Declan Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 31 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said: It is about Hooper. If he was really concerned about democracy then he'd be wanting the whole of LegCo removed and replaced by popular vote. That's real democracy. He does want that. It's been blocked by the other Tynwald members. This is a baby step towards that, which he thought had sufficient support for in the Keys. And unfortunately the reactionaries and self-interested parties in the Keys opposition to democracy mean we have to take small steps. However the anti-democrats in the Keys forced this "consultation" through in the hope that Hooper's unpopularity would lose it. You'll notice it was following an amendment by Rob Callister. Don't let Callister's desire for retribution over his sacking obscure the simple democratic principle at stake here. If you believe that all of Tynwald should be elected - then support this proposal because it's a small step towards that goal. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barlow Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 22 minutes ago, Declan said: If you believe that all of Tynwald should be elected - then support this proposal because it's a small step towards that goal. Democracy, democracy, Brexit vote was a result of the sort of 'democracy' you appear to be seeking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 16 minutes ago, Non-Believer said: He was on MR this morning. He says that Tynwald only ever evolves in small, incremental steps and the removal of the Bish's vote is one of them. He was talking about timespans of 150 years at one point. He favours a publicly elected Legco but says it would be a step too much at present. He is right about there has been a general move towards democracy and local accountability- the Keys were self-elected until 1867, gradually suffrage expanded to all the adult population, LegCo moved from being all appointees of the UK to being mostly selected by the Keys, decision making was transfer from the UK and the Governor to the Keys. In that the Island has kept in step with the rest of the British Isles and indeed "the West" (universal suffrage and the right to self determination. But that should be an ongoing process, but its stalled since the Millennium for similar reasons the Keys viscously opposed public elections prior to 1867 - the status quo has benefitted them. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 1 minute ago, Barlow said: Democracy, democracy, Brexit vote was a result of the sort of 'democracy' you appear to be seeking. Well I'm in favour of representative democracy rather than referenda driven. But it's not a panacea - bad decisions will be made in every system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 (edited) 1 hour ago, Moghrey Mie said: It's unusual to ask an MHK to do their own survey. The problem is the amendment that asked for a consultation stipulated that the consultation should be done by the proposer (Hooperman). Obviously that's idiotic but that's Rob Callister for you. There's no need for a consultation, it's merely a ploy to obstruct change. 1 hour ago, 2112 said: Perhaps Hooperman could have employed a reputable polling company - Gallup/Ipso Mori etc? He probably wouldn’t want to spend his own money, would probably want to squander taxpayers funds. It would be interesting to have @Roger Mexico comment as to whether MHKs have done their own survey particularly in relation to a consultation prior to a private members bill. It would be interesting to have @John Wright comment as to whether the consultation being pushed through Hoopermans own personal website conforms - I think it is biased. A poll and a consultation are different. Edited January 4 by Declan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarndyce Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 13 minutes ago, Declan said: its stalled since the Millennium for similar reasons the Keys viscously opposed public elections prior to 1867 - the status quo has benefitted them. A “sticky” situation, right enough… 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 20 minutes ago, 2112 said: I respect your view, but seeking views on prayers, when the matter has been dealt with, done and dusted, is quite frankly bizarre, and stupid to say the least. What is he trying to achieve? Whats bizarre is that there is any question of the bishop sitting in Tynwald or having a vote being thought appropriate. Constitutional reform of LegCo has always moved at snails pace. Often the removal of a vote precedes removal of the post holder. Pandemics, economic problems, shouldn’t put everything on hold. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 1 hour ago, John Wright said: Constitutional reform of LegCo has always moved at snails pace. Why? I thought Tynwald was known for its agility when responding to urgent change or creation of legislation? What is there to think about? If it's undemocratic for the future then it must be undemocratic now. 1 hour ago, John Wright said: Pandemics, economic problems, shouldn’t put everything on hold. Try telling that to those (outside of COVID) who have had to wait two years for a cataract operation on one eye and then a further 18 months for the other eye. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 10 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said: Why? I thought Tynwald was known for its agility when responding to urgent change or creation of legislation? What is there to think about? If it's undemocratic for the future then it must be undemocratic now. Not on constitutional reform. Problem is the Keys are scared stiff of creating a competing popularly elected second chamber. It suits their purpose to be top dog and to diminish LegCo and delay reform. Lets not forget our Parliament is Tynwald, the Keys and Council are but branches. 