chie]

2 hours ago, Barlow said:

I see where you are coming from, but your extreme thought is interesting but hardly relevant

It’s actually pretty interesting reading up on the history of Tynwald. Had we not changed to the current democratic system, we would still be under direct rule from the English. Switching to a public vote system was part of the agreement to give us back some autonomy and allow Tynwald to have control of its finances once again. Before that, Westminster was collecting taxes and then exporting them to the English purse, resulting in the island being pretty broke. Part of the reason we have commissioners was as a way to get around this by collecting “rates” to help maintain harbours and other infrastructure.

[asitis]

TBH I'd rather the Bishop had a vote than Hooper !

[Roger Mexico]

6 hours ago, Chie said:

It’s actually pretty interesting reading up on the history of Tynwald. Had we not changed to the current democratic system, we would still be under direct rule from the English. Switching to a public vote system was part of the agreement to give us back some autonomy and allow Tynwald to have control of its finances once again. Before that, Westminster was collecting taxes and then exporting them to the English purse, resulting in the island being pretty broke. Part of the reason we have commissioners was as a way to get around this by collecting “rates” to help maintain harbours and other infrastructure.

Technically we were never under direct rule, but indirectly via a Governor and his Council (now transformed to LegCo).  They were the people who had complete control of the Island's finances and that continued for some time after the first elections.  The Keys, and some local officials such as the Deemsters, were mainly chosen from a small number of intermarried local families[1] but were increasingly wanting to assert their power, including by their function as an appeal court.  Peter Edge has an interesting blog post on the pre-1867 situation.

The truth is that the UK Government[2] were embarrassed by the undemocratic situation in the Isle of Man, especially as they were trying to broaden the franchise in the UK.  It was clear that the majority of all classes on the Island wanted reform, especially newer arrivals from more democratic places and there was considerable agitation.  Events such as the imprisonment of James Brown by the Keys for mocking them didn't help and led to English legal intervention.  The UK were certainly unwilling to give them any financial powers without democratisation.

The rates were initially an all-Island thing to pay for a new asylum and Town rates and Commissioners didn't really happen till the 1886 Local Government Act, so a bit later, but part of the same, actually rather fast process of modernisation.

 

[1]  Vacancies were filled by the remaining Keys proposing two names to the Governor who was expected to  choose the first of them.  Oddly enough this is the same way that Bishops are still nominally appointed by the UK PM.

[2]  Ironically headed by the current Earl of Derby, from family of the one-time Lords of Mann.

[Max Power]

I have no issues with Legco, Bish and all, being a scrutiny body. I don't think that they should have a vote in Tynwald. They could refer legislation for review, even veto certain clauses but they should not get to swing the vote either way. 

Then we have the problem with the Comin vote, I think they should be free to vote as they see fit! What is discussed in Comin is one thing, having to agree with it is another! 

[Barlow]

11 hours ago, Jarndyce said:

No: Hooper is using the “Bishop’s vote” issue as a dead cat, to distract attention from Manx Care/ DHSC and the many many issues which he is failing to deal with (and one or two that he is actively making worse - eg, HSCC debacle)

You sir, are spot fucking on.

[asitis]

One is an educated man of principle, the other is an arrogant buffoon !

...... and I'm not religious !

[Casta]

The Minister for health must be way, way out of his depth in his designated role. Where is he getting the time and energy for all this Bishop stuff? I bet Manx Care are chuffed to bits that his mind and focus are elsewhere. It really is pathetic.

It's a well known syndrome. Long tails in a laboratory experiment, are observed when put under great stress, to start tidying their cage and doing unimportant tasks.

Fiddles, Rome.

Deckchairs, Titanic.

Edited to add: How much is Mr Hooper being paid to actually do the job of Health Minister?

Health really must be a bit of an easy number.

 

 

Edited December 9, 2023 by Casta

[Shake me up Judy]

Thanks for the history lesson Roger. Very interesting. The Island is still effectively stitched up behind the appearance of a modern elective government and democracy.

[Jarndyce]

1 hour ago, Casta said:

Health really must be a bit of an easy number.

No: what it actually means is that Hooper isn’t doing the job.