IOM Referendums a suggestion

[Albert Tatlock]

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

I suspect the public would have been.  It had become an embarrassment for a lot of people because of attention of the UK media and fears it was putting people and businesses off coming here.  Politicians were already tying themselves in knots saying they wanted to keep the law but promised not to use it ('conservatives' are always the biggest virtue-signallers) which just made us look even more ridiculous.

Of course there were a noisy minority who were demanding that their politicians stood firm against the evil idea of people having control over their own sex lives and there were certainly MHKs eager to pander to that and there was much talk of defiance going into the 1991 election.  But when these hit the doorsteps for their once-in-5-year chance to discuss politics with the electorate, they found that most people were vaguely in favour of the change and even of the minority who were passionate about it (which matters to politicians, because these are the people who will change their votes accordingly) more were in favour of change than against.  Certainly many of the opponents of change went quiet as the election came closer.

There was pressure from the UK as well in this case, but it was another example of where the Manx establishment believed that the public as a whole was even more morally conservative than the establishment are.  We saw the same thing over abortion where I think they were surprised for the level of support for something they thought people would be against because the Manx are somehow supposed to be still living in the 19th century.

It's pretty much the religious minority who are against assisted dying IMO. But they shouldn't be underestimated...like Brexit they could get a good turnout and beat the apathetic here. A lot support this, but it's on Facebook, and only the voting booth actually counts.

Just look what happened with the Irish referendums this year.

[Gladys]

1 minute ago, Albert Tatlock said:

It's pretty much the religious minority who are against assisted dying IMO. But they shouldn't be underestimated...like Brexit they could get a good turnout and beat the apathetic here. A lot support this, but it's on Facebook, and only the voting booth actually counts.

And that is the exact reason why the legislation needs to be updated to put rules around funding, campaigns and so on. 

Please read page 20 of the report I linked to above.  Without the safeguards recommended, any referendum is going to be questionable in my view. 

[Fred the shred]

If the referendum goes ahead there should be other questions asked such as …Should LegCo be voted in by the public or  should there be all Island voting . Both these measures would cause certain people some anxiety.

[Gladys]

3 minutes ago, Fred the shred said:

If the referendum goes ahead there should be other questions asked such as …Should LegCo be voted in by the public or  should there be all Island voting . Both these measures would cause certain people some anxiety.

I think the point of a referendum is for simple questions to be asked, keeping to one topic and quite straightforward answers with a yes or no response.

The real issue, IMHO, is we really need a complete overhaul of the democratic process.  People are voted in on a wish list with no real hope of ever achieving any of their aims unless they can align with other like-minded MHKs - a lot of them.   That is why party politics is such an important part of any democratic process.  Said it many times before, but this system is very broken, there is no true representation and, consequently, no true accountability.

[Ringy Rose]

The real thing we need is a directly elected Chief Minister. The two MHKs in my constituency were open that they intended to support Allinson, and they did, but I’m aware that several other MHKs refused to say who they’d support.

With the way CoMin works, the policy for the government is set by the Chief and the rest of CoMin are just a set of interchangeable nodding dogs. 

There’s just no accountability. The one man who has all the power, the Chief Minister, has absolutely zero democratic mandate. 

I wonder if Cannan has the stones to have a referendum about that. I’ll bet not.

[Gladys]

40 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said:

The real thing we need is a directly elected Chief Minister. The two MHKs in my constituency were open that they intended to support Allinson, and they did, but I’m aware that several other MHKs refused to say who they’d support.

With the way CoMin works, the policy for the government is set by the Chief and the rest of CoMin are just a set of interchangeable nodding dogs. 

There’s just no accountability. The one man who has all the power, the Chief Minister, has absolutely zero democratic mandate. 

I wonder if Cannan has the stones to have a referendum about that. I’ll bet not.

Yes, but on what basis would the public elect a CM?  Their manifesto in the GE, or a new manifesto?  Either way, it would still be something of a beauty parade, not a proper democratic process. 

[Ringy Rose]

2 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Yes, but on what basis would the public elect a CM?  Their manifesto in the GE, or a new manifesto?  Either way, it would still be something of a beauty parade, not a proper democratic process.

Have it so candidates for Chief don’t stand as an MHK, and do stand on a manifesto.

[GreyWolf]

Sideways and backwards Cannans copies Southgate's leadership skills.

Edited Sunday at 05:04 PM by GreyWolf

[Two-lane]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

it would still be something of a beauty parade, not a proper democratic process. 

I do not understand this statement - but then again, it doesn't take much...

They both involve eligible participants voting for who they think is best.

[Gladys]

7 minutes ago, Two-lane said:

I do not understand this statement - but then again, it doesn't take much...

They both involve eligible participants voting for who they think is best.

But best on what grounds? By a beauty parade, I mean who appeals most, not who is best.  

[thommo2010]

I would rather a referendum on spending 100 million on docks in Liverpool. 

 

There should be no referendum over the assisted dying bill, it is not mandatory so not a law that will affect everyone, bring it in and if people want to use it then can if they don't then don't 

[Chutney]

We are a small enough population that referendums should be a regular part of life here, it would actually direct politics and those that dabble in it properly. As for Cannabis, yeah its a question but its not important enough to be a priority matter imo.  Just a weak attempt to jump on the referendum bandwagon. 

[Fred the shred]

There were two items on the NZ one was related to Assisted Dying the other about cannabis.     It was a very straightforward presentation that asked the questions very simply and just required a yes or no answer.     That of course would be too easy for our Civil Servants who would make such a dogs dinner of it most people would be confused and bin the ten page document .    

[Ringy Rose]

6 minutes ago, Fred the shred said:

It was a very straightforward presentation that asked the questions very simply and just required a yes or no answer

Assisted dying isn’t a simple question and the answer isn’t a simple yes or no.

This is the trouble with referenda, they drag discussion about very complicated matters down to a simplistic answer. We’ve seen that with Brexit, eight years later the people who “won” still can’t agree on what it actually was that the people wanted from their leave vote.

I’m in favour of allowing assisted dying, but with appropriate safeguards. If those safeguards are in place I’d vote yes, but if they’re not then I’d vote no. But with a simplistic question the anti-assisted dying lot would take my no vote as a victory even though I don’t agree with them and think that they are largely a bunch of fundamentalist religious weirdos.

Edited Sunday at 08:32 PM by Ringy Rose

[MadAsHell]

20 hours ago, Fred the shred said:

If the referendum goes ahead there should be other questions asked such as …Should LegCo be voted in by the public or  should there be all Island voting . Both these measures would cause certain people some anxiety.

If we had public voting on decisions including capital spending, we might not be in the current mess. Would income tax have been increased if we didn't build the £100m shed?