POSTAL VOTING:

I’ve had a few conversations recently about postal voting… There is still time (deadline is 16th Sept for applications based on the IOM), and you can then have your postal vote taken to a polling station for you right up till 8pm on the 24th Sept. 

Please find a link to the form. The email address for the elections office is on there - elections@gov.im

If you need a printed copy and/or help getting it submitted (no matter who you’re voting for) just send me a message.

J.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iv1GSj0Lzk3uzYQ1bU6dvlu_PRfAe5FK/view?usp=drivesdk

There's already a bit ahout housing in my manifesto, but this question popped up in one of the Facebook groups and I thought it was a good opportinity to expand...

A genuine question for everyone standing as an MHK for Glenfaba & Peel:

What would you do about the availability of social and genuinely affordable housing in Peel? (...) I’ve recently contacted the Commissioners about housing and was told the waiting list is currently around 5–7 years. Our housing need exists now, not in 5–7 years. Private rental prices in Peel have also reached a point where there is rarely anything available, and if there is an ordinary family usually can’t realistically afford it.

I’m not posting this asking for special treatment. Our circumstances have simply made me realise how serious this problem is. I don’t want another family to suddenly find themselves in circumstances like ours and discover that their choices are either to wait years for social housing, pay unaffordable private rent, or leave the community and support network they depend on.

So I’d genuinely like to hear from those standing:

What specifically would you do as an MHK to increase social and genuinely affordable rental housing in Peel, and what can be done for families whose housing needs change suddenly and cannot realistically wait 5–7 years?

I appreciate some candidates may have already addressed housing in their manifestos or elsewhere, so please feel free to point me towards those proposals too. Housing is going to play a significant part in deciding who I vote for on the 24th, and I suspect there are plenty of other people in Peel interested in the answers too. I’ve already reached out to one candidate directly about this, but thought it would be worthwhile asking everyone standing the same question publicly, for those interested in the answer too.

Hi... 

Apologies for the delayed response…

As I’m sure you’re aware there are numerous ways we COULD improve the housing situation….

The over simplified answer is that government have the money and power to solve the problem - if the political will existed. The next COMIN could be brave enough to just say - “buy or allocate the land, pick a design that works, sign the cheque - and get on with it.” All entirely doable in the next 5 years. The problem of course is the mountain of bureaucratic excuses between here and there. 

If we want to be a bit more specific, we could use the tax system to make small scale regeneration more viable, we could remove the incentives to buy and hold empty property which government currently maintain, we could reduced taxation on the conversion / renovation and reoccupation of the significant number of vacant properties (making it comparable to new build, rather than incentivising green field new builds first). We could implement proper controls on non-resident & multiple ownership. We could properly control the balance of (necessary) holiday accommodation, and improve the system to provide working flexibility so that accommodation could be provided alongside local resident demand. 

If we wanted to be really clever we could put the security and stability of government behind development as a guaranteed backer and governor, to both the rental and first time buyer markets. We could reintroduce the government’s mortgage scheme to accommodate the unique circumstances we have that traditional lending struggles with. We could extend the same thinking to urban regeneration generally. We could invest some of our own money (which we are apparently happy enough to lob in to the wind on vanity projects in plenty of other places), back in to our own towns, with joined up apprenticeship and small business start up schemes, providing spaces for people to get going in life. Unfortunately that isn’t sexy, or flashy, and nobody will get a plaque on the wall I know. But it is solid investment that would generate returns, and we could design the system to make sure those returns go back in to the system. We could improve ideas like the Manx Development Co. by bringing in the private sector (down to the smallest scale), as a risk partner rather than just a margin and dividend taker (as it has been), and by introducing absolute transparency…  

Of course the devils are in the details here, and there would be much to work out, test, get wrong and improve - but we don’t have a system that’s even inclined to try. In fact we have a system that’s inherently averse to this kind of risk, and so all of the above is effectively impossible as things stand, and will continue to be so until we change the system of government…

And now for the really depressing bit. Of course anyone can look at what I’ve written above and say that’s just a matter of opinion. “If I’m elected I’ll do things differently, and I’ll get things done…”

On my website there is link to a file which contains all the winning manifestos from the previous 3 administrations, as well as the main policy documents for each of those administrations (15 Years of IOMG https://www.glenfabapeel.com/more/15-years-of-iomg). If you look through those manifestos you will see that Housing is a key topic in almost all of them. So… if all those politicians thought that they were also going to solve this problem, and they all got voted in, and the subsequent governments also all made housing a priority in their policy brochures… is it the players or the system that needs changing? You tell me. On this very thread you will also see a commissioner saying that the situation hasn’t changed since the 70’s!!! The system has shown over and over again that it can completely ignore the public. Only the public can fix this. The system is not going to correct itself.

I’d like to offer YOU the chance to help fix this problem. And I’d like to offer to TRUST YOU with a balance of the power to do so. Never been tried before. Not guaranteed to work. But it’s pretty clear if WE don’t change the system nothing is going to change. What do you think?

A significant subject that I have been asked about on the doorstep (but have not specifically included in my manifesto) is the Assisted Dying Bill. From my perspective, this is another prime example of where true political agency (the public’s right to have a real say) would be in the best interest of society as a whole. This would help to mitigate the negative social consequences of division—whatever the outcome.

There is currently no clearly impartial indication of where the majority of public opinion lies, as far as I am aware. The Isle of Man Government’s own consultation documents acknowledge the statistical skew of such processes in their opening statements. There has certainly been no clear majority either way in my subjective and non-scientific doorstep sample of those who have raised the subject.

My personal position relating to the bill (and any future implementation) would be based on maintaining a fundamental philosophical balance between mercy and cruelty in terms of suffering. I can see the argument that someone who is suffering (potentially "unnaturally" from a truly objective perspective) and inevitably going to die soon should have their wishes respected. I can also see how that starting point has morphed into societies terminating people who are not going to die soon "naturally" elsewhere in the world—and that would be something I could never support at a social level from a personal perspective.

The primary question for me would be: if "society" is going to "assist" in death, has it assisted in offering every opportunity for a good life first? If the answer is yes, then the moral issue is resolved as far as possible from the societal perspective. If not, then the moral question remains unresolved for society generally.

From my understanding, the main reason the bill was initially refused Royal Assent was because the UK government wanted some of the safeguarding issues that had been left to the regulations stage included in the primary legislation. As I understand it, that was essentially due to European Court of Human Rights obligations.

I have also been asked a number of technical questions regarding possible implementation. The following is only based on what is currently known to the public:

1. Where would the medication/materials come from?

The Bill does not name a particular supplier, manufacturer, or country of origin. It provides that the Department of Health and Social Care must make regulations specifying:

• Which drugs and other substances can be used as the "approved substances";

• How they are prescribed;

• How they are dispensed, stored, transported, used, and destroyed.

Presumably, the substances would be dispensed through a pharmacy. If the person concerned decided not to use the medication, it must be returned to the pharmacy from which it was dispensed.

There is, however, a significant practical issue. The DHSC’s Professional Advisor (Pharmacy), Michael Morrison, told the House of Keys Committee that the drugs might be unlicensed medicines requiring specific procurement, importation, and potentially even manufacturing to order. He also identified the need for an import licence as an additional regulatory burden. Therefore, there is currently no published answer stating that "the drugs will be supplied by X pharmacy/manufacturer in the UK".

The Bill creates the regulatory framework but leaves the actual sourcing arrangements to be established. On the broader assumption that the public actually wants this legislation, and that the technical problem has already been solved elsewhere to the satisfaction of the public, then my assumption would be that further pragmatic regulations and/or enabling legislation will be necessary.

2. Where would the procedure take place?

The Bill does not prescribe a particular location, such as Noble’s Hospital, a hospice, or a designated clinic. The wording allows the person to decide where the assisted death occurs. The legislation requires the assisting professional to remain with the person until they have either died or decided not to take the substance. However, "remaining with" the person does not necessarily mean being in the same room.

The parliamentary evidence also explicitly discusses the decision being made "at the place where death is to occur," which indicates that the intended model is not restricted to a hospital setting. The Government’s earlier public consultation described the proposed arrangement more explicitly: the life-ending medication would be stored at a pharmacy and delivered securely to the person, who would administer it themselves.

So, in practical terms, it appears intended to be capable of taking place in the person’s chosen location, potentially their home or another place where they are receiving end-of-life care, rather than requiring them to attend a hospital. But the Bill itself does not specify a list of permitted locations.

3. Who would actually carry out the procedure?

This is an important distinction. The Bill is fundamentally an assisted dying/self-administration model, rather than simply permitting a doctor to give a lethal injection. It is my understanding that the attending doctor prescribes the approved substance, and it can be delivered by:

• The attending doctor;

• Another registered medical practitioner;

• A registered nurse; or

• A registered pharmacist,

provided that person has done so voluntarily and has been authorised by the attending doctor.

The patient can then:

1. Self-administer the substance, with a health professional able to prepare it and assist them with taking it; or

2. Request an assisting health professional to administer it on their behalf, subject to the provisions of the Bill.

In the version that passed through the branches, the assisting health professional may prepare the substance and assist the person to ingest or otherwise self-administer it. However, the decision to self-administer and the final act must be taken by the patient. The person must also be attended by the assisting health professional throughout the process.

Careful consideration also needs to be given to the fact that the Isle of Man Medical Society conducted an internal survey of local doctors to gauge professional opinion on the legislation:

• 74% of responding doctors stated they were completely against the legalization of assisted dying and euthanasia on the island.

• 34% of responding doctors went on record stating they would actively consider leaving the Isle of Man if the law was enacted.

Clearly, the primary principle would have to be absolute voluntary action.

4. Who would pay for it?

The Bill itself does not establish a funding mechanism or say that assisted dying will be a free NHS/Manx Care service. This has been specifically identified as an unresolved issue. Michael Morrison’s evidence to the House of Keys Committee said that, on the face of the Bill, assisted dying appeared to be outside the health and care service provided by Manx Care. Therefore, patients might have to pay the relevant professional fees and charges. He also warned that the cost of obtaining the unlicensed medicines and the associated regulatory costs could be significant.

In May 2026, there was a call for a report covering the policy, delivery, financial implications, and risk assessment of providing an assisted-dying service on the Island before the 2026 Dissolution. As I understand it, this proposal was rejected at that time in light of the situation regarding Royal Assent. At present, the Isle of Man Government has not committed to funding the service.

From my perspective, this question actually cuts to the heart of the issue. As noted, I see the argument in terms of the balance between mercy and cruelty in law. There is a balance between personal liberty and the specific circumstances of an individual’s life. There is also a balance between "unnaturally" extending life on the one hand (both in terms of modern medicine and simply modern standards of living) vs. "naturally" ending it (in the context of individual choice and liberty).

The real question is who should actually "provide" that "assistance" in real terms—and on what basis? If society is "assisting" the individual, what is the sequence and prioritisation of that assistance?

