It was announced at last night’s Positive Action Group (PAG) meeting (Monday, 30^th November 2009), in a straw poll, the public overwhelmingly supported, by more than two to one, the election of the Chief Minister by public vote.

Members of the PAG took to the streets of Douglas and Castletown the week before to find out what the public thought of the idea; which came about as a result of South Douglas MHK, Bill Malarkey gaining leave to introduce a Bill, into parliament, which could see amendments to the Council of Ministers and Representation of the People Acts.

Asked if the system should remain the same - i.e. Tynwald Members should choose a Chief Minister after the general election - or whether the public should choose, only 28% opted for the former whilst 57% were in favour of the latter. 15% did not have a view.

Interestingly, the result was a lot less clear cut in the current Chief Minister’s constituency of Castletown; with a less resounding 48% in favour of the public choosing and 44% supporting the status quo.

It was against this backdrop that former government Minister, and leader of the Alliance for Progressive Government (APG), Edgar Quine spoke to audience in favour of a Chief Minister being elected by the public; and current Local Government Minister, John Shimmin MHK, put a slightly alternative view.

Mr Malarkey was also invited to address the audience; and he said this had always been an issue for him. In particular, he said, he is concerned that the public have no real idea of what the policies will be of the next government when they go to the polls.

He pointed out he had tried, and failed, several times to introduce constitutional reform and so he wanted to get the feel of the public to his latest proposal before he wasted his, government’s and parliament’s time in progressing with his Bill. Therefore, he would be listening with interest to the view expressed by the audience at the meeting.

Before turning to the main speakers, PAG chairman Roger Tomlinson reminded the audience of what current Chief Minister, Tony Brown had said during the recent ‘leave to introduce’ debate in the Keys: “imagine a Chief Minister with the power and authority given to him or her directly by the people of the Isle of Man, in Tynwald Court, with total power, because that is what you will do. You are going to give the equivalent of an executive presidential power to a Chief Minister of the Isle of Man, without a party political system. You will destroy the democracy of the Isle of Man, if you go down that road, and that is why I cannot support the leave to introduce.”

Mr Tomlinson suggested this was quite an emotive and revealing contribution to the debate and followed it up with another quote, this time from a former Chief Minister, Sir Miles Walker, who said on Manx Radio: “I have a view that it should continue to be Tynwald – our elected Members – I have no doubt about that and I don’t think it is a responsibility we should take away from them.”

Mr Tomlinson was also disappointed by this contribution to the debate; especially, as he pointed out, 9 Tynwald Members are not elected by the public.

He then referred to the farcical attempt at electing a Chief Minister  after the last general election  in 2006, with 4 ballots not producing a result; and ultimately Mr Brown getting elected ‘unopposed’ but still managing to poll 5 spoilt ballot papers.

It was at this point Mr Tomlinson revealed the results of PAG’s poll and suggested that, on the basis of the result, the public appeared to have a different view to Mr Brown and Sir Miles.

Mr Quine commenced by saying parliamentary democracy should not be compromised by political expediency and that, currently, in his opinion, Tynwald is not a truly democratic system and that it woefully lacks the necessary checks and balances.

He identified three issues, in particular, that need pushing up the political agenda with the direction of government and public ownership of policies being probably the most relevant to this debate.

He postulated that the public do not have the opportunity to engage in the formulation of the policies and priorities of the next government at election time; and essentially cast a vote based on ‘parish pump’ politics and not national policies.

Furthermore, he went on to say, they have no real input or say as to who the next chief minister will be; and for all intents and purposes the public, post election, becomes disenfranchised for the next 5 years.

He pointed out that whoever becomes chief minister is given and extraordinary gift in being able to appoint Members of Tynwald as departmental members, positions which are, he said, significantly remunerated; and also has a third of Members in his Council of Ministers and who are unlikely to “bite the hand that feeds them”.

He suggested the current system is about tying Members into the system and ensuring the chief minister has the majority in the “palm of his hand”; albeit he acknowledged some votes are lost, but more through “political ineptitude” than for any other reason.

Despite this he still thought it would be possible to have a chief minister elected by the public; and was dismissive of opponents’ patronizing “father knows best” opinions that it would create a ‘presidential’ figure.

