Congratulations to Chris Thomas on becoming Chief Minister. Now we can await the appointment of his Council of Ministers and he has already indicated that some first-term Members will be getting the nod.  Of course, it’s not a given that just because the Chief Minister asks someone to take one of the executive hot seats that they will necessarily agree to the task.

Clearly we all hope that the Ministers chosen for each portfolio will have some understanding of their new department, clearly demonstrated leadership skills and the ability to make clear decisions. But perhaps there’s more to it than that?  What about the actual offices that they could be sitting in within their respective Departments? 

The Chief Minister’s office is the best appointed, with an ensuite shower room and kitchenette, conference table, video conferencing facilities, sofa seating area and the direct link corridor to Council of Ministers (CoMin) chamber. But what of the others?  Welcome to the ‘rate my office’ guide for new Ministers…

The Cabinet Office (CabO) Minster has a dark and dingy corner office on the inside of the quadrangle.  It would suit someone who disliked daylight, sunlight or any light at all.  With just enough space to fit the Minister and a desk, and an outlook across towards the rest of the CabO teams, it’s not got a lot to recommend it apart from the very short walk to the CoMin Chamber – probably all of about 15 paces! 

Hands down the absolutely best view from an office is in the Department of Infrastructure (DoI).  The office may be tiny, shared with the political members and with enough room for a meeting of 4 people only, but the panoramic view across Douglas Bay with the Tower of Refuge and Snaefell in the background just can’t be beaten.  Better still there’s a chance of spotting dolphins in the Bay, cruise ships and being at the Sea Terminal as the TT visitors arrive and hearing the roar of the bikes as they disembark is a thrill.  There’s also a coffee bar and shop downstairs, so the Minister can treat their team to a round of hot drinks.  Parking can be an issue, with cars often being damaged by other car park users or by the sea crashing over the wall, but with a DoI parking permit at least the Minister can be there for longer than an hour without being ticketed.

By contrast, the previous Minister in Dept Environment, Food & Agriculture (DEFA) eschewed an office, and the space was repurposed to be a quiet meeting room.  In an open plan office, quiet enclosed spaces are at a premium, hot desking is the norm and so the Minister ended up without a dedicated office.  There is a shared kitchen and a rest room upstairs with a sandwich delivery. The Thie Slieau Whallian