On one hand, if the choice is personal, it can be argued that the provision should also be personal—the individual should provide the "resource," and society should not be forced into the most significant life and death decisions it does not (and should not) have a direct input on. Of course, that would then need to be balanced with the fact that some of those who may be in real need may also not have the "resources". If they are going to be provided resources on that basis, they must, of course, also be provided the opportunity and resources for the option of the best possible life in their circumstances—no matter how short that is.

If society is providing those choices, then they have to be real choices—and transparently so. The theoretical "best" outcome would be that all persons concerned do so voluntarily, including those providing the resources. That should be meshed with society being seen to have provided the best possible opportunity for life—which, of course, leads into even bigger problems about the social contract generally. If society is providing the resources for death but not providing the resources for life, then we have a very big moral problem.

From my perspective, this is another key area where I think my proposed changes in law would clearly benefit society. Whatever the outcome, there is going to be a group of people who are not happy. The best possible scenario for them is that they know their position was fully taken into account, that the decision was fair and transparent, and that if it turns out to be a mistake, we can do something about it. We don’t have that at the moment, and that is what I’m hoping to change.

James

Small groups of candidates are being invited for informal discussions with Isle of Man Steam Packet Managing Director, Brian Thomson. I asked and took the opportunity to prepare and email my question in advance...

Dear Mr Thomson,

Thank you for the opportunity to meet and ask questions. The nature of the relationship between IOMG & IOMSPC is clearly of significant political interest. I assume the following may have been some of the key areas you intended to cover anyway, but I thought it was worth confirming my specific interest.

It is my understanding that IOMSPC is an independent legal entity, which is 100% owned by IOMG, and that shares are held by Treasury on behalf of the public. I understand that the basic principle of the current arrangement is that IOMG has no direct ‘official’ input in day to day operations. Presumably Treasury can vary the dividend and loan agreement, and holds absolute power over the composition of the board. The Sea Services Agreement (SSA) is the entirely separate contract which governs service provision - minimum schedules, fares, investments & performance.

The main difficulty since IOMG took ownership (as far as I am aware), has been the political balance between IOMSPC being a profitable commercial enterprise and/or a key piece of national infrastructure (working in the interest of society as a whole). It is also my understanding that while the SSA was originally set in place to balance the interests of the then externally owned company and the public, it has since become overly complicated in the context of the new (public ownership) relationship, and that there have been discussions about restructuring the entire arrangement.

I feel probably the most important thing for me to try and understand is what the best format for managing this relationship could / would / should look like from your perspective, and what your opinion on various options might be. I fully understand your current position might preclude frank response. The balance between short term political pressure, and long term strategic vision, viability and stability of service does not appear to be best served by the current arrangement.

My gut feeling is that the best option would probably look something like a distinct independent company providing a service on the basis of a single clear agreement (and point of contact) on all areas (dividend, loans, service provision - everything), and that the only way to achieve that to the satisfaction of the public is via absolute transparency. The public needs to understand what the key long term requirements are, how decisions are made, what the balance of income vs. service is - and why. Multiple unseen hands, potentially pushing and pulling in different directions, doesn’t look like the best solution to me. 

Of course the bigger picture is the problem of no clear agency for the public over any aspect of what government actually does anyway (which adds another knot to all the strings pulling on IOMSPC). That is the main reason I am standing, but that is not IOMSPC’s problem - it is everyone’s.  

I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on the above...

VBR

James Hampton...

To my surprise I found Brian to be frank and open during the session. He broadly agreed with my suggestion that both the public and IOMSPC would be better served by a single clear point of contact and agreement with IOMG (rather than three different Departments, divergent sets of requirements and objectives currently in play). 

Indeed, almost all other topics discussed during the session - from the dredging of Douglas harbour, replacement of the link-span, IOMSPC's (as yet unsigned) lease for Liverpool, Douglas harbour yard space, specification of and issues with the Manxman, replacement of the Mannanan, ticket pricing & discounting, freight restrictions, route options, commodity rates, export schemes, alcohol licensing... pretty much everything... would be far more efficient and easier to handle strategically via a single clear point of contact & agreement between IOMSPC & IOMG - which of course is impossible to achieve within the current structure and system of government itself. 

At the end of the day the board of IOMSPC is primarily instructed by Treasury to keep the business profitable, consistent and secure. Brian's position was that government can vary the instructions and make informal requests however they like - so long as they are funded, or the financial implications are accepted. If the structure and direction of government stays the same nothing is likely to significantly change. The strategic value of IOMSPC will remain stymied. 

Towards the end of the session I also asked about transparency, as it occurred to me that absolute transparency would improve the situation for both IOMSPC & the public. I am please to say Brian was in agreement with this also - but of course, again, that will only change if the system of government changes. It is not IOMSPC's call to make. 

In short... We have to change the system of government if we want to make the most of our ownership of IOMSPC. 

Thanks again to Brian for the opportunity. 

Alistair Ramsay is a veteran Manx political commentator, former journalist, and retired government press officer with over 40 years of experience tracking Isle of Man politics. In the run-up to the general election, he has published two highly insightful opinion pieces on iomtoday.co.im. The first article, published on July 21st, provided a brief history and overview of the Manx political system, featuring several key highlights:

1. “We (still) do not get to choose our government…” “Unlike the UK process, the function of Manx elections is not to pass judgment on the previous government and choose the next one.” “Because general elections here are not about who should be leading the country, and in what direction, the Council of Ministers has no mandate from the people.” “Nor, at the end of five years, is it held collectively responsible for its performance. When politicians are elected and re-elected on a largely local basis, there is less pressure on them to develop a national agenda and less incentive to deliver at that level. So, in the Isle of Man, the government is neither mandated by the public nor accountable to it. This disconnect between government and the people is a major flaw in our democratic structure.”

2. Constituency Influence: On a purely numerical basis, voters on the Isle of Man actually hold more influence over their representatives than voters in most other places in the world (due to the low ratio of voters per MHK). Furthermore, the relative power of each individual MHK is much higher than that of a politician in a parliament of hundreds.

3. Personality vs. Policy: “Personality has always been more potent than policy in small communities where voters often know, or know of, the candidates.”

4. Potential Reform Paths: “One option would be the public election of the Chief Minister. Another would be an all-island vote for the Legislative Council membership, from which the Chief Minister and senior ministers could be appointed.”

The core ideas and implications explained in Ramsay's article correlate exactly with the findings of the 2016 Lisvane Review into the Functioning of Tynwald—a review to which I contributed, as quoted in my manifesto. Indeed, the article's "blind date" reference is a direct quote from the submission made by then-President Rodan. This also aligns perfectly with my own position on the Manx political system, which I first outlined when standing for the Keys in 2016. Yet here we are, ten years later, and not much has changed…

Diverging on Solutions

Where I diverge from Mr. Ramsay is on his suggested solutions to this agreed "major flaw" in our democratic structure. Mr. Ramsay suggests that a directly elected Chief Minister could be a solution. Although it is not fully clear in his article, we must assume he does not mean switching to a "true" publicly elected executive presidential model with concentrated real power—as opposed to the supposedly apolitical presiding officer position we currently call "President". This assumption holds because he also states that he "does not buy" the argument that Tynwald has too many members. Presumably, he is not suggesting we exchange 24 representatives for 1.

It is an interesting tangent, however. A shift to a true presidential system—with a single president backed by an executive team politically tied to them rather than operating as independents—would, in theory, solve some of the structural problems. It would create genuine political agency and a clear mandate: one person explicitly states their agenda and is voted in on that basis.

The flip side is that it would also concentrate power, significantly increasing the risk of corruption, political manipulation, and general mismanagement, as observed in many jurisdictions operating under that model.

The pragmatic obstacle is that such a system would be effectively impossible to introduce within our current framework. It is the classic "turkeys don't vote for Christmas" dilemma, which is the exact same barrier preventing the establishment of a full party political system. The current setup favours independent candidates, meaning the system has no organic reason to change from within. The terrible genius of the current model is that it is insulated against change by design. As I have explained to many people on the doorstep, this is a major problem—and it is precisely why I have decided to take a different route.

If we assume Mr. Ramsay’s intention was simply to leave the existing format intact while superimposing a publicly elected Chief Minister, we still run into the problem that such a change does not serve the interests of the majority of representatives. It would reduce the power of the other 23 representatives while leaving them directly exposed to their voters for decisions they have less control over. Consequently, it is highly unlikely to ever be agreed upon within the current format.

More importantly, such a proposal would tip the balance of power even further toward the Chief Minister than the current format does, without adjusting the intense local influence each representative faces from constituency voters. This dynamic would massively increase the likelihood of infighting and gridlock when political pressure mounts—which is already one of the primary negative outcomes of our flawed framework.

When pressure mounts on independent candidates who are highly susceptible to direct constituent demands, they inevitably turn on each other to protect their political survival. We have seen textbook examples of this time and again, particularly toward the end of an administration, and it clearly does not serve the public interest. A directly elected Chief Minister would only amplify this problem. While the Chief Minister would be empowered to direct the government, the remaining representatives would still be fully exposed to their local electorates. When difficult national choices emerge, antagonism and gridlock would almost certainly follow. It is simply not the solution.

Essentially the same argument applies against introducing a publicly elected second chamber (the Legislative Council). Doing so would create competing public mandates, significantly increasing the likelihood of defensive mindsets, protectionism, friction, and legislative gridlock.

I do not see either of these options as viable. Only the public as a whole is in a position to rebalance our system, and only the general public has a vested interest in changing the format. That is why I have chosen to pursue a path centred on public empowerment.

Addressing the Ten Questions

Moving on to Mr. Ramsay’s second article, “Ten Questions to Make Your Candidate Wriggle…”

Mr. Ramsay already demonstrated in his first piece why no candidate can realistically promise anything to anyone under the current framework. Therefore, the opening question of his second article is the most critical because it simply asks: How?

Mr. Ramsay knows full well that candidates cannot provide meaningful answers to these policy questions unless they address the flawed democratic structure holding everything back. Answering that simple question—how?—has always been the core of my political approach. From my perspective, there is no point in standing for election unless you genuinely believe you can achieve meaningful outcomes. My worst nightmare would be to win a seat only to spend five years banging my head against a wall or compromising my principles within a system designed to ignore results. Any candidate who fails to acknowledge these structural barriers is being dishonest either with themselves or with the public.

Most of the answers to these questions are detailed extensively in my manifesto, so I will try to outline them concisely here:

1. What is your top political priority and how would you progress it?

The top political priority must be the budget deficit. Every other societal problem starts and ends with whether we can actually afford to solve it. We are not a sovereign nation; we cannot print money, and we can go bankrupt. If we do not address the financial shortfall, every other policy proposal becomes irrelevant.

How do we progress it? Exactly—HOW? The Isle of Man Government (IOMG) has claimed to have a plan to fix the deficit for over 14 years, yet the situation is worse than ever. The current system has proven itself structurally incapable of addressing the issue precisely because of our political deficit.

The fact that the public has no direct influence over budget priorities, and no clear mandate exists for anything the government does, is the root problem. This structural flaw puts the government on the back foot, shifting the balance of power away from the public and toward the civil service bureaucracy, which continues to expand at our expense.

