Bishop V Hooper

[2112]

2 hours ago, Andy Onchan said:

None of where the Bishop resides in LegCo is democratic. It's BS to say that MLCs are where they are due to democracy. None of them have a mandate.

Was the system irretrievably broken? Had the Bishop caused ructions within Legco or Tynpotwald, and had his ‘vote’ caused issues, certainly to the point where democratic outcomes are concerned? 
 

Legco should be democratically elected by the electorate, along with an election of Chief Minister after the general election. It may be a logistical challenge but it’s democracy. 

[Andy Onchan]

19 minutes ago, 2112 said:

Was the system irretrievably broken? Had the Bishop caused ructions within Legco or Tynpotwald, and had his ‘vote’ caused issues, certainly to the point where democratic outcomes are concerned? 

Of course not.

Quote

Legco should be democratically elected by the electorate, along with an election of Chief Minister after the general election. It may be a logistical challenge but it’s democracy. 

It's simply wrong to pick on one position/individual when none of them have a mandate.

For Hooperman this is all about him and a deflection from the shitshow that is DHSC & MC. Nothing else

And as for Faragher, well she's another champagne socialist grandstanding for the sake of it. Because she can.

[cissolt]

18 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

Of course not.

It's simply wrong to pick on one position/individual when none of them have a mandate.

For Hooperman this is all about him and a deflection from the shitshow that is DHSC & MC. Nothing else

And as for Faragher, well she's another champagne socialist grandstanding for the sake of it. Because she can.

The bishop was very outspoken about the treat Rob received at the hands of Joney and gang, which I assumed sparked the last debate. Interesting to see which side those involved in the Rob saga voted.

[Max Power]

36 minutes ago, 2112 said:

Legco should be democratically elected by the electorate, along with an election of Chief Minister after the general election. It may be a logistical challenge but it’s democracy. 

Sorry, I don't agree. Legco is an opportunity to have the opinions of people who are qualified through education or experience in some way to hold their position, and not members elected in some popularity contest! This is particularly important on the IoM, where you end up with all sorts of strange people elected by a small electorate who mostly appear to be concerned about single issue politics! 

I see no reason to remove the Bishop's vote on this basis, it's becoming about some trendy misguided contemporary thinking by wooly headed leftists, in my opinion of course!

[GreyWolf]

I see you point Max but I’ll  politely disagree with you, legco to me is jobs for the boys n girls decided by a few mhk’s, so they are rarely ever going to bite the hand that feeds them or those that have given them that cushy position. 
Just going back 4/5 terms how many can we say have really earned or warranted there salary and the ones in-situ now getting £75k one maybe two tops.

[NoTail]

I would be much happier if legco was made up of the great and the good.  Ex mhks should be explicitly excluded. Anyway none of them is great or good. 

[2112]

1 hour ago, Max Power said:

Sorry, I don't agree. Legco is an opportunity to have the opinions of people who are qualified through education or experience in some way to hold their position, and not members elected in some popularity contest! This is particularly important on the IoM, where you end up with all sorts of strange people elected by a small electorate who mostly appear to be concerned about single issue politics! 

I see no reason to remove the Bishop's vote on this basis, it's becoming about some trendy misguided contemporary thinking by wooly headed leftists, in my opinion of course!

I’m not disagreeing with what your saying, However, Legco is a beauty contest, especially if you are mates with current MHKs or belong to either LibLabVan or MLP whereby their MHKs would put forward a numpty. These people are supposed to have all encompassing views, but what we currently have is the great and the good, and pillars of the legal establishment, coupled with dogooders and ‘right on politicos versed in political correctness’. The days of both failed and retired MHKs being elevated are long gone. 

[Two-lane]

MHKs get voted in by the electorate. If they do things that the electorate does not like, next time around they get booted out. Pretty reasonable.

 

MLCs get voted in by MHKs. If they do things that the MHKs do not like, next time around they get booted out. Pretty reasonable.