In his opinion it would allow the public the opportunity to vote on a package of policies; and that would have to be an improvement on the current system.

As a counter balance to the real or perceived powers of the chief minister, Mr Quine was firmly of the view the number of ministers and members in government positions should be reduced to improve scrutiny of the government rather than to secure the administration the vote in Tynwald. He suggested there should be a statutory maximum to the number of Members who could hold government positions and proposed it should be 30%.

He added over time this would help to change the ‘culture’ of government and improve efficiency and effectiveness of parliament and government.

In winding up he was adamant, even if Mr Malarkey’s Bill goes nowhere, it is time prospective candidates, for chief minister, make it known before the election who they are and publish a statement of intent. In this way, he explained, the public would be able to question their constituency candidates about their support for the different chief minister candidates – and then could make up their mind who to vote for on subjects other than parish pump issues.

Mr Shimmin began by saying he was not as far removed from some of what Mr Quine had suggested as people may have expected.

He then explained why he had announced, in advance of the last general election, he planned to stand for chief minister if elected and why he didn’t regret the decision.

He said he thought it was only fair to alert his constituents to the possibility because, had he been successful, it would have restricted his time to spend on constituency matters. He said he had also hoped to “chase out” other potential candidates, which have then given their constituents the opportunity to question them.

However, in the event nobody else did declare, which left him looking like “Billy no mates” and appearing arrogant.

Mr Shimmin agreed there is a need to engage with the less politically aware members of the public and to try to raise the debate above parochial issues to more national issues.

He acknowledged one method would be through party politics but he felt this will not work in the IOM as parties have no ‘history’ for people to identify with.

So he is concerned that we will end up replacing one imperfect system with another imperfect system.

He suggested there is lack of vision displayed in Manx politics but no lack of platitudes: i.e. the well worn phrases such as protecting “the weak, the sick and the poor”, “moving forward” and “widening the economic base”; and that so much of what is said is “just a list of aspirations”.

He said the danger is a “media savvy politician”, like Tony Blair, would turn any election for chief minister into a “popularity contest” (isn’t that the case in Manx politics already Mr Shimmin? – Ed) as some politicians would be better at using the media than others.

He said he thinks getting a team of people together who will make decisions is more important (i.e. a plea to retain the status quo – Ed) and objected to Mr Quine suggesting Members “take the shilling” which then buys the government the Members’ allegiance and they vote on the basis. He thought this very unfair.

Mr Shimmin thought it would be possible to “tinker” with the present system so that back benchers could be remunerated and not be in government, but definitely was not proposing any radical change.

Perhaps the most damning comment he came out with - although he later denied having made it and sought to ‘clarify’ what he perhaps had meant to say – was that the danger with the public voting for the chief minister was that he was worried about whether the public would get enough information to “vote for the right candidate”.

Bringing his address to a close he strongly denied COMIN members are told how to vote on constitutional issues, reiterated the need to engage more with the people who traditionally do not vote, improve public consultation; and generally reengage with the wider public so decisions are made in an informed way.

Mr Tomlinson thanked the speakers and reminded the audience that Mr Brown had endorsed the Report on the Scope of Structure of Government in his election statement and had said he would give it earlier attention but it had sat gathering dust.

Mr Shimmin took umbrage at this and interjected it was looked at and was not gathering dust; but Mr Tomlinson responded by saying from his perspective it had not been addressed.

Mr Tomlinson also briefly described the ‘block vote’ in Tynwald and Keys, using a diagram to illustrate the point, and said that PAG supported a reduction in the number of departments to help redress the balance in parliament.

The debate was then opened up to the floor, and Stephen Moore made the observation that it appeared the reason some politicians oppose the chief minister being elected by the public is because they fear the public can not be trusted to get the result.

He added that he was astounded by Mr Shimmin’s comment the public were not sufficiently educated to make a choice. He suggested if the Bill wasn’t to progress quiet as Mr Malarkey intended perhaps an amendment could be moved so that at least candidates had to declare before the election.

Mr Shimmin responded by saying he had not said what Mr Moore was asserting, but agreed politicians may not be motivating the public enough.