Unless the public demands a fundamental change to that balance of power, nothing will alter. The system is designed to insulate itself from change, and it does not serve the personal interests of sitting representatives to alter it. If elected, I intend to offer the public the mechanism to demand that change—not because it serves my interest, but because it serves our collective interest. It will make the job of representation and governing harder, which I believe is a good thing. The consequences of unaccountable government are clear. As I have told residents on the doorstep, this approach is not a guaranteed fix. It is undoubtedly a long shot, but I see no other realistic path forward. That is the "HOW."

2. What should the Cannan government have done differently?

Aside from reforming the structure of governance to properly tackle the budget deficit, the previous administration's greatest failure was not implementing true transparency. It is increasingly clear that attempting to keep the public in the dark is unsustainable in the modern world. Doing so risks disrupting our core national assets: security and stability. The information vacuum maintained by the government is highly corrosive and threatens to sink the ship entirely.

3. How should the government close the gap between its income and expenditure?

The first question we must ask is: What are we actually spending the money on? A key commitment in my manifesto is to produce an unmistakable, clear picture of government spending, including full organisational charts and comprehensive details on public operations. We need to define exactly what IOMG is.

We cannot have an honest or productive debate about balancing income and expenditure until the public has access to an understandable format showing where money goes, whether operations are efficient, and if they offer genuine value. None of this information is currently accessible to the public.

This opacity is the corner into which IOMG has backed itself due to the current political framework. It is virtually impossible to discuss tax policy when expenditure remains entirely obscured. The system protects itself, and so it grows. The only solution currently offered by leadership is to artificially expand the working population to boost tax income, without ever addressing whether our underlying spending is balanced. Without true political agency and open debate, we remain stuck on this path. Significant waste, operational overlap, inefficiency, and unauthorised spending are almost certain, and Mr. Ramsay has correctly highlighted that we cannot stop it without changing how decisions are made.

4. Will new taxation or charges be necessary to maintain health and social care services?

If "maintenance" is the key word, the short answer is almost certainly yes. The hard fact is that the Isle of Man spends less per capita on health and social care than the OECD average; in fact, we spend less than the OECD average across all public services.

The current shortfall is being temporarily masked by drawing down our national reserves. Eventually, those reserves will run out—a tipping point that the government openly acknowledges is fast approaching.

We have two choices: we can have an open, mature political debate about this immediately while there is still money left in the piggy bank (which could include intentionally adjusting service levels if the public so chooses), or we can keep kicking the can down the road until the money runs out completely. Either way, change is coming, and it will have serious consequences for our stability and quality of life. If you want a high standard of living, it must be funded; there is no magic money tree. The current system of government has repeatedly proven incapable of making these tough choices. The opening paragraph of the Michaels Report sums it up perfectly: How many unimplemented reports do you want sitting on the shelf when the money finally runs out? Only the public can force this change.

5 & 6. What will be key to the success of the economy over the next ten years, and is the Isle of Man ready for the challenges and opportunities of Artificial Intelligence?

Economic success will depend entirely on diversification and genuine operational flexibility. Global conditions are poised to change rapidly. Unfortunately, IOMG has buried its head in the sand regarding economic diversification, leaving far too many financial eggs in one basket.

Furthermore, we are completely unprepared for the disruption AI could bring to our core employment sectors. We are not taking education seriously, nor are we investing adequately in our future workforce or hard infrastructure. These critical requirements are being treated as short-term costs rather than long-term investments. Again, IOMG is paralysed by the design of the system itself—a system structurally incapable of decisive action and calculated risk management. Unless we alter that design, the outcomes will remain the same.

7. Does the Island need a bigger population?

No, the Isle of Man does not inherently need a larger population. The conversation must start with structural balance. If the balance between income and expenditure is fundamentally broken, simply adding more people will exacerbate our existing issues by overloading public infrastructure. The fact that this fiscal balance is routinely omitted from political debate tells us exactly where the institutional failure lies.

While there will always be a targeted need for specific skilled professionals, our first question must be: Can we meet that demand internally? If we have hollowed out our education and apprenticeship systems, we are not being honest with the electorate.

This is why the core issue of immigration requires absolute transparency. Every piece of data regarding inward migration should be publicly available. All statistics on immigration—including the number of workers and dependants, income tax brackets, repatriation rates, and impacts on public services—must be transparently published. It must be clearly demonstrated to the public that specific immigration is necessary, that the demand cannot be filled locally, and that it directly benefits the Island. The current lack of transparency in this area is highly corrosive and introduces unnecessary risk to our core security and stability.

8. How could housing be made more affordable?

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the premise that government can intervene to solve housing issues directly. The concept underlying IOMG’s Manx Development Corporation (MDC) is solid. However, as is so often the case, the government has compromised its own efforts by actively avoiding genuine accountability and transparency. It is the exact same institutional failure repeating itself.

9. Does the Island need wind-farms?

The Isle of Man does not inherently need wind-farms. The real questions are: What is our actual, verified energy requirement? Are wind-farms truly in our best long-term interest compared to alternative technologies? And does the Manx public actually want them once presented with all the unvarnished facts?

I have a specific long-standing interest in this sector; I attended the initial presentation of the AEA report back in 2010 and have read every subsequent report published since. I have detailed this extensively in my manifesto, so I will avoid repeating myself like a broken record here.

Whether you support or oppose wind energy, the core issue starts and ends with a complete absence of a clear public mandate, accountability, and transparency. The public must have complete clarity on how these decisions are made and proof that they are demonstrably in our best interests. Under the current political framework, that is simply not happening and cannot happen. Unless we resolve these systemic decision-making flaws, the outcomes of these major projects risk being negative for the public regardless of what is built.

10. Should there be an independent inquiry into government’s involvement with King Gaming?

Only if the resulting report actually triggers meaningful structural change in the public interest. We are all well aware of how many expensive, pointless inquiry reports currently gather dust on government shelves without changing a thing.

The systemic risk exposed by episodes like the King Gaming saga is massive. Concurrently, the capacity and willingness of our political framework to enact meaningful accountability in response has proven entirely ineffective. All of this, yet again, traces back to the very form and structure of our government.

Only the public can change this reality. Hopefully, I will have the opportunity to offer the electorate the mechanism to make that change happen. It will not be easy. The obstacle is the way.

The Royal Manx Agricultural Show is on this weekend. The Southern Agricultural Show was held the weekend before last. Both shows hold a special place in my heart for a number of reasons. In addition to the childhood memories that I’m sure many people share, ‘the shows’ are particularly memorable for me because they are where I started my first business back in 2008. At 27 years old, I jumped straight into one of the most brutal sectors for small business, with both feet. I had literally no idea what I was doing. I bought some oak, made a show frame, made a sign, printed a few photos, and booked the pitches. I took my first orders at those shows, securing over a year’s worth of work straight off the bat—and never looked back. I took a lot of risks, made a lot of mistakes, and learned a lot of things the hard way. 18 years later, I’m still flat out. I am fully aware of how incredibly lucky I’ve been to have had the opportunities I have.

I have often thought that I probably wouldn’t have been able to do what I did if I were not on the IOM—strong demand, good access to market and support, and security. I generally try to avoid pessimism, but it doesn’t feel like there’s the same level of opportunity as there was even 18–20 years ago (and 2008 was peak “Credit Crunch” for those with long memories). It is clear that demand is still strong in many areas, but the barriers to starting out seem to just get higher. I receive around a dozen emails a year from young people looking for apprenticeship placements. In the early days, I did take on a number of apprentices, but as a business, I have never been approached by government to explain how the apprenticeship system works, or to explain what the benefit would be to my business. That is possibly because, essentially, the benefits no longer outweigh the risks and costs, and that is why it has become such a nightmare for young people trying to continue with education—in sectors where we are desperately short of labour. Another case of ‘the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing’ in Government. When the critical importance of economic diversification is increasingly clear, education in the skills required is an investment, not a cost.

The second part of this post is my own connection to agriculture. My grandparents on both sides were farmers, and my father was an Agricultural Steel Frame Building Contractor who worked on farms all over the Island in the 70s and 80s. His connection to the farming community is how I came to be hooked on farming myself at an early age. I spent pretty much every weekend messing about on farms from my early teens onwards, and over the past 10 years or so, I have been increasingly involved in cultivating and sowing around 40 acres of cereals on a small, very old-school farm in the south, every spring. I am not a farmer. I don’t have any financial interest in farming, and I don’t get paid. I do it for the fun of it, and because the farm belongs to a lifelong friend. This experience has given me a firsthand perspective on the agricultural economy.

It is fairly well understood that less than 10% of the food consumed on the IOM is locally produced. It is also well understood that agricultural output is in decline generally, and that the support provided to the agricultural sector by the taxpayer is largely disconnected from production. What is less clear is what would happen in the event of a significant global event disrupting our 90% imported food supply—a pandemic, the escalating consequences of war, drought, etc. There is much talk about food security, but very little detail or action. Again, I try to avoid alarmism, but the public need to understand that if there were a major shock to the global food market, we cannot simply turn around and expect local farmers to be waiting for the call to action. It just doesn’t work like that. At the most basic level, almost all agricultural production runs on an annual cycle, and significant disruption could evidently unfold much more quickly than that. Beyond that, as agricultural output declines generally, overall long-term capacity and potential output are also declining—so again, we cannot just turn around and expect local farmers to be ready and waiting.

The flip side, of course, is that taxpayers are currently supporting local agriculture essentially to produce less than 10% of what we actually eat, and to ‘look after’ the countryside. I will stick my neck out even further here and say that most farmers don’t actually want to be paid to produce nothing. Most farmers would prefer to be producing things that people actually want, and prefer a marketplace that reflects the true value of their efforts and investments. The market is currently highly skewed on a number of levels. True value can only be identified by having an open discussion with both sides. What do the public want and expect, both in terms of things we will actually buy and in terms of what baseline production capacity we want to maintain for the sake of independent security? What are we prepared to pay for that, or more accurately, what cost are we prepared to accept?

The solution doesn’t have to just look like more money from the taxpayer either. For decades, the IOM protected its agricultural sector from international pressure essentially for the purpose of food security—the red meat derogation only expired in 2010 (ironically due to pressure from the EU, which we are no longer a member of). The other main reason for the red meat derogation was biosecurity, and now we find ourselves at the other end of that stick - restricted from export markets due to biosecurity. The idea of market protection faded away with increasing globalisation, but of course, it has recently reappeared on the global stage from areas completely outside our control. If we do not acknowledge and address how the international food and energy markets are rapidly shifting, we cannot complain if we find ourselves in dire straits at some point in the future. From my perspective, the only way we are going to reach a viable long-term deal is through open discussion with both sides, and absolute transparency. Until we change the way we make decisions, that is effectively impossible.

The following series of questions was posted in one of the local Facebook groups, which again gave a great opportunity for a bit of late night waffle…

A VOTER…

I would encourage everyone to have a specific list of questions to ask any prospective MHKs when they knock on your door. Remember, as they’re independents in a consensus democracy, there’s no point asking about policy. 

Also remember, retained powers by our colonial overlords in the UK mean that there’s zero point asking about foreign policy, Duty/VAT or migration. 