[Fred the shred]

I think it should go back to when MHKs retired to LegCo at least they were once voted for by the public and they must have gained some experience in their time in Tynwald more than the rag, tag, and bobtail lot that are chosen in a personality contest like style.    I do not think the Bishop should have a vote in Tynwald, a stranger to our Island with absolutely no knowledge of local matters and to say Laurie Hooper is using this as a distraction is ludicrous, this matter was first brought up in June by Joney Faragher and has been simmering over the long summer break .    Most people have the brain power to deal with more than one topic or measure at a time, look at Mr Moorehouse he manages it .

[Barlow]

6 minutes ago, Fred the shred said:

 a stranger to our Island with absolutely no knowledge of local matters 

Some could say that about Lawrie Hooper and his mate in Ramsey. One or two other in Tynwald too.

[Chie]

7 hours ago, Barlow said:

Some could say that about Lawrie Hooper and his mate in Ramsey. One or two other in Tynwald too.

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.

[Andy Onchan]

6 hours ago, weskernba4536 said:

It's interesting to see the motion to remove the Bishop's vote in Tynwald. The idea of separating religion from politics is a recurring theme, and the comparison with instances across the water, like Justin Welby's involvement, adds context. The hope for the motion's success reflects a sentiment that politics should be independent of religious influence. The previous attempt by Joney F. sheds light on the complexities of such proposals. It will be intriguing to see the outcome next Tuesday.

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.

[Roger Mexico]

19 hours ago, cissolt said:

The bishop was very outspoken about the treat Rob received at the hands of Joney and gang, which I assumed sparked the last debate. Interesting to see which side those involved in the Rob saga voted.

That struck me as well.  Here's how MHKs voted on Callister's censure:

FOR:  Dr Allinson, Mr Ashford, Mrs Barber, Mrs Caine, Mr Crookall, Ms Faragher, Mr Glover, Dr Haywood, Mr Hooper, Mr Johnston, Ms Lord-Brennan, Mrs Maltby, Mr Peters, Mrs Poole-Wilson' The Speaker

AGAINST:  Mr Callister, Mrs Christian, Mrs Corlett, Ms Edge, Mr Moorhouse, Mr Smith, Mr Thomas, Mr Wannenburgh

(Cannan was absent). Compare it with:

The MHKs who voted against it were: Rob Callister, Alfred Cannan, Claire Christian, Tim Glover, Kate Lord-Brennan, Jason Moorhouse, Andrew Smith, Chris Thomas and John Wannenburgh. 

on the vote to remove the Bishop's vote.  (Edge was absent).

There are differences, but a big overlap.  It's also noticeable how many are those who you might see as forming the 'opposition' to the government: Thomas, Christian, Wannenburgh, Moorhouse.

However I wonder if this is less about the reaction to a particular vote, than because of government control-freakery.   Bishops on the whole tend to follow the party-line, but even the possibility of someone who appointed from outside (whether by the Church or the electorate) is not acceptable.

 

Edited December 7, 2023 by Roger Mexico
Layout

[Roger Mexico]

4 hours ago, 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.

In which case why aren't they demanding that all of LegCo is elected.  There's probably more Manx people involved in choosing the new Bishop than in selecting the other nine[1], that's how ridiculous and undemocratic the current situation is.

The fact that no one proposing getting rid of the Bishop is keen on further reform shows the whole thing up for the pathetic virtue-signalling this is.

 

[1]  Not only is the President only elected by MHKs, only an MHK (or the current President) can be elected as President.

[Andy Onchan]

15 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

In which case why aren't they demanding that all of LegCo is elected.  There's probably more Manx people involved in choosing the new Bishop than in selecting the other nine[1], that's how ridiculous and undemocratic the current situation is.

The fact that no one proposing getting rid of the Bishop is keen on further reform shows the whole thing up for the pathetic virtue-signalling this is.

 

[1]  Not only is the President only elected by MHKs, only an MHK (or the current President) can be elected as President.

That's been my position all along. One out, all out!

Couldn't we start a war with someone or get someone to travel to China and bring back the lurgy and have another pandemic and lockdown .... you know, give the feckers something to do?

This really is lazy politics of the worst kind.