Bishop V Hooper

[Ringy Rose]

20 hours ago, TheTeapot said:

Also, why is Hooper bringing this? Needs a boost? Trying to do something he thinks will be popular?

It’s a good time to bring it, what with the current Bishop about to depart.

Interestingly the current Bishop has just come out to say that the Bishop should keep his vote because the Bishop can “vote against strong public opinion” and offers a “spiritual voice in public life”.

Basically the Bishop thinks he should be allowed to subvert democracy because Sky Fairies.

[cissolt]

This was mooted previously after the Bishop took issue with the treatment of Rob Callister after his sacking.  Interesting to see who is backing the issue again this time around.

[Roger Mexico]

It seems pretty ridiculous to bring this topic up when Tynwald voted on it as recently as June.   The debate is from here, though Faragher's motion was technically rather silly.  How can you demand that "this legislation should take effect before any successor to the present Bishop is appointed" when you have no control over that appointment or its timing?

In any case the whole thing reeks of hypocrisy.  Why are they complaining that the Bishop sits in Tynwald without any democratic mandate when the other nine 'elected' members of LegCo have no real democratic mandate either.  There may actually be more people involved in deciding who the new Bishop is than pick the other members.  Which doesn't make it democratic, just emphasises that MHKs are perfectly happy with undemocratic situations providing they are in charge.  

[cissolt]

3 hours ago, cissolt said:

This was mooted previously after the Bishop took issue with the treatment of Rob Callister after his sacking.  Interesting to see who is backing the issue again this time around.

For reference, the bishop did say quite a bit more on the matter.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-65027721

[Fred the shred]

It may have been worded badly but the meaning is clear it was a good time to change the rules between Bishops if rules were going to be changed rather than saying   “ Having a good weekend fella oh and you’re not needed from next week “.  

[Casta]

The situation with this chap Hooper is that he has been in a privileged position as a member of Tynwald for some time and he is learning so much about the Isle of Man. He seems to believe that this new found knowledge is new to everyone else too, and he likes to show his new found knowledge, but all he is doing is catching up. He has a lot more catching up to do yet. Unfortunately, he is implementing his new found knowledge and imposing it using the political powers invested in him. Incidentally, much the same can be said of his Ramsey colleague in Keys.

Edited November 4, 2023 by Casta

[Dirty Buggane]

The man is a waste of skin, sooner gone the better. But who will the good people vote in to fill the void left bye a man of his stature(that is not a dig at shorty's size) and intellect.   🤡

[Roger Mexico]

18 hours ago, Fred the shred said:

It may have been worded badly but the meaning is clear it was a good time to change the rules between Bishops if rules were going to be changed rather than saying   “ Having a good weekend fella oh and you’re not needed from next week “.  

Oh I get that, and it's clearly the most tactful time to change the rules.  By all means make that point in a speech or even privately to other members.  But you want a motion to Tynwald to make changes that will work, setting up a race with CofE appointments is just silly.  The impracticality of it shows it up for what it really is - virtue-signalling.  And that applies whether it is successful or not and applies even more to Hooper's motion because it's not even original. 

If you're genuine about wanting increased democracy, reform the whole of LegCo and change the Bishop's status as part of that.  Otherwise this is just like all those Guardian stories on the Royal Family, people trying to pretend they're not part of the establishment by complaining about a small ceremonial part of it.

[Roger Mexico]

It should be pointed out that, unlike Faragher's motion which was to Tynwald, Hooper's is to the House of Keys next week (which may explain why they're allowed to discuss the same topic so soon after last time).  The actual motion is:

3. Leave to Introduce
3.1 Bishop’s vote
The Hon. Member for Ramsey, Mr Hooper, to move –
That leave be given to introduce a Bill to provide that the Bishop shall cease to have the right to vote in Tynwald or the Council whilst retaining membership thereof.
If the above motion is carried without amendment, the Manx language version of the Bill’s long title would be:
"Billey ta kiarail nagh bee cair ec yn Aspick arragh dy votal ayns Tinvaal ny ayns y Choonceil Slattyssagh agh dy jean eh yn olteynys echey jeu y reayll."

I'm not really sure what the Manx is about - it's not usual in Leave to introduce motions.

The logic behind this motion is that in June Tynwald the Keys members actually voted for an amendment from Maltby to keep the Bishop on LegCo, but without his vote.  The final vote on Faragher's motion was:

In the Keys – Ayes 8, Noes 16
For: Dr Allinson, Mrs Barber, Mrs Caine, Ms Faragher, Dr Haywood, Mr Hooper, Mrs Maltby, Mr Peters.
Against: Mr Ashford, Mr Callister, Mr Cannan, Mrs Christian, Mrs Corlett, Mr Crookall, Ms Edge, Mr Glover, Mr Johnston, Ms Lord-Brennan, Mr Moorhouse, Mrs Poole-Wilson, Mr Smith, Mr Speaker, Mr Thomas, Mr Wannenburgh.
In the Council – Ayes 0, Noes 8
Against: Miss August-Hanson, Mr Craine, Mr Greenhill, Mr Henderson, Mrs Kelsey, Mrs Kinnish, The Lord Bishop, Mr Mercer, Mrs Sharpe.