Here’s mine, in case anyone wants to borrow:

1. If appointed to a political membership or ministerial position in a department, what oversight experience do you have to ensure accountability within the civil service?

2. Where national interests and local interest are in conflict, how will you balance your role as minister and local representative?

3. What is your strategy to ensure national infrastructure and capital projects happen within time/budget projections?

4. What single area of government do you think needs to be streamlined and how?

5. Within our unique context in Peel, what is one change or improvement to our area that you will be lobbying for?

6. What experience do you bring to ensure that we have an MHK who can work constructively with other Tynwald members to ensure that our voice is both heard and respected?

7. Can you tell me about a time you took an unpopular stance on a professional/community matter that led to an improvement, and how you managed the fallout?

Hello Voter…

Thank you very much for the questions. I hope you don’t mind, but I have copied them to my website and posted this reply there also. The vast majority of the people I’m speaking to on the doorsteps (over 500 so far) are telling me that they’re not regular Facebook users. I therefore thought it was worth making this available to a wider audience.

Hopefully you also won’t mind if I first answer the questions that are implicit within your preamble, as it is sort of the core of why I’m standing. The statement “there’s no point asking about policy…” is not just your position, of course. In almost every post you see relating to the upcoming election, there will be someone pointing out that all of the manifestos aren’t worth the effort of reading, because that’s just not the way our system works. Again, this correlates with what I’m hearing on the doorsteps.

Almost everyone understands that there is a serious problem in the format and structure of how we are governed. The obvious question then is: why do we accept this? This political system belongs to us, and we do have the power to change it, so why don’t we? The first problem is that the system suits those who are elected, so there is no incentive for candidates to suggest system change, as that will almost certainly make the job harder. Politicians would have to actually justify decisions and be accountable. So, I think that just means I’m a weirdo, because I’m more concerned with the fact it doesn’t currently work than with how much work is required.

Moving to your specific questions:

1. Experience in Ensuring Accountability

This answer will potentially not be entirely in my favour, depending on your perspective. I’ve run my own business since approximately 2008. From 2008 to 2016, the business followed a fairly conventional path, driven by very high demand from day one. I took on more and more work, hired more staff, and invested almost everything back into the business.

By 2014, I was starting to feel slightly uncomfortable with the effect the ever-increasing workflow was having on the way projects were run. Around this time, I had a very frank conversation with a client who ran an international business with hundreds of staff in offices around the globe. He told me that the set of problems I was wrestling with were just the standard challenges every business faces when it reaches that size. He noted that if I kept going, there would be a different set of problems at 20 staff, and another at 100, and so on—the problems are fundamentally about managing people. He also told me that if I wanted to keep growing the business, I’d just have to accept that I wouldn’t always get what I want, that I’d have to learn to delegate, and that I would have to accept other people’s mistakes. I knew from that moment on that I would have to change how I ran my business, in large part because I like doing things myself, being in control of, and taking responsibility for, everything. It is one of the things I’ve always told my customers: I do everything because I like being responsible for everything. I do not like being responsible for other people’s mistakes. As a result, I have spent most of the last ten years or so working on my own, alongside a very small group of trusted subcontractors.

I fully appreciate that, on the face of it, this probably means I am not the conventional choice to ensure accountability within the civil service. However, as explained in more detail in my manifesto, one of the fundamental principles I have committed to is what one voter called “radical transparency.” It would essentially be impossible for me to accept a position of departmental or ministerial responsibility if the agreed terms did not include a commitment to absolute transparency. Indeed, this has always been my preferred contractual route in business: cost-plus and totally open-book. Absolutely transparent.

As I see it, that is the only conceivable route to true accountability. People are going to make mistakes, and that needs to be accommodated within reason. Without absolute transparency, we have absolutely no chance of achieving true accountability, actually learning from mistakes, and really improving anything. I am not a natural leader, and I’m not going to pretend to be one. I have a natural inclination to work and I’m more than happy to put in the graft, but I am not going to accept responsibility without absolute transparency.

2. National Interest vs. Local Interest

This is an interesting question which again points back to the fundamental flaw in our political system. The people who live within our constituency also live within the national sphere of influence. If something is actually in the national interest, then it is also in the interest of the constituency, and should be demonstrably so to the satisfaction of the residents. If it cannot be proven to an acceptable level, then it is not really in the national interest and should be fought on that basis. The fact that the question can be posed this way highlights the problem of agency within our political system, where people expect the system to blight them against their will. That is what we should be focused on changing.

3. Project Scheduling & Budgeting

As detailed in my manifesto and discussed above, the only realistic solution is absolute transparency. No amount of tick-boxes, qualifications, or contractual gymnastics will change anything. Anyone who has been anywhere near any of these projects on the ground over the past 20 years (as I have) will confirm the same.

4. Government Streamlining

Again, as discussed in my manifesto and in my Manx Radio interview, the first problem is actually that nobody really knows where to start if we want the most effective and efficient outcome. It is very easy to point to specific things we don’t like, but until we build up a clear picture of what the Isle of Man Government actually is, and how it is structured and connected, nobody stands any realistic chance of approaching this problem. That’s why this is a key personal commitment from me.

5. What Can I Do for Peel?

I think the best thing I could hope to do for Peel (and for all other local communities) is to bring the same principles I am standing for at a national level—real political agency and absolute transparency—to the local level. I am very much in favour of local representation and decision-making; the only thing missing, as far as I can see, is real agency and transparency.

We must allow the community to have real power over what they want or don’t want, and ensure absolute transparency in delivery. Issues like dog fouling, play parks, and car parks should be solvable to the satisfaction of the community, within the community. Only the current structure is preventing progress, as far as I can see.

6. Constructive Working

I am definitely more of an Omega personality profile than an Alpha or Beta, that’s for sure. There is nothing I can do about that, and to be honest, I think that is essentially the reason I’m standing in the first place. It is also behind what is a fairly unconventional political proposal: that we change the political system to force more constructive debate.

The main thing I can say aside from that is that I’ve run my own business for nearly 20 years in a sector that is notoriously fractious and brutal (less than 5% of small construction businesses make it to 20 years). I’ve managed to survive fairly frequent attempts to be diddled, and in all that time, I only had to fire one employee and only lost one client after commencement.

I’d be happy for any voter to speak to anyone I’ve worked for, or with, over the last twenty years—even the ones I didn’t get on with. I’m not going to claim that I’m particularly savvy, or that all my bills are paid on time, but I’m still here nearly 20 years later, so I can at least say that.

7. Unpopular Stances

As mentioned above, having survived for nearly 20 years in one of the most unforgiving sectors for small business, I have faced a fairly high number of difficult situations. My approach has obviously softened over the years. Gone are the days of climbing onto unpaid-for roofs with a chainsaw in hand, to ask nicely for a bank transfer (maybe). Although I still have to send the odd firmly worded email fairly frequently, I’m a lot more confident in my position now, and far more secure personally.

I spent the first eight years saying yes to everything, and the last ten saying no to most things. Probably the most difficult situation I ever had to deal with was the one client I actually lost after commencement. As was always the case back then, I had started off as a people-pleaser and then tried to suggest a compromise on an ever-increasing list of demands that were about to encroach on the birth of my daughter. As a result, I lost a million-pound project and then faced an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to sue me into bankruptcy. Lessons learned: 1. People who are super nice and gushingly complimentary are often the ones to watch, while people who are initially difficult often end up being the best customers. 2. Always make sure your business insurance is up to spec. 3. ALWAYS follow up by email. Absolute transparency saved my business then—maybe that’s why I have such faith in it.

I hope these answers have given you some of the insight you were hoping for, and if you have any more questions I’m more than happy to respond of course.

VBR

James.

A few days ago I received a very interesting set of questions by email from a voter, which of course gave me the perfect opportunity to indulge my penchant for waffle. Topics ranged from housing and tourism to the rather more philosophical areas of our relationship to the UK and what "Manxness" is. There's only so much you can squeeze in to an A5 manifesto (which has to stay under the postage limit), so I enjoyed responding to these questions in more detail. If you have an interesting take please fire it over, and allow me to bore you too...

Fastyr mie James,

I have a couple of questions I am asking the candidates for Peel and Glenfaba to make decisions regarding the vote. If you have the time to answer I would greatly appreciate it. 

1. How do you balance the demand for more housing and preserving the unique character and feeling of Peel? 

2. How would you approach balancing the environmental impact of creating more housing? Would you be interested in approaching more ecological options? 

3. What’s your opinion on the future of the Manx language? Would you be in favour of supporting a higher education Manx Language centre for high school students (continuing education from the Manx Speaking Primaries) and adult education? 

4. How would you support Peel’s inclusion in the new tourism drive, in comparison to say Port Erin with the sea sport equipment hire and food and beverage businesses? 

5. Walking around Peel often tourists can be heard asking about the lack of presence of the fishing heritage as an area of interest. Would you potentially support the government acquiring Moores Traditional Smokers as a fishing heritage centre, arts space and a hub for small businesses/market space?

6. What is your perspective on the future of the fishing industry? Is there any interest in boosting this industry that is part of the heart of Peel? 

7. Should the Isle of Man be allowed to have a voice divergent from Westminster in commentary upon international events? 

8. Do you think that the Island should encourage closer relations to Westminster or to other Celtic nations? 

9. What does “Manxness” mean to you? 

10.  What does being from/living in Peel mean to you? 

All the best,

*A Voter*

Dear Voter,

Thank you very much for what is definitely the most thoughtful and interesting set of questions I’ve received so far. I will assume that you have an overview of the core reasons I am standing regarding political agency and transparency, and how our current deficit in these areas is impacting almost every area of our lives at present and in the future.

Starting with housing, there are two key perspectives to consider with regard to your questions. The first is the issue of demand itself, which is intrinsically linked to our broader economic situation. Currently, we are told that we need more houses because demand is outstripping supply, and that we need more people (taxpayers) in order to balance our economy. However, the ‘more people’ argument is far from proven (or even logical in light of the current balance of expenditure vs. income), and the demand vs. supply situation is also not as clear as a simple market appraisal (based on high prices) would indicate.

The actual data on housing is far from clear. Several key indicators appear to confuse or contradict the general assumptions. The official population has only increased by around 5,000 people in the last 20 years, while more than 5,000 new residential units have actually been built over the same period. The average occupancy rate per unit is still over two people per household, so how is demand still outstripping supply? Non-resident ownership is known to be a key factor, as is falling density (more people living alone). The vacancy rate is also apparently well over 10%, and from a few weeks of knocking on doors around the constituency, that all seems plausible at least.

The real problem, from my perspective, is that all of this is essentially ‘off-limits’ in Manx politics. We are never asked. I think there is a fundamental need for proper public debate over where we are heading, what we’ve actually got, what we actually need, and how best to achieve it before we plough on with more new housing.

