Last week's historic no-confidence vote may have failed but it succeeded in raising questions as to whether the Ministerial system of government is fit for purpose or if a return to the Board system would better serve the Manx public.
In our new guest blog, seasoned Manx political commentator Alistair Ramsay takes a trip down memory lane to look at whether things really were better in the 'good old days'...
The Isle of Man has just seen the first motion of no confidence in a chief minister since the ministerial system began in the mid-1980s. It was unsuccessful, but this is still an opportunity to reflect on how that system is working out.
Not well, according to former minister Julie Edge MHK, who believes it is all about power and egos. The old board structure was more accountable, she claimed during the confidence debate.
[The Board system] ... was a chaos of disjointed committees in which it was impossible to identify who was responsible for what.
As someone who saw the board system in action I beg to differ. It was a chaos of disjointed committees in which it was impossible to identify who was responsible for what.
The ministerial set-up has focused power and responsibility within the Council of Ministers, which is collectively accountable to Tynwald.
But the government is still not collectively accountable to the public. This is the fundamental flaw in Manx politics.
MHKs are elected and re-elected on a local basis, as individuals. Once in the House they deal with national issues, for which they have no mandate. They act together, though their collective performance is never subject to the verdict of the people.
So MHKs operate at a national level with no mandate and no accountability. This freedom is convenient for them, but the general public is disenfranchised.
The democratic disconnect has become more obvious over the past ten years, with a series of major policy decisions that had no backing from the electorate.
These include the nationalisation of the Steam Packet, the creation of Manx Care and an economic strategy based on growing the population to 100,000. All changes that were simply not on the agenda at the preceding general election.
The Island is now struggling with how it can afford high quality health and social care in a low tax environment. There is no mandate for any of the answers to that question because the public has not been asked.
Our elections ought to give the politicians a steer on these big issues. On the role and size of government, tax and spending, the economy, conservation and development. On what version of the Isle of Man we want to live in.
But what happens here every five years is not a single election about the condition of the country. It is a series of twelve local popularity contests, the outcome of which is impossible to translate into any national policy direction.
But what happens here every five years is not a single election about the condition of the country. It is a series of twelve local popularity contests, the outcome of which is impossible to translate into any national policy direction.
The time has come to treat Manx voters like adults and allow them to choose the future of their Island. This will require the creation of a national framework around elections to provide for an informed all-island debate on the issues and options.
How we achieve this is open for discussion. It could be through the growth of parties, public election of the Chief Minister, or even making the Isle of Man one big constituency.
None of these are perfect solutions. But the current system is no longer fit for purpose and it has to change.
We cannot carry on electing MHKs on a solely local basis and letting them do what they like at the national level.
Comments