Hooper has resigned

[wrighty]

14 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Because in Ministerial Government the Minister is legally the authority.  So technically nothing can happen without their say-so.  No Minister, nothing happens.  As DHSC is ultimately financially responsible for Manx Care, you lot would stop getting paid.  It's complicated by IOMG not being a single legal entity and by the position of the Lieutenant Governor - I think the powers might actually revert to him if no formal appointment is made.

I realise that's not the question you're really asking which is basically "What is DHSC for?".  Which is what some of us have been asking all along.

But why would we stop getting paid? Is the minister literally the only one with the codes for DHSC's online banking? What happens when he goes on holiday? I understand in practice he doesn't do everything (anything?) so why do we actually need one, really? Why can't things just tick over as they do without an actual minister until such time that one is appointed to do the job (attending meetings, directing strategy etc). 

[Derek Flint]

The whole issue with overspend / under-funding has been ongoing as long as I can remember. It's one or the other, but the approach has always been that it is the former. What if it isn't.

And what about 'Manx solutions for Manx problems'? What if privatising IS the solution? There's some system-based stuff I'd look at taking on (eg outsource vehicle licensing stuff to DVLA) but sometimes there's a tendency to shoehorn the ways of the east into a totally different set of needs.

The tiny scale of the island should be it's super-power. Apply systems thinking, join up, take a public-health approach where agencies either statutorily or operationally intersect. Be more collegiate. 

Change really is needed, and fast I'd say.

[Amadeus]

A tiny island needs a tiny government. Not this self serving monster that has been created over the years.

[Banker]

13 minutes ago, Amadeus said:

A tiny island needs a tiny government. Not this self serving monster that has been created over the years.

Local authorities also need massively reduced, the cost of them is horrendous with clerks, deputies, finance directors, CEOs etc all in virtually every little parish.

[Casta]

16 minutes ago, Amadeus said:

A tiny island needs a tiny government. Not this self serving monster that has been created over the years.

Before anyone jumps in to say it's been going over 1000 years, quoted above is government with a small 'g' ie civil servants. 

 

[Amadeus]

1 minute ago, Banker said:

Local authorities also need massively reduced, the cost of them is horrendous with clerks, deputies, finance directors, CEOs etc all in virtually every little parish.

I agree there is potential for savings, but not with all LAs. Some have almost no budget and are run more or less on a volunteer basis. The biggest issue is what you replace them with. I'm all for getting rid of all of them, but then central government takes it all on and will be even more expensive and wasteful, seeing it as a golden opportunity to increase their self serving kingdom. Imagine the DOI takes on all DCC housing. Can't see that ending well.

[Cambon]

17 hours ago, Fred the shred said:

Peter Karran was the Minister for Education, not for long, but it happened.   Beecroft caused unimaginable damage as Health Minister but that was gross incompetence and nothing to do with the party she was in .   

I’m not sure she did. She rattled the cage too much and got removed after a vote of no confidence. She asked the questions that were too uncomfortable for the “powers that be” to answer. The votes of no confidence should have been given to the four department heads. Not Beecroft. 

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, wrighty said:

But why would we stop getting paid? Is the minister literally the only one with the codes for DHSC's online banking? What happens when he goes on holiday? I understand in practice he doesn't do everything (anything?) so why do we actually need one, really? Why can't things just tick over as they do without an actual minister until such time that one is appointed to do the job (attending meetings, directing strategy etc). 

You're confusing practicality (and I agree there's not much that the Minister may do there) with the legal framework that is required so those practical things can be justified.  After all you're someone who sticks knives into people for a living, but there needs to be a legal framework of consent etc so you can.  It's not a universal right to do so or people would be running around Tynwald Chamber with meat cleavers.

[Happier diner]

16 minutes ago, Cambon said:

I’m not sure she did. She rattled the cage too much and got removed after a vote of no confidence. She asked the questions that were too uncomfortable for the “powers that be” to answer. The votes of no confidence should have been given to the four department heads. Not Beecroft. 

Or all 5 of them!

Beecroft was a liability but had a point on this one. 

[Sentience]

13 hours ago, Thomas Dalby said:

Props to David Ashford MBE for the “it’s a thankless job” line

A 'Think-less job maybe?

[Jarndyce]

19 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

After all you're someone who sticks knives into people for a living, but there needs to be a legal framework of consent etc so you can.  It's not a universal right to do so or people would be running around Tynwald Chamber with meat cleavers.

Speaking for yourself there, Roger?

[Roger Mexico]

2 hours ago, cissolt said:

Well that's not entirely true, look a the Dr Ranson situation....The peoples prince wasnt asked to approve it because Alf knew he might say no!

But the point was that it was done in Callister's name, even though he knew nothing about it.  They acted within the framework, even though they pretended he agreed.  The fact that various high-ranking persons were allowed to effectively break the law and had their behaviour supported by Tynwald, doesn't stop the need for the law to be there.  Of course you can change the legal framework in ways some are suggesting, but that doesn't to need for something and what we have now is the Minister.

[wrighty]

47 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

You're confusing practicality (and I agree there's not much that the Minister may do there) with the legal framework that is required so those practical things can be justified.  After all you're someone who sticks knives into people for a living, but there needs to be a legal framework of consent etc so you can.  It's not a universal right to do so or people would be running around Tynwald Chamber with meat cleavers.

Yes, but I don't need permission from the head of the GMC each operation I do, and if he or she steps down I don't have to stop operating until a replacement is appointed. 
 

If it's just 'legal reasons' that there has to be a minister, then presumably they could be changed?

[cissolt]

Interesting listening to tynwald this morning, I assumed it was myth that manxcare had hired hundreds of managers.  We have had huge increases in every level of management including a 360% increase in the top level (100k+ salary)

[Jarndyce]

Just now, cissolt said:

Interesting listening to tynwald this morning, I assumed it was myth that manxcare had hired hundreds of managers.  We have had huge increases in every level of management including a 360% increase in the top level (100k+ salary)

Indeed.   Begs the question why the proposed savings cuts are in front line services…