Moving to the second perspective: for the sake of discussion, if we assume that there were an agreed need for more new housing in Peel, I think the character of ‘Old Peel’ definitely needs to be maintained (and I use that word in preference to ‘preserved’ for good reason). I live in the heart of Old Peel and I love it. The fact is there aren’t many development opportunities in Old Peel due to the existing density and makeup of the housing, and I certainly wouldn’t want any significant adjustments to that purely to accommodate new housing. I think the redevelopment of sites like the old garage units on the promenade is good for Peel, but again, the overall policy should be agreed by the public. Government could clearly also be doing more to facilitate the high-value renovation of older vacant properties, which leads us nicely into the environmental impact of housing.

As you may have spotted, my background is in architecture, carpentry, and construction/engineering generally. An early interest in ‘natural building’ is what actually started my shift away from sitting behind a desk to being neck-deep in muck most days. I built my first straw-bale house during a European Architecture Students Assembly Workshop (Theme: Sustainable Living) in 2003, at a place called Friland in Denmark (which is a government-sanctioned experimental building zone). The people who ran that workshop went on to develop the first bale-based modular building system and are still doing very well with it. I built my own temporary straw-bale house in 2007. I built the first fully approved hybrid straw-bale house extension, with no concrete and no plastics, on the IOM in 2010. I then built the first approved load-bearing straw-bale house extension on the IOM in 2012, along with numerous other natural building projects (cob, rammed earth, recycled materials, sheep's wool, etc.) along the way. So, to answer your question: yes, I am interested in this area. The main problem, as ever, is money and political will. There is potential to significantly improve the standard of construction, and the potential return to the IOM (in terms of money saved in the economy) is significant. However, the ideas need to be proven to the public first—and unfortunately, that is precisely where our political system falls down. Without changing the political system, progress is unlikely.

With regard to the Manx language, I think the future is looking brighter than it ever has. All of my children have attended the Bunscoil Ghaelgagh, which recently celebrated its 25th birthday. It is a bit funny sometimes to think about having children who speak a language I cannot, and I am quite jealous of their ‘natural’ bilingual abilities; unfortunately, that ship has sailed for me! As far as I am aware, there are more Manx speakers now than at any time in recent history, and numbers continue to grow. From a purely pragmatic perspective, I believe there is real value to the wider population in maintaining our unique cultural identity across the board, and the language is obviously a key part of that.

In terms of higher education, my two older children have continued with their Manx language options at QE2 (which is actually the main reason I am now living in Peel—QE2 offers the most comprehensive subject selection in Manx, as I understand it). From my perspective, this works well in terms of integrating them into their wider community cohort, and by allowing children who’ve not been through the full immersion at the Bunscoil to benefit from associating with those who are already bilingual. As far as I’m aware, this ‘cross-pollination’ works well and benefits both sides, which is a strong argument for the current model, I think.

The only downside I’ve come across so far is when Manx-based subjects prevent access to other subjects (particularly other languages), but this is more of a general logistical challenge with all areas of timetabling (not just Manx). It’s never going to be possible to offer every choice to everyone, and there’s always going to be a compromise somewhere, whichever format is in place. With regard to adult education options, I am not fully up to speed as I’ve never taken any, but I do know many people who have. As far as I am aware, there are numerous options and formats available. I know a lot of effort is made by many highly committed individuals to maintain this, and I’m grateful for their work (even if I am a lost cause). I’m not sure how it could be improved, but I’d be happy to discuss it.

On tourism, heritage, and the fishing industry: as noted in my manifesto, these are all key areas of economic diversification we should definitely be pursuing further. I think because tourism was once such a core sector of our economy—which then faded away with the jet age to be replaced by financial services and associated sectors—there has been something of a cultural blind spot in this area, almost as if tourism is not a serious business by comparison. I do get the feeling that is now starting to change, and, as noted, the potential income is known to be significant. But modern tourism doesn’t look like Victorian tourism, and really, we are still not taking it seriously in terms of investment for the future.

I’ve done a reasonable amount of work for MNH over the years (beams, lintels, and traditional framed roofs at Castle Rushen and Peel Castle, along with replacing the entire timber superstructure of the Laxey Wheel in 2022 and ongoing maintenance every year), so I know firsthand how much pressure MNH is under maintaining some of our most valuable assets. There is also clearly potential for the digital and finance sectors to face rapid disruption with the increasing pace of AI-driven change, so we really need to have a political system ready for that—and at the moment, I clearly don’t think that is the case.

With specific regard to Peel, the short answer is yes: Peel has a unique heritage which is currently underutilised. The House of Manannan is a very good hub, but there is potential for much more, even just on the basics like access, mapping, coordination, signage, and information. Sadly, again, this is another area which falls foul of the ‘treacle of government,’ where each department, division, or tier is largely prevented from working together ‘as one’ towards broader policy goals by the structure itself. The idea of bringing other historic buildings into the portfolio needs to be proven to the public as part of a wider policy adoption and implementation. Sadly, at the moment, the way we form and operate government is proven to be incapable of that.

The position with regard to the fishing industry is very similar (and parallel to agriculture). We still have the knowledge and skills clinging on, but the trajectory is still downward. We need to have an open debate on the value of food and energy security to society in general, in order to put an agreed price on it, put actions in place, and stand by it. Our current system of government simply cannot do that, as proven time and again.

The questions with regard to our relationship to Westminster cut to the core of my position. I am aware some people think the IOM is essentially detached from international events due to our relationship and position with the UK, but of course, that ignores the fact that a significant portion of the wealth in our society has arrived here from all corners of the world. We are not detached. I am focused on the fact that the population of the Isle of Man essentially has no clear agency over how we are governed. We do not get to select the policy, form, or direction of our government, and I think that sits at the heart of every other problem you can point to.

Beyond this, there is of course a more philosophical question in the same vein: the fact that our entire political structure is, in fact, subjugated to another political system (in the UK) over which we have no agency at all. Indeed, even the population of the UK do not have clear majority democratic agency, for similar structural reasons. Therefore, even if we were successful in rebalancing the Manx political system (by providing the population with direct agency over our own government), we would essentially still be in a position of disenfranchisement in real terms. On the plus side, if the changes I am seeking were introduced, the population would at least be able to question that relationship directly for the first time ever, and I am aware there is risk as well as moral value in that idea. Whether the majority would question that relationship or not is a different matter, though again, I feel there is moral value even in the potential to do so. The concept of direct potential access to power subject to the will of the population is a double-edged sword. If you can present your case and convince the population to back you, then maybe you are right. If you cannot, then at least you had the freedom to try and know that you failed on fair terms—and there is value to society in both those outcomes (primarily in the avoidance of polarisation). While I might like the concept of increased autonomy, agency, and equality, I am aware that the wider population may not agree—and that is how it should be.

The harsh reality is that the IOM ‘belongs’ to the UK, and even if the majority of the population wanted more independence, it is highly unlikely that would be granted by the UK system given the wider geopolitical consequences that could bring them. However, my assumption is that the thrust of your question is essentially philosophical and moral, and in that regard at least, the prospect of a system where any person is able to state their position independently, in a direct process of potential access to real change, is a worthwhile right to aim for, I think. We may not be able to change things, but the right to state our position and try in a meaningful way is important. "Make the best use of what is in your power, and take the rest as it happens." — Epictetus.

While I have strong family connections to Glenfaba & Peel (my great-grandmother ran the Lower Foxdale Post Office until it closed)—don’t tell anyone, but I grew up in Castletown—I could tell a funny story about how I got kicked out... over the phone... while I was driving down a motorway in Switzerland... but this response is already far too long. I’ve also lived in Onchan & Port St Mary, and I have a very strong connection to a certain farm in the south, but none of those places are or ever have been truly ‘mine’. I bought my first house in Old Peel, and I cannot imagine living anywhere else. I love it. I love being 30 seconds from the beach. I love the smell of Muffins Bakery wafting into my house when the wind blows in the right direction. I love (mostly) not worrying about my kids leaving the front door wide open and disappearing off to find their mates. You cannot put a price on that stuff, but it is worth protecting.

I’m not really sure I can find the right words to explain what ‘Manxness’ means to me. I know when you’re young it’s easy to simplify it into clichés. But I’ve seen enough now to know that there’s nowhere quite like this. I think I’ve always been naturally averse to anything that looks like tribalism, or what the cynical old-timers would call ‘professional Manxman’ syndrome... so I guess Manxness to me is just a quiet feeling that ‘this is my place’. I have been lucky enough (and cheeky enough) to have ‘skeeted’ into thousands of hidden corners across the island, driven every road, walked every path, climbed every hill, and worked in every parish—so I feel like I know the place like the back of my hand. I don’t feel like I need to shout about it, wave a flag, or prove it to anyone. I think that’s the type of ‘Manxness’ I grew up surrounded by, and that’s how I feel about it now.

I want to thank you again for prompting this train of thought, which I did not really have a chance to squeeze into my main manifesto. If it’s OK with you, I’d like to publish this for general consumption; I am happy to credit you with the questions if you’d like, or remove all reference if you’d prefer.

VBR,

James

I don't know who is choosing thumbnails for the Manx Radio Youtube content but they've clearly got it in for me... ;-) On the plus side this was aired & published on the final day of the current administration, and there has been much talk about the need for changing the way Tynwald works... which is precisely why I am here.

https://youtu.be/a0fJh-O_Y4c?si=jNKis67wGIrZyO5M

On the 30th June 2026 I received an email from the CEO of the Manx Wildlife Trust, inviting me to take part in a discussion regarding my position (as a prospective MHK) in relation to nature and the environment. The email contained a briefing document in preparation for the discussion. Below is my response to the briefing document, followed by the full email thread...

General Election 26 MWT Candidate Question Briefing

This document provides an overview of the questions that will be asked during a short 30-minute Microsoft Teams conversation with Manx Wildlife Trust.

The purpose of the conversation is to understand your views on nature and the environment ahead of the General Election. A single summary blog will be published for MWT’s 1,200 members and the wider public. All candidates are being offered the same opportunity and asked the same core questions.

The call will be recorded only to support accurate note taking. Candidates who choose not to participate will be listed in the published blog.

1. Values Based Question - What personal experiences have shaped your view of the natural environment in the Isle of Man?

My grandmother was an early member of the Manx Nature Conservation Trust, which later became the Manx Wildlife Trust. My mother is a volunteer with the Manx BirdLife charity, and has been involved in the establishment and operation of the Point of Ayre National Reserve. She’s also involved with organising a citizen science project to record breeding long-eared owls, and is usually vying for top spot on the local on eBird listings. I’ve spent most of my life closely involved in what some might call ‘non-intensive’ agriculture, independently creating significant ‘wildlife zones’ in the process. The older I get, the more I appreciate and spend time in the world-class natural resource we have here - hill walking pretty much every week.  

2. Quick Headline Questions (Yes or No)

Are you interested in environmental issues in the Isle of Man? 

Yes

Would you be happy for the Isle of Man to be one hundred percent reliant on fossil fuels for its electricity generation? 

The Isle of Man is not 100% reliant at present, but in principle the answer is NO for a number of stability & security, in addition to environmental reasons.

Do you support the Isle of Man’s legally binding net zero target of 2050? 

