MHKs....no commitment.

[code99]

14 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

The difference between leaders and the led.

If ANY of them did that, I think the electorate would have more respect for our elected. "Earning their money" indeed, rather than the standard, easy, entitlement-led route of draining the taxpayer.

Instead of the endless kow-towing, attempts at justification and borderline pathetic excuses that we see/hear/read on an almost daily basis.

Collectively, our MHKs have yet to demonstrate that they are the sharpest minds in the land. In 2023, they voted for a Budget that assumed a 2% wage increase for public servants when inflation was running at nearly 10%. This year they voted for a Budget, which for tax reasons, was widely unpopular (granted, half a dozen MHKs voted against this latest Budget...some of them for anything other than nebulous reasons). They also voted for the Island Plan, which was largely written by consultants, who take no responsibility for its delivery - they probably do not understand the Island Plan either.

Most of the current crop of MHKs have no financial background. This is why the poor turnout of MHKs (unless they have very good individual reasons for not going) at the Tynwald briefing for Members on the IOMG's Tax Strategy is so puzzling. I would have thought that for politicians without any expertise in tax or public finances, this would have been the perfect opportunity to learn something they need to know, and if they had any issues that they felt strongly about, to discuss them. The Tax Strategy has the potential to be the most important Government policy change of direction for decades. My view is that MHKs will not be able to meaningfully debate these vital issues in Tynwald, in a month's time, if they don’t attend events that would have given them the basics. Or do they just want to play with their toys as if nothing else matters?

Sadly, some of our elected representatives are simply not fit to govern, IMHO.

[Anyone]

On 3/9/2024 at 1:37 PM, Two-lane said:

Is it appropriate for Allinson to use the title Doctor when he is not working as a doctor?

The qualities I expect from a medical doctor are:

Absolute honesty and integrity

A great deal of common-sense as well as a good IQ

The ability to analyse problems

The ability to give clear, concise, answers to questions

If he uses the title Dr I expect those qualities to be exhibited.

[Over the many decades I have occasionally worked with (and not for) people with a PhD. They did not use the title Dr in daily office life, although of course when putting their name to a document the letters Dr or PhD appeared.]

Doctor Who. Was he a medical doctor?

[Anyone]

On 3/9/2024 at 1:21 PM, Non-Believer said:

Dr Allinson will have little or no training in accountancy or financial matters other than perhaps what is required as a business partner in RGP.

In Treasury and IoM fiscal matters he will be guided and told what to say by Treasury CS.

Doctors are actually pretty smart. To get anywhere near med school you need straight A’s at A level ( and more than 3 and silly ones don’t count ) . Same with vets and dentists. So they ain’t stupid. I’d think they’d pick up financial matters pretty quickly if they needed to. 

[Dirty Buggane]

Sadly Allinson has not been blessed with picking up financial matters at all in his time as finance minister

[Albert Tatlock]

2 hours ago, Anyone said:

Doctors are actually pretty smart. To get anywhere near med school you need straight A’s at A level ( and more than 3 and silly ones don’t count ) . Same with vets and dentists. So they ain’t stupid. I’d think they’d pick up financial matters pretty quickly if they needed to. 

There's no 'A' level in commonsense unfortunately.

[Non-Believer]

4 hours ago, Anyone said:

Doctors are actually pretty smart. To get anywhere near med school you need straight A’s at A level ( and more than 3 and silly ones don’t count ) . Same with vets and dentists. So they ain’t stupid. I’d think they’d pick up financial matters pretty quickly if they needed to. 

I reckon it would take years to pick up the experience needed, especially in the quirks and idiosyncrasies of the local economy. Plus one also has to consider the Sir Humphreys to be dealt with.

[Jarndyce]

5 hours ago, Anyone said:

Doctors are actually pretty smart

That’s big of you.

[Declan]

6 hours ago, Anyone said:

Doctor Who. Was he a medical doctor?

The second doctor graduated in medicine from Glasgow in 1888. 

But it in universe it's claimed that the word doctor is derived from him - like hoover. Wrighty is a doctor but he is The Doctor, if you like.

 

Edited March 11 by Declan

[code99]

12 hours ago, Anyone said:

Doctors are actually pretty smart. To get anywhere near med school you need straight A’s at A level ( and more than 3 and silly ones don’t count ) . Same with vets and dentists. So they ain’t stupid. I’d think they’d pick up financial matters pretty quickly if they needed to. 

Albert Einstein once said that “politics was much more difficult than physics”. He recognised that navigating the intricacies in governing humans posed unique difficulties. I think ‘economics’ and ‘investing’ are just as difficult.

When Bernie Madoff made off with his clients’ money, among his victims there were PhDs, medical professionals and Hollywood celebrities. A couple of weeks ago I happened to watch an episode of the Apprentice (for the record, I detest the programme and its abrasive Sugar) where two of the contestants were medical professionals. They might be brilliant at their day jobs, but when it came to the financial and business decisions (around the tasks), they both floundered badly. Being a brain surgeon or a rocket scientist with an amazingly high IQ do not guarantee business success or street-wise shrewdness and gumption.

The bottom line is, our politicians rely on CS/ PS for day-to-day advice. Unfortunately, most of our politicians are also limited in their ability to separate the good advice from rubbish advice. Our CS/PS too have to rely on external expertise. The shortcomings of this ‘chain of inadequate expertise’ are evident through many flawed projects; e.g., DOI projects or funding of healthcare.

In a way, we do have ‘party-politics’ in the form of Manx Labour and LibVan. Their problem is that they have been unable to attract enough high-quality candidates and also to garner enough support for their Manifestos. Hence, they don’t get enough MHKs elected to make a ‘collective difference’. So, in many senses these so-called parties remain an irrelevance in Manx politics.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I reiterate my previous view that we need to legislate an official ‘opposition’, and also publicly elect the Chief Minister. The backbenchers would be required to elect an ‘opposition’ leader/ spokesperson and form a ‘shadow’ cabinet, who will be scrutinising the CoMin and CS/PS work. If this was a ‘legally-binding’ requirement, how many of our current MHKs would be willing to stand again? IMHO, not many.

Edited March 11 by code99
typo

[Two-lane]

55 minutes ago, code99 said:

we need to legislate an official ‘opposition’, ----- The backbenchers would be required to elect an ‘opposition’ leader/ spokesperson and form a ‘shadow’ cabinet, who will be scrutinising the CoMin and CS/PS work.

They will be the same people, with the same morals and lack of ability.

In a theoretical situation where two companies are competing against each other in a closed environment, they will not compete against each other. They will form a cartel. And one of their aims will be to prevent another company from providing any real competition.

The same will happen in politics.

59 minutes ago, code99 said:

publicly elect the Chief Minister

Absolutely.