Andy Onchan Posted December 5, 2023 Share Posted December 5, 2023 I really don't think these clowns have really understood the legal and administrative implications of that vote. If the Bishop doesn't have a vote in Tynwald then we might as well disengage the CoE completely from the legislature and be done with it. Oi Hooperman! What the fuck are you doing about the funding shortfall for the DHSC????????? 5 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarndyce Posted December 5, 2023 Share Posted December 5, 2023 4 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said: Oi Hooperman! What the fuck are you doing about the funding shortfall for the DHSC????????? Clearly nothing. Last I heard, he’d fallen back on any shortfall being made up through “efficiencies” - unfortunately, the efficiencies that they choose nearly always make the service worse, because they don’t discuss the effects with the right people. Maybe he wants to be Minister in charge of…er…ministers. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shake me up Judy Posted December 5, 2023 Share Posted December 5, 2023 Hooperman turned the session into a farce this morning. He needs to go. Now. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted December 5, 2023 Share Posted December 5, 2023 I agree with him, and suggested the Bishop could have a guaranteed place on the shortlist for MLC elections rather a God-given right to sit in LegCo. I also agreed with the comment that whilst we indeed have bigger fish to fry, that is always the response when someone wants to block a motion, and on this issue people have been doing exactly that for years. There's never a 'good time' to bring this kind of thing forward, and it doesn't detract (except for an hour in Keys) from any of those bigger fish. 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nom de plume Posted December 5, 2023 Share Posted December 5, 2023 An unelected member of a religious cult playing a part in our 'democracy' tells us everything. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred the shred Posted December 5, 2023 Share Posted December 5, 2023 I am glad that 14 MHKs voted for this bill, it should have been all sorted out in June and the Bishop got rid of then. There is no place for religion in Politics, the Arch Bishop of Canterbury has proved this time and time again with his constant interference in UK politics. I cannot find any mention of who voted for and who for against anywhere. Chris Thomas is an annoyance as Laurie Hooper pointed out, I entirely agree with him, since he got the push from the DOI he has just been an absolute pain trying to muddy the water no matter what his pity party has gone on and on I just hope the people who voted for him are taking note and act accordingly at the next election. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred the shred Posted December 5, 2023 Share Posted December 5, 2023 I agree with Stu trying to block a motion by introduction of another matter is a very old chestnut and only the very naive or very stupid would go down this path. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Helmut Fromage Posted December 5, 2023 Share Posted December 5, 2023 1 hour ago, Fred the shred said: I cannot find any mention of who voted for and who for against anywhere. As a starter I can pretty much guarantee you the The People's Prince (Little Bobby Onchan) will have voted to keep the Bishop's vote. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted December 5, 2023 Share Posted December 5, 2023 1 hour ago, Jarndyce said: Clearly nothing. Last I heard, he’d fallen back on any shortfall being made up through “efficiencies” - unfortunately, the efficiencies that they choose nearly always make the service worse, because they don’t discuss the effects with the right people. Well we knew that. Pick the low hanging fruit and leave the stuff in the "hard to do" tray until later. Much later. Meanwhile the surgery lists get longer. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted December 5, 2023 Share Posted December 5, 2023 1 hour ago, Fred the shred said: I am glad that 14 MHKs voted for this bill, it should have been all sorted out in June and the Bishop got rid of then. [...] I cannot find any mention of who voted for and who for against anywhere. Even if the June motion had been passed there would have to be a Bill introduced to the Keys to actually put the change in law. so it didn't actually make any difference. All the June motion did was to 'test the water'. Unless a journalist took down names, it will be a while before we get names of who voted, but in the previous thread on the topic I pointed out that an amendment to Faragher's motion that removed just the Bishop's vote (as this Bill does) won by 14-10 in the Keys, so there's a good chance that it will be mostly the same people. The 14 were: Allinson Ashford Barber Caine Corlett Crookall Faragher Haywood Hooper Maltby Peters Poole Wilson Watterson Thomas But this still all seems to me to be virtue-signalling when the real reform needed is to directly elect LegCo, a topic nobody seems to be raising. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two-lane Posted December 5, 2023 Share Posted December 5, 2023 Maybe someone should have suggested that the position of the bishop should be replaced by a person elected by the people - as a first step towards all to be democratically elected. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two-lane Posted December 5, 2023 Share Posted December 5, 2023 (edited) According to my computation, these are the people who voted to keep the bishop: Callister Cannan Christian Edge Glover Lord-Brennan Smith Wannenbrugh Woodhouse Moorhouse I wonder what the people who elected them think about that. Edited: Must try harder.... Edited December 5, 2023 by Two-lane 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shake me up Judy Posted December 5, 2023 Share Posted December 5, 2023 4 minutes ago, Two-lane said: According to my computation, these are the people who voted to keep the bishop: Callister Cannan Christian Edge Glover Lord-Brennan Smith Wannenbrugh Woodhouse I wonder what the people who elected them think about that. Who's Woodhouse ? P.G. perhaps ? 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Helmut Fromage Posted December 5, 2023 Share Posted December 5, 2023 31 minutes ago, Two-lane said: Callister - Granny Farming Cannan - too scared to change tradition Christian - clue in the surname Edge - useless Glover - refer to Edge Lord-Brennan - Did what Alf told her Smith - Ridiculous Religitard God Bothering nobody Wannenbrugh - probably planning an Ecumenical Sports Club Dinner Woodhouse Moorhouse - Seagull loving red faced timewaster Some facts / or not above 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted December 5, 2023 Share Posted December 5, 2023 37 minutes ago, Two-lane said: According to my computation, these are the people who voted to keep the bishop: Callister Cannan Christian Edge Glover Lord-Brennan Smith Wannenbrugh Woodhouse Moorhouse I wonder what the people who elected them think about that. Edited: Must try harder.... Try harder? What, to agree with you about something they fundamentally believe in? I voted for the motion, but I feel absolutely no animosity towards anyone who voted against it. 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.