The reason the question is being asked in the first place is precisely why this is not a yes/no question. Net Zero is under political threat in many jurisdictions for exactly the same core reasons that I am standing for election: failures in agency, equality, and accountability. Net Zero has become a political football because the core ideas have not been adequately proven to the public prior to implementation. Very few people would argue against efficiency, security, and clear economic benefits, and that is how Net Zero could have been sold. Sadly, it has not been so. The political system is to blame for the potential failure of Net Zero. Unless we change the way we do politics, it will continue to be so.

Should the Island increase or reduce the amount of land and sea managed for nature? 

This is not a yes/no question. In principle, the answer is ‘increase’. There is a strong argument that our natural environment is our most valuable and most secure asset. However, unless that argument is presented as part of a truly open debate in which the public actually has clear agency, it will become just another political football.

3. Core Strategy Questions

A. Space for Nature - Background: Only 20% of the Island’s land and 11% of our territorial waters are managed primarily for nature, and many species and habitats remain in decline. Question: How would you create more space for nature in the Isle of Man’s territorial land and waters?

The only viable way to ensure long term protection is to clearly link it to economic interest. As noted in my manifesto the IOM significantly under values our heritage and natural assets. Unless we clearly connect them to strong economic value, they will always be at risk. The international market to add value is out there; we restrict access to it. 

B. Nature Based Solutions - Background: Nature based Solutions can reduce flood risk, capture carbon, improve water quality and support people’s physical and mental wellbeing. Question: How would you support the development and mainstreaming of Nature based Solutions across the Island?

The only viable proposal is to prove it, ensure access and publish ALL information. The wider public is never going to get behind ideas if they cannot easily access the benefits and understand what’s going on. Access and information has to come first. We are not very good at that generally. 

C. People and Nature - Background: Most residents spend less time in nature than previous generations, which affects wellbeing and can reduce support for environmental action. Question: How would you strengthen the relationship between people in the Isle of Man and the natural world?

As above. It has to start with access. I do quite a lot of travelling and when you see how other places create and maintain access and communicate information, you realise how far behind we are. As mentioned in my manifesto, I have paid and queued to climb mountains (in winter) in several different countries round the world. Why are the hills of the IOM mostly empty, even in peak season? Proper access (including to the IOM itself) and maintenance has to be the starting point. 

D. Agriculture and Land Use - Background: Farming covers around 70 percent of the Island’s land area. Question: How would you support farmers to deliver food production alongside stronger nature and climate outcomes?

A reasonable compromise will only be achieved within a broader debate about agriculture and food security generally. If the wider public does not see and agree the value of natural resources and food security the entire endeavour is at risk. If the land use market pushes towards energy production (as it clearly could - irrespective of environmental consideration), that is the way things will go unless the public places higher value on the environment generally. Within my lifetime the IOM agricultural industry has been stripped of its market protection, had production subsidies removed, and is now dealing with a transition to support based largely on environmental targets. Many farmers have given up on the process because it is simply not commercially realistic. All proposals must start with the position that agriculture is business, and all proposals must be commercially viable. That will only happen if the public has agency. 

E. Planning and Development - Background: The planning system significantly affects habitats, land use and community wellbeing. Question: How should the planning system balance development needs with the protection and restoration of nature?

As with agriculture, the only realistic option is to demonstrate the value to the wider economy and public, allowing them to have clear agency—rather than preaching at or dictating to them. A political system which blocks agency and/or polarises the public will always leave questions like this to the whim of whoever has manipulated their way into power. If the wider public owns the idea, that is the best security we can provide. 

F. Funding for Nature - Background: Nature recovery needs long term, stable funding. Question: How would you ensure sustainable funding for nature conservation and environmental enhancement over the next five years?

The short answer is that within the IOM political system there is nothing any candidate can say or do to ensure secure funding over the next five years. If the make up of the next administration (over which the public has zero influence) swings away from protecting nature that is it, game over. This can be seen right now in the neighbouring jurisdiction - short term economic pressure always wins. The only route to long term stability is to create a political system which fosters education within society, by giving them agency. This is the core of my proposal. 

G. Legislation and Governance - Background: Some environmental legislation is outdated, including the 1990 Wildlife Act. Question: Are there any environmental laws, policies or governance structures you believe should be improved or updated?

Given how far out of date current legislation is, there is probably a strong argument for a clean-slate proposal, at least insofar as primary objectives are concerned, and whether new legislation could be tailored to constantly evolving requirements. The chances of success are heavily reliant on changing the political system, as outlined above.  

4. Future Looking Question

• If elected, what is the single most important environmental action you would aim to progress during your first year as an MHK?

Access and engagement: Footpaths & Information (Digital & Physical). You cannot sell the value of our natural assets to the wider public if they cannot easily access and appreciate them. Tiny investments (relatively speaking) in footpaths, reserves, information & events would bring huge returns.  

Emails: 

30/06/26

Hi James,

Congratulations on declaring your intention to stand as a candidate in the September General Election.

Manx Wildlife Trust (MWT) is the Island’s leading nature conservation charity, supported by more than 1,200 members and working closely with Government, Commissioners, businesses, schools and community partners. In our March survey, 96% of responding members said that it’s either extremely important [77%] or very important [19%] that protecting and restoring nature should be a priority for Government decision-making in the Isle of Man”. We own and manage nature reserves in every parish and play a central role in shaping the Island’s conservation and environmental agenda. We hope you will spare a short amount of time to share your views on these important issues. 

I would like to invite you to join me for a 30-minute Microsoft Teams chat to discuss your priorities for nature and the environment as a prospective MHK. Ahead of the General Election, I will publish a summary blog reflecting the views given to us by candidates. This will be shared with our members and the wider public as part of our ‘Nature and the Future of the Isle of Man’ initiative, which explores how candidates view issues affecting nature in the Isle of Man.

I have attached a short briefing document so you can prepare for the interview.

The calls will be recorded and transcribed only to support accurate note taking and ensure your responses are represented clearly and fairly. The recordings will not be made public.

This is an opportunity for you to outline your vision for the Island’s natural environment and to engage with the many people in your constituency who care deeply about its future. The final blog will publish the responses we receive and indicate where no response was provided.

Please let me know your availability over the coming weeks and I will send a Teams link for a time that suits you.

Thank you for your time. I look forward to speaking with you.

01/07/26

Hi *MWT*

Thank you for your email. I’m looking forward to meeting you. I am also in the process of recording as many conversations as possible, with as many different people as I can in order to try and present ideas in the most accessible format (uploading to Youtube & Spotify). If it’s ok with you I’d love to do our conversation face to face (and record it also). It’s so much more conducive to clear communication and the free flow of ideas. I’m happy to meet up with you wherever is most convenient for you, and I’m sure we can work out a mutually convenient time.  If you let me know what your availability is I’ll try to fit it in with you. 

01/07/26

Hi James,

Thanks for your quick response. We are doing all the interviews on teams, partly to save time (there are a lot of candidates already), and partly so we have a transcript to refer back to (Teams transcripts work best when each party is on a separate computer so it can allocate each persons comments acurately). Would you be happy to do it via Teams if I then provide you with the recording for you to share on YouTube etc?

03/07/26

Hi *MWT*,

Ironically with the way I work it will take more logistical planning to arrange a Teams call. 

I’ll have to figure out when I can have everything ready, and ensure a good connection. Will come back to you.

Thank you!

James

21/07/26

Hi *MWT*,

Apologies for the delay in responding. As predicted, time is the commodity in short supply. I thought it would be easier therefore to just respond to the questions you have sent, and then post the same on my own website and socials. Please find a PDF attached. 

Because I do have a strong interest in this area I thought it was only right to let you know that a few other candidates I have spoken to have told me they’re not likely to respond to your request because of the wording of the initial email - specifically that views will be summarised in a blog, and the full interviews will not be published. As I’m sure you appreciate, given the fact a lot of candidates are trying to tread a fine line in the run up to the election, some think that saying nothing is better than saying something which will potentially then be used against you. I do not hold this view. A core facet of my position is what one constituent called “radical transparency” so I’m happy to make my view absolutely clear on the basis that disagreeing and then finding the best compromise via true debate and radical transparency is actually the best way forward. We don’t have that at the moment, hence my campaign. I just thought I should let you know, because I do believe in the true value of our natural environment. 

If you have any questions please don’t hesitate to let me know.

VBR

James. 

21/07/26

Hi James,

Thank you very much for taking the time to respond and for sharing your views and conversations around our approach leading up to this election. I do understand the concerns raised. It is unfortunate that we have not had a conversation as I start every call by stating that we are not trying to catch anyone out and that we simply want to provide a platform for candidates to state their views on nature and the environment. As a charity, we cannot be directly political and tell people who, or who not, to vote for. Instead, the blog will probably quote some of the candidates responses verbatim and give a general consensus view of responses.

It's important that we treat each candidate in the same way and I worry that if we publish written responses like yours, all candidates will want to do the same. We have had the same request from one other candidate so far so I will give it some thought. Clearly you are free to share it yourself.

If we could have had an opportunity to speak I may have been able to give you some additional information and background which could help in your decision making and positioning. For example, your point about agricultural subsidies is somewhat off the mark as only one of the four current subsidy schemes is focused on the environment (The Agri Environment Scheme) and the latest iteration of this has largely watered down its delivery for nature.

Happy to have a chat, on or off the record, or answer any questions you may have. I will let you know what we decide to do and when the blog is published.

21/07/26

Hi *MWT*,

No problem at all. As mentioned the issue for me isn’t really the approach as I would just be publishing everything anyway (inline with my manifesto position), and such conversations are valuable irrespective of outcome as far as I’m concerned. However I do understand why the initial email might have spooked some, and so they may never make it to the opening gambit on the call. That was the only reason to mention it. As I’ve stated elsewhere online, the most valuable conversations I have on the doorsteps are with people who offer challenge. The main issue for me with regards to the Teams call is purely logistical. Not being office based… usually doing something different every day… in various nooks & grannies all over the island… often with poor signal… filthy, neck deep & under increasing time pressure to get projects completed + knock on 3500 doors before Sept is not conducive to setting up a presentable Teams call I’m afraid! That’s why I offered to just nip in and do it in person, job done. It might be doable via teams if you’re free early mornings, evenings or weekends?

The point with regard to agricultural support was on commercial viability generally. Stronger environmental protections and food security are only realistically achievable if they’re commercially viable. The shift way from production subsidies to the CCS initially introduced environmental targets, and the transition to ADS and AES (which was initially taken from the ADS budget) moved further in this direction. AES resulted in a reduction to ADS, so effectively a budgetary loss to most farmers. I am aware that AES targets have now been adjusted again, but the impression I had was that overall viability was still on a downward trajectory - this is reflected in the agri census data. This is certainly also the case in the conversations I am party to. The introduction of the AES resulted in reduced incomes, and that even some of the AES options we have used in the past were losing viability as they don’t cover the consequential losses. 

I’ve checked this position this evening by asking a number of farmers I know across the Island (at various scales and compositions) for their general take on the schemes. The response I’ve had so far indicate my thinking is correct.  

It is a shame after everything that happened during Covid, and with the true value of local production (economic and environmental) that food security is not taken more seriously. From my perspective that is mostly down to the core problem within the structure of government itself, which prevents the public from having agency over policy generally. Hopefully that is something we can change. 