10 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said: Try telling that to those (outside of COVID) who have had to wait two years for a cataract operation on one eye and then a further 18 months for the other eye But debating this, and other necessary legislation, neither adds to, not takes away from, that separate mess. They all need doing. And locking politicians in the Chamber 24/7 to debate the other problems won’t solve them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hocus Pocus Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 2 hours ago, Declan said: 2 hours ago, Non-Believer said: He was on MR this morning. He says that Tynwald only ever evolves in small, incremental steps and the removal of the Bish's vote is one of them. He was talking about timespans of 150 years at one point. He favours a publicly elected Legco but says it would be a step too much at present. Perhaps what is needed is a wider public debate on the general state of Manx democracy, and ineffective Tynwald. We have the CM who is not chosen by the public, whose program for government has not been mandated by Island public vote, heading up an executive arm which comprises about 80% of Tynwald members with virtually zero effective scrutiny. Ideal environment in which politicians like Hooper have freedom to flourish. Hooper's record eg his (yes he was the Minister party to litigation) Ranson defence based on "lies and more than one" and suffering punitive damages for "oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional action by the servants of the government"; the HSCC hour long "rant"; OFSTED reporting a child sold sex to buy drugs whilst in residential care without any evidence of escalation or intervention; the attempted SLAPP cover up by top civil servants on Paul Moulton paid for by DHSC public money; every one under Hooper's careful guidance as DHSC Minister. Oh yes, and everyone satisfied with how Manx Care is performing? Perhaps MHKs are only interested in the greasy pole and the public are too apathetic to care what is done in their name. What we need is more morality embedded in Manx institutions, not less...and for that reason alone the Bishop should stay. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 4 hours ago, 2112 said: It would be interesting to have @Roger Mexico comment as to whether MHKs have done their own survey particularly in relation to a consultation prior to a private members bill. It would be interesting to have @John Wright comment as to whether the consultation being pushed through Hoopermans own personal website conforms - I think it is biased. It is of course potentially extremely biased and any reported outcome would be as meaningless as if the Church of England had done a similar survey. It's particularly daft given that the Government has a well-established consultation process which would hopefully be better protected against hacking etc and be seen to be more impartial. I can't think of a similar situation in the past and the whole idea is completely ridiculous. It is however what the House of Keys requested. Callister's adjournment motion reads: Motion made – that consideration of the Bill be adjourned until the mover has consulted the public and has submitted to the House a report on the consultation. Mr Callister and this was passed 13-11 (the swing votes on this issue appear to be Corlett and Watterson). The fact that the mover, who is expected to do the consultation responsibly and impartially, voted against this makes it even more stupid. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheldon Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 24 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said: Motion made – that consideration of the Bill be adjourned until the mover has consulted the public and has submitted to the House a report on the consultation. Mr Callister That's exactly the sort of ludicrous, ill-conceived motion you'd except from Callister, but you'd surely expect common sense to prevail when it comes to a vote. As the old saw has it, "never argue with an idiot", eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 24 minutes ago, Sheldon said: That's exactly the sort of ludicrous, ill-conceived motion you'd except from Callister, but you'd surely expect common sense to prevail when it comes to a vote. As the old saw has it, "never argue with an idiot", eh? Well I suppose the Keys can only vote on what's put in front of them, but I suspect the whole intention was no more than to kick the can down the road for another couple of months. It's just that this lot aren't even much good at procrastination. Whether by then a new Bishop will have been appointed (it seems to be taking ages) and whether that will affect things I don't know. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred the shred Posted January 4 Author Share Posted January 4 Well I have done the survey in about a minute flat very clear and concise. Three questions. I.Do you think the Bishop should have a vote. 2. Do you think the Bishop should be in LegCo 3. Do you think prayers should be said before Tynwald sitting commences. This is the result of Callister’s effort to delay and destroy the entire proposed bill. Of course the god botherers will be lining up to express their views as the 400 or so emailed Moorhouse just before the debate . There was just a name to submit and a question asking if you were a resident so Michael Mouse and his extended family will be experiencing writers cramp for a good while. Callister will be proud of himself for dreaming this little scheme up but he has upset a lot of people in Onchan who have seen him now for what he is. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 I've now had the chance to look at Hooper's 'consultation' and it's as incompetent and arrogant as you'd expect. He was only instructed to consult on the Bishop's vote question, but he's added on two other questions as well: on the Bishop's membership and on prayers. More to the point he's made them mandatory, so you have to answer them for your position on the Bishop's vote to be considered. I'd argue that this invalidates the process on its own. What he hasn't added however is any question on whether people think the whole of LegCo should be elected. Funny that. He asks a name and for a declarations that the person is a Manx resident (which may be fair enough, but wasn't required by Tynwald either), which has the effect of removing anonymity without really checking that the responses are valid. He says "all responses will be treated as anonymous", but you wonder if people might be worried about the consequences of saying the wrong thing to the person in charge of the Heath Services, especially if they don't always believe what he says. He also says "I don't believe any other demographic factors are relevant and so I am deliberately not collecting this data" but age might be very relevant. We know only 34% of those aged 25-29 identified as Christian in the Census for example while 88% of those over 85 did. So a response that slants old or young could be biased. What's also interesting is what the consultation process doesn't include. There are no public meetings or debates; no attempts to meet interested parties. And there's nothing in the 'consultation' to allow people to give reasons or an alternative view. Again perhaps people might decide to use it to demand a wider reform of LegCo - clearly we can't have that. 3 1 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.