But Ashford, Corlett, Crookall, Poole Wilson, Watterson and Thomas all voted to remove his vote (or rather Maltby's again rather badly worded amendment).  So presumably Hooper is hoping it will get through.  But to be passed any legislation will need to go through LegCo as well and they are all against.  So again it's gesture politics.

 

[Ringy Rose]

3 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

If you're genuine about wanting increased democracy, reform the whole of LegCo and change the Bishop's status as part of that.  Otherwise this is just like all those Guardian stories on the Royal Family, people trying to pretend they're not part of the establishment by complaining about a small ceremonial part of it.

At least the MHKs choosing the MLCs are directly democratically elected. Which is a lot different to the Bishop, who is chosen through a secretive process by a tiny cabal of men also chosen in a secretive process.

That’s not to say that the process of electing the Chief Minister and MLCs shouldn’t be more democratic.

 

[Roger Mexico]

5 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said:

At least the MHKs choosing the MLCs are directly democratically elected. Which is a lot different to the Bishop, who is chosen through a secretive process by a tiny cabal of men also chosen in a secretive process.

Actually the process seems to be fairly open, if rather bureaucratic and longwinded - there's even a Wiki page explaining it.  There also seems to be quite a few people involved (and of course they're not all men nowadays) and extensive consultation in the diocese.  So I may have been right when I pointed to even more people being involved - it just shows how restricted the process for the rest of LegCo is.

And of course when people stand for election to the Keys they don't list who they will be voting for, so there's no real democratic legitimacy transferred from them.  In some ways it's now worse now than it was when the Keys promoted MHKs to LegCo, at least those people had been elected at the previous election.  Now it's just become another set of well-paid jobs for mates.

[Fred the shred]

Looking back it was a better system when experienced MHK s. were retired / promoted to Leg.Co at least they had some experience as to the weird and wonderful ways Tynwald operates unlike the Tom,Dick and Harry lot that now have too much power .   It is frightening that an unelected mob can upend a motion passed by our elected representatives especially when one was voting for his own position,. The Bishop, being the one.  This is political nonsense.

[2112]

Now Hooperman has got his wish to introduce a private members bill to strip the LB of his voting rights, do Legco get to debate this, and add their opinions? Does it get debated and voted  in Tynpotwald? What happens if Legco vote against? Probably much wailing and gnashing of teeth., with politicos like Hooperman saying it’s disgusting that Legco can interfere - he will no doubt introduce another private members bill to abolish Legco. Maybe Legco will have the last laugh, voting against legislation in Tynpotwald? 

[CrazyDave]

2 hours ago, 2112 said:

Now Hooperman has got his wish to introduce a private members bill to strip the LB of his voting rights, do Legco get to debate this, and add their opinions? Does it get debated and voted  in Tynpotwald? What happens if Legco vote against? Probably much wailing and gnashing of teeth., with politicos like Hooperman saying it’s disgusting that Legco can interfere - he will no doubt introduce another private members bill to abolish Legco. Maybe Legco will have the last laugh, voting against legislation in Tynpotwald? 

He won’t do that.

He probably has his eyes on a LegCo seat for when he gets voted out in 2 years and 10 months.

[english zloty]

2 hours ago, 2112 said:

Now Hooperman has got his wish to introduce a private members bill to strip the LB of his voting rights, do Legco get to debate this, and add their opinions? Does it get debated and voted  in Tynpotwald? What happens if Legco vote against? Probably much wailing and gnashing of teeth., with politicos like Hooperman saying it’s disgusting that Legco can interfere - he will no doubt introduce another private members bill to abolish Legco. Maybe Legco will have the last laugh, voting against legislation in Tynpotwald? 

Yes it will go through Keys then up to LegCo for review, whereupon they can recommend amendments to be voted upon by Tynwald. 

A private member Bill is a risky business because there is no block vote and generally less scrutiny, because it's one person's baby, as opposed to department sponsored.

Hooper did this once before (tenant rights) and it got through Tynwald despite being completely unworkable. So is now buried in the long grass.

The decision of Keys today is interesting because it effectively removes the need for LegCo at all. And yet, LegCo still have to do their bit. The other thing is the Committee can only make recommendations for amendments but Keys still have to vote on each. Overall, I'm not sure why there is a committee at such an early stage and fearful it sets a dangerous precedent.