Thanks again, 

VBR

James.

On the 14th of June 2026 I received an email from 'Isle of Pride' regarding the Isle of Pride Pledge. On the 15th of June I emailed back as requested. On the 12th July I emailed to see if my first email had been received. I’m not sure if my emails have ended up in a spam folder. I thought I should publish the communications so far (so that people can see my position), and update here if anything changes.  

14/06/26 - Dear candidate,

I hope you are well and are having a lovely weekend!

I am writing to you today on behalf of Manx charity Isle of Pride, which represents the Island’s LGBTQ+ community.

Looking towards the September General Election, we are inviting candidates to consider pledging their support towards making our Island a more welcoming, inclusive and safe place for all. To do this, we implore you to sign up to our ‘Pride Pledge’, which will act as a signpost to the community across the Isle of Man. 

We are by no means the first organisation around the world to launch such an initiative - indeed our friends at Liberate in Guernsey had their own ‘Rainbow Mark’ ahead of the General Election held there last year. But this will be a first here on the Isle of Man, and we invite you to be amongst the earliest to show your support.

Attached are more details, and a copy of our ‘Pride Pledge’ logo. Should you choose to take part, we invite you to use this across your printed materials, if you so wish.

Thank you for taking the time and consideration, we truly appreciate it.

We eagerly await your response, and are more than happy to facilitate further discussions, if that is something you’d like to arrange.

Lesh yeearreeyn share / With best wishes,

Isle of Pride Pledge

We would like to invite anyone standing for a seat in the House of Keys in September 2026 to pledge their support to the Isle of Man’s LGBTQ+ community.

To do this, we simply ask you to read through the below commitments, and if they align with you and your values, we invite you to promise to support us for the sake of a more welcoming, inclusive and safe Island. Pledging your support will offer a vital signpost for our Island’s queer community. In turn, we will provide you with an Isle of Pride pin to proudly wear, and we’ll also feature you in our supportive social media posts. We also encourage you to use the above logo in your printed materials.

Echoing the important groundwork of our friends in Liberate (the Guernsey-registered LGBTQ+ charity) we’re framing these as ‘asks’:

Ask 1. Nothing about us without us

Ask 2. Create an Island of equal rights

Ask 3. Education for all

Ask 4. Healthcare for all

Ask 5. Pride for all

We thank you for your time and consideration, and look forward to working in collaboration for the betterment of the entire Island community. Being an ally isn’t a passive act. We implore you to stand with us, and help us make the Isle of Man a place that is truly inclusive for all.

Ask 1. Nothing about us without us. Commit to engaging with the community on legislation that will affect us. If you’re being asked to create or vote on laws or policies that directly impact the Island’s LGBTQ+ community, we need to be in the room. Whether that’s via Isle of Pride directly, or through wider engagement with the community, our door is always open. We’re here to educate, without judgement or shame. If you don’t know - ask!

Ask 2. Create an Island of equal rights. Commit to protecting and promoting the development of legislation that protects the Island’s LGBTQ+ community. We’re not asking for preferential treatment, or promotion above others, just equality for all. We believe everyone has a right to be equal under the law, and so rights and privileges that are extended to our straight counterparts should in turn be extended to us. Whilst the Island has made great strides in recent decades, there is still so far to go. We echo this support for our friends in all marginalised communities.

Ask 3. Education for all. Commit to introducing truly inclusive LGBTQ+ education across our Island’s schools and educational settings. Controversies on-Island in recent years have clearly highlighted the weaknesses in our education system in terms of accurately communicating the realities of LGBTQ+ identities in an age-appropriate and factual manner. We would like the realities of LGBTQ+ identities, families, relationships and history to be taught in a respectful manner, suited to the Isle of Man setting. Support the introduction of Rainbow Clubs across our Island’s secondary schools, giving children the opportunities to ask any questions they may have in an opening, welcoming and supportive environment.

Ask 4. Healthcare for all. We are currently in discussions with Manx Care over the future of LGBTQ+ healthcare on the Isle of Man, including the development of a clear gender pathway. We ask you to commit to supporting us in this mission. Funding for healthcare is a constant source of contention and debate in the Island’s parliament, not least due to the Manx Care Mandate vs Operating Plan, and we are acutely aware of the pressures on the Island’s health and social care system. We want to move forward in a realistic manner, but we need to see real change.

Ask 5. Pride for all. A limited number of openly LGBTQ+ people actually stand for office. In the same way it is heartening to see so many women standing for office, we would like to see this change. But to make that happen, you need to pave the way. We ask you to commit to being an ally. Being someone who supports us even when it’s hard. Isle of Pride commits to our Pride events being settings that are open to all, no matter how they identify. We envision a world where this truly goes both ways.

15/06/26 - Dear *ISLE OF PRIDE*,

Thank you for your email and the information. I assume you have spotted that the entire thrust of my campaign is that we need fundamental changes to the system of government in the IOM, in order to implement true democratic authority, accountability and transparency - across all areas of government. At the very core of that idea are the principles of equality, agency and freedom, which of course places me in alignment with the core ideas you are presenting. 

From reading your pledge I therefore have the following questions…

Are you able to give some examples of the types of legislation or policy you have in mind with regard to the ‘nothing about us, without us’ position, and what changes or additions to legislation or policy you feel are needed with regard to equality? 

Can you explain where the current education policy falls down as far as you’re concerned, and what specific changes you’d like to see? I have two teenagers in school, and so I have an (admittedly filtered) awareness of the current provision. On the surface their understanding of equality issues seems far more advanced than mine at that age (though that doesn’t come entirely from school of course), and there is obviously always room for improvement. 

Can you detail what you mean with regard to a ‘clear gender pathway?’ You’ll have to forgive my ignorance there, I have googled but I don’t want to misinterpret.

My gut feeling is that any government activity which directly concerns any minority group should of course directly consult that group, and that above anything the principle of full democratic agency and absolute transparency is paramount. 

I fully appreciate that position essentially means consideration of minority issues is always ultimately at the whim of the majority. However the predominant alternative position (where control is restricted to whichever political persuasion / interest group is currently in power) always has the potential to swing both ways. Which basically means there is no security in anything. 

I think this is what we can see in many places around the world right now. For most of my life it felt like things were progressing on issues of equality, and then all of a sudden it felt like the pendulum swung and we are definitely in regression in certain areas.

My feeling is that while true democracy will always require any issue to be won on broad merit rather than the fine morality of equality, that ultimately provides a greater protection in the long run. 

Does it sound like that is a principle you (as a group) do / can support? 

Final question for now, can you confirm you are happy for all communications to be published in relation to my candidacy?

Thanks again,

VBR

James.

*Edit to add... info not included in email - I have since found out that there is apparently already a Rainbow Club established in QE2.    

12/07/26 - Email to *ISLE OF PRIDE*

Hello!

I sent over an email on the 15th of June in response to your initial email. 

Just wanted to check if it had been received / not ended up in your spam folder.

Thank you!

VBR

James.

So… Keir Starmer announced his resignation this week. Only a few days before that, the Swiss held a publicly called national vote on capping their population at 10 million people. How are these two events linked, and what does it have to do with the Isle of Man? Well, there is a reasonable argument that a significant factor in Mr. Starmer’s resignation is the long shadow of Brexit, alongside continuing pressure from anti-establishment political movements generally (e.g., significant recent losses in local elections). The fact that the UK has had six Prime Ministers since Brexit, versus four in the 30+ years before it, gives another indication that something fundamental has shifted. Whatever your opinion on Brexit—and on anti-EU or anti-establishment politics as a whole—the factors which led to this situation in the first place are fairly clear. They were, and remain, essential issues of agency and equality. [1, 3, 4, 5] 

The root issue is the idea that people felt disenfranchised from decisions that directly impacted them, believing that the division of costs and benefits across the EU was unequal (whether those ideas were accurate or not). It therefore seems reasonable to postulate that the established political system is struggling to reconcile agency and equality with increasingly interconnected and vociferous populations. Whatever your opinion on those attempting to fill the political void, replacing one flavor of disenfranchisement with another does not look like an efficient or stable, long-term solution.

So, what about Switzerland? The first thing to note is that Switzerland never joined the EU in the first place. This was primarily because the Swiss were not prepared to give up their absolute, fairly unique form of political agency: the Swiss population can call a public vote at any time, on any topic. That level of local control is obviously not compatible with how the EU system works. Does that mean Switzerland is the "black sheep" of Europe? Not really. Switzerland simply maintains a distinct set of bilateral arrangements and agreements with the EU, which it negotiates to suit its own interests. Of course, you could argue that Switzerland has missed out on some benefits of EU membership, but it does not really look that way on the ground or in the economic statistics. It is certainly interesting to imagine what a unified Europe would look like if the EU had adopted the Swiss model, rather than the Swiss rejecting the EU system—perhaps we would see more of the benefits and fewer of the negatives. [5, 6, 7] 

But if everything is so rosy in Switzerland, why are they still holding referenda on immigration, which remains one of the hottest topics in global politics? The Swiss model does not eliminate politics. Switzerland faces similar demographic challenges with immigration as many other wealthy, aging nations. It should be no surprise, therefore, that voices within the highly conservative corners of Switzerland want to introduce stronger immigration controls. When you read that Swiss citizens—not the government—called a public vote on a 10-million population cap, it is easy to assume how it would end in the current political climate. Yet, it was rejected by a clear majority. [5, 6, 8, 9] 

To further clarify, Switzerland already maintains some of the most restrictive residency laws in the world. The current population sits around 9.1 million—not far off the proposed cap—and over 25% of these residents were not born in the country. Furthermore, less than 1% of this immigrant population is eligible to vote due to those strict controls. So, what happened? Compromise happened. Everyone got to have their say, everyone knows exactly how the decision was made, and those who lost know they are currently in the minority. The government recognizes this as a serious issue it must address to avoid future referenda. Most importantly of all, if the situation changes in a few years, the public can always call another vote. Is it a perfect system that leaves everyone happy? Absolutely not. Is it far better than a political system that disenfranchises people, lurching inefficiently back and forth to maintain that disconnect? I will leave that for you to decide. [5, 6, 7, 10] 

How does this relate to the Isle of Man? The Island also has a distinct problem with political agency. We lack clear power over our political direction, and this lack of counterbalance and accountability is having the same effect on the Island as elsewhere, just on a smaller scale. A lack of agency fuels perceptions of inequality. When combined with a restrictive approach to communication and information access, it becomes a recipe for inefficiency at best, and significant social disruption at worst. The real tragedy is that the Manx political system is actually beautiful in many respects. The idea of direct local representation coming together to amalgamate the will of the people is far superior to the disenfranchisement that often comes with supporting a rigid political party. The only piece missing is true political agency over what we are offered after an election, and a mechanism to ensure it is actually delivered. That is how I came to the idea of applying a little Swiss logic to the Manx method. It could create a beautiful hybrid. Who knows—maybe we could show the rest of the world a better way.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org

[3] https://www.nytimes.com

[4] https://edition.cnn.com

[5] https://www.admin.ch

[6] https://www.weforum.org

[7] https://www.aljazeera.com

[8] https://www.youtube.com

[9] https://popular-votes.admin.ch

[10] https://www.youtube.com

When you declare that you're intending to stand for election you receive a confirmation email with information from the IOMG elections team. For GE2026 this email included a letter sent by the Attorney General to all Tynwald Members regarding the consenting process under the Marine Infrastructure Management Act (MIMA). As I understand it the letter is being forwarded to all candidates because the legal advice it contains could also effectively apply to any member of the next administration. I will post a copy of the letter below. 