Rolland Arden-Corris suggested the chief minister has far too much to do to worry about constituency issues, and perhaps an alternative to the current proposal would be to elect the chief minister, before the general election, as a completely separate post; but this didn’t seem to garner much support among the audience.

Vivien Horrox said she agreed with Mr Shimmin and worried if the people voted for the chief minister we would elect popular politicians like Peter Karran or David Cretney – which is why, she said, they supported the idea – but she doesn’t see them as strong leaders or the right people to be negotiating on the IOM behalf with other governments. However, she did agree with fewer Tynwald Members being in the government.

Colin Bendall saw a problem if the majority of Tynwald Members disliked the person the public elected, in that they could immediately face a vote of no confidence thus rendering the whole thing a waste of time. Tongue in cheek, and to a few chuckles from the audience, he then added perhaps we could transfer Tony Brown and Allan Bell for Gordon Brown and Peter Mandelson.

Damien Ciappelli agreed the current focus is on parish pump politics and suggested a public vote for the chief minister may be apt as it would produce a figure head who would command the support of the public when they go to negotiate on the IOM’s behalf on the international stage.

He suggested the IOM needs a strong man at the helm, as was the case in past with certain Governors, who “enjoyed political clout”.

He was also concerned at the lack of transparency at election time and the ensuing surprises and changes sprung on unsuspecting electors, such as the proposed Criminal Justice Bill 2009, which he suggested neither he nor his neighbours had been asked about. He feared much of this was being pushed on to the Island by international bodies but didn’t feel it was being satisfactorily dealt with by the current government.

Mr Quine commented the unexpected is likely to arise from time-to-time and the government would have to react to it; but he couldn’t particularly see a problem with the ‘figurehead’ proposal.

Mr Shimmin stated the chief minister is “recognised”, for the post he holds, when he goes to meet other governments etc and that the people he meets are not interested in how the election system, for that post, works.

He acknowledged the person who ends on the international stage may have been elected on parish pump issues but it is the system that is wrong not the person.

In his mind ‘Single Transferable Votes’ (STV) and larger constituencies are the solution to this issue but at the moment there are bigger issues to deal with.

Former Tynwald Member, Dominic Delaney put Mr Shimmin on the spot and asked him if he would consider moving an amendment to the Bill, so that candidates, for the post of chief minister, have to declare before the general election. Mr Shimmin, less than enthusiastically, said he would consider it and would talk to Mr Malarkey.

Peter Taylor said he had heard much discussion about democracy but in reality the IOM is more like a benign dictatorship. He pointed out that in states like Zimbabwe they have a ‘one man, one vote’ system – albeit there may be a difficulty in it being counted – but we do not have that in the IOM. Furthermore, he said, in Zimbabwe the public at least know who could be elected and what they will do afterwards when they cast their vote in the general election.

Mr Quine agreed knowing what the package of policies are of the potential leadership before the election is crucial, and may help address the issue that people do not vote, in elections, as they have no idea what they are voting for.

Mr Shimmin returned to his concern there would be a rise of the ‘media savvy’ and ‘sound bites’ politician if attempts were made to get politicians to present a vision to the public at election time.

Colin Ackerley, a senior advisor to the European Union and who works in former east European states, was firmly of the opinion an elected chief minister would be an asset to the IOM and that there are problems with democracy in the Island that need resolving.

He said he for one would be very proud to have David Cretney as chief minister, as he believes Mr Cretney knows what the people want and he does what is needed.

Several other people also commented on various issues, but not all were strictly relevant to the topic under consideration, nor were many of the responses or comments from the guest speakers.

Mr Malarkey was given an opportunity to make a few final comments and he said he had made many notes. He assured the audience he is passionate about getting rid of the “old boys club” and introducing elections for both members of the legislative council and the chief minister.

He encouraged people to write him with their feedback, as so far he has only received one submission, and the Manx Herald hopes as many people as possible will take up that offer.

You can write to Mr Malarkey c/o the Tynwald offices, Finch Road, Douglas or write directly to his home address: 19 Farmhill Park, Douglas, IM2 2EE or email: bill.malarkey@gov.im