There has unfortunately been quite a lot of hyperbole suggesting that this letter amounts to a gag on the democratic process. That is not correct.

The letter is a piece of legal advice, relating to a very specific law, and the process currently in progress to assess the Mooir Vannin proposal under that law. This is effectively the second stage of a three stage process. The first stage was the initial Agreement for Lease (AfL), signed in 2015. That gave Ørsted the surveying rights, and exclusivity with regards to any future development opportunity if the subsequent stages were passed. The AfL is not the right to build. The second stage (MIMA - where we are right now) only decides whether the wind farm is or is not environmentally and structurally permissible under the act. It does not form any agreement between IOMG & Ørsted. If the application passes the MIMA stage only then will it proceed to the final stage of negotiating a commercial lease with IOMG for permission to install turbines. If the financial details, tax structures, or risk allocations cannot be mutually agreed upon in the next stage, the project will die on the drawing board. The final stage of negotiating the commercial lease is where the next house should be able to directly influence the outcome either way. As things stand that right effectively rests with DOI as the commercial landlord. And so we return to the problem of a non-unified government with no accountability. All of the above is based on the information that is currently available to the public. Of course the full terms of the AfL are not actually public, and so the information void gets filled with misinformation. Hence the public does not trust IOMG (based on past performance and the refusal to publish such information). A corrosive and divisive vicious circle.  

The MIMA process is effectively equivalent to a marine planning application. The position with regard to pre declared positions & ‘conflicts of interest’ is therefore very similar.  If a member of government has a conflict of interest (such as a pre-declared position or business interest) they are not permitted to take part in related planning decisions in order to maintain the impartiality of the process. That is good logic, otherwise the entire system grinds to a halt or becomes chronically corrupt as clearly political influence can be used for ill as much as good. The idea of allowing politicians direct influence over planning applications irrespective of conflicts of interest is inherently dangerous, as has been proven many times in many different jurisdictions.  The worst case scenario is that without a system attempting to avoid ‘conflicting interests’ any or all politicians can play the system for their own gain, in any direction (including pretending they are opposed to something knowing that might actually increase the chances of it coming to pass). 

We should also bear in mind at this point that the Mooir Vannin proposal is not really about energy in the first instance as far as IOMG is concerned. The current proposal contains no plan to supply the IOM with energy (though it has been considered as an option). It is about money. It is in essence a business proposal to IOMG, for the lease of public space in return for money. IOMG is currently running a budget deficit of over £100m a year, and eating in to our national reserve growth. That is the publicly known starting point for the negotiation.  

The main difference with regard to the marine infrastructure act vs. land planning acts is that the decision rests with the Council of Ministers, and not a single member of government. I am therefore currently unclear how that situation, and the advice given in the letter, meshes with the government code (which details the exceptions to collective responsibility based on pre-declared positions). I am also unclear as to how the advice applies to the fact that some current members already have explicit positions regarding onshore and offshore wind in their 2021 manifestos. I emailed the AG's office on the 12th June to ask these questions. I have not yet received a response, but will update this article if I do.

The point of the AG’s letter was that the MIMA process is enshrined in law, and so government will have no choice but to prevent anyone who does declare an explicit position from being able to influence the decision, or else risk exposing the entire process to legal challenge which could ultimately see the final decision on this stage made in the Privy Council (in the UK). 

So… any candidate trying to make their position overt either way with regard to Mooir Vannin at this stage is being counterproductive if they actually want to influence the MIMA decision. You could end up either removing yourself entirely from the MIMA process, or pushing the IOM in to a costly (and pointless) legal battle - which could ultimately be decided on in the UK. If we’re not happy with the MIMA process... Tynwald created it and can change it, however the safeguards against conflicts of interest are there for good reason and work both ways. If we're not happy about the fact that the AfL was signed by DOI in the first place, without a clear stratergy or policy in place, the only viable option is to fundamentally change the way government is structured and operates. At present there is nothing stopping the same thing happening again tomorrow with regards to any proposal at all - from nuclear waste processing to covering the entire island in wind turbines.  

The only sensible approach is to say that the MIMA process must be allowed to run in accordance with the law, and that the next administration should demand that the negotiation of the final commercial lease should be subject to the approval of Tynwald. That is not currently the case. It would only be possible if enough members choose to hold government to account. In other words there is no guarantee. It would effectively require a push from within CoMin. Based on previous form, and in light of the IOMG financial position that seems highly unlikely. If the position was that all energy policy must be comparatively assessed in an IOM context, on the basis of a full spectrum of pros and cons (social, economic, environmental, security, etc… which has not happened in this case, but could be part of the next phase of negotiation)... and that we must have a programme for government (which includes energy policy) approved by the public, and that all government policy and action should be open to public control (as I have outlined in my manifesto) - then things would be different. If the format of government I am proposing were already in place all the AfL information would already be published, the public of the IOM would already know what the proposal actually is, and would always be in the position to know that the best solution had been found (or not, and rejected), in any context. Raging over the MIMA process is a red herring. If we do not change the way government operates there is effectively no guaranteed way to stop the train. 

The letter...

https://drive.google.com/file/d/19AncXEuM2p2Y2Uou4fG2_60FBreeQYCt/view?usp=drivesdk

EMAILS:

12/06/2026 - 

Dear Attorney General’s Office,

My name is James Hampton and I have declared as a candidate for the general election this year, in the constituency of Glenfaba & Peel. I have this week seen news articles relating to a letter which is reported to have been issued by the Attorney General, to current members of the House of Keys. The thrust of the letter is that members should be cautious about expressing opinions which could be perceived to be biased, with regard to the live statutory process concerning the Mooir Vannin Wind Farm - which is all noted and understood. 

The letter also indicated that the matter is likely to be decided by the next administration, and so I have assumed that the advice also applies to prospective candidates, insofar as it is possible that any could in theory be part of the decision making body. I therefore have a number of questions following on from the content of the letter which I hope you may be able to assist with, as they pertain to the detail of what would or would not be perceived to be a position of bias - and so should probably be considered by candidates such as myself. 

1. A number of the current members already have declared positions regarding onshore and offshore wind farms within their 2021 manifestos. At least one is explicit in its position. How does this situation mesh with the advice contained within the letter? The central message of my email to Members message

2. It is my understanding that the exemptions to collective responsibility contained within the government code are intended to allow members to adhere to commitments made to the public during the democratic process of election.  How does the advice given in the letter mesh with the exemptions from collective responsibility listed within the government code, specifically with regard to pre-declared positions and unresolved policy decisions? 

Thank you very much for your time and I look forward to your response.

VBR

James Hampton.

29/06/2026 - RESPONSE

Dear Mr Hampton

Thank you for your email of 12 June 2016.

For ease of reference I have pasted below a copy of my email of 22 April 2026 addressed to Tynwald members to which you refer.

As my email references, the Council of Ministers is the decision making body as to whether any application under the Marine Infrastructure Management Act 2016  (“the Act”) should be approved and a marine infrastructure consent granted (or not, as the case may be). I doubt that there are many who would disagree with the proposition that any decision making process involving a public authority should be fair, lawful, defensible, and trusted by the persons involved in the application (for or against) and by the public generally.

In determining an application the Council of Ministers will consider the report of independent Examiners who will have examined the application in detail and whose report will make recommendations as to the determination of the application. For that consideration to be fair and reasonable the members of the Council ought not to be constrained by any pre-determination – if a member is on record as being implacably either in favour of or against the application there is the strong suggestion (and certainly the perception) that they will not thereafter be able to consider and determine the application on its merits with an open mind and having due regard for the matters which must be taken into account*. In turn this would likely enable a person dissatisfied with the decision (again, whether in support or against) to challenge the process arguing that the decision has not been made reasonably.

*(Section 36 of the Act governs the manner in which the Council of Ministers is to determine an application which includes reference to those matters for which it must have regard (including the Examiners report) and a requirement for production of a statement of reasons for either granting or refusing an application. In certain circumstances (and the present application by Orsted falls into the category), a consent granted by the Council of Ministers cannot come into operation “unless approved by Tynwald”.

In my view a member of the Council of Ministers who has – prior to the application being considered by the Council - already reached a decision as to whether the application should fail or succeed would need recuse themselves from the Council in its decision making role. Not to do so  would threaten the integrity of the statutory process.

 As to your second question, it is correct to say that while the Council of Ministers operates under collective responsibility, there are recognised exceptions to the principle including where a member has a pre-declared position: as I say above, in the context of our discussion, that would warrant a Minister recusing themselves from the process. My email to Tynwald members mentioned also that in the event (perhaps because of the number of recusals) the Council of Ministers becomes inquorate, it may be necessary for acting Ministers to be appointed from Tynwald members who in the same way as any member of the Council of Ministers would also need to consider whether there is any reason preventing them from participating in the decision making process.

Yours sincerely

Walter Wannenburgh

In December 2024, Tynwald agreed to set up an internal committee to look at how our budget is set and agreed. In 2026, the report came back. It essentially confirmed that by the time ‘The Budget’ is debated in Tynwald the big decisions have mostly already been made. The report notes that the laws which govern this process give Treasury and CoMin significant authority, but say very little about how the process should actually be carried out (especially with regard to the will of the public), or about who is accountable.

The report clarifies that the process is mostly confidential, rushed, and exempt from amendment by the time it reaches Tynwald – it is an all-or-nothing deal - a gun to the head. Our elected representatives are basically forced into agreement, or risk being the ‘boat rockers’. Clearly, that is not a good basis for the best outcomes. The report notes that all of this effectively puts the IOM well below international standards, and that once the budget is agreed there is very little in the way of accurate reporting as to how it is implemented. The report made 25 recommendations for improvement.

In May 2026, the Council of Ministers responded. The majority of the recommendations – specifically all of those that would have addressed the valid concerns raised – were rejected. They were rejected mostly on the basis that implementation would represent too significant a change at that point in the administration, and that the proposed schedule was too optimistic. The response also suggested that the report should have recognised the ‘success’ of the current process over many years. This is a process which has been running a £100m+ budget deficit (eating into the growth of our reserves) for over 14 years, whilst prioritising numerous unpopular capital schemes. And so, the chance of any improvement or change in the way the most significant decisions are made by government was firmly kicked into the long grass. Someone else’s problem. Our problem. Only a fundamental change in the way government operates will allow this bull to be taken by the horns.

https://tynwald.org.im/spfile?file=/business/opqp/sittings/20212026/2026-PP-0060.pdf

https://tynwald.org.im/index.php/spfile?file=/business/opqp/sittings/20212026/2026-GD-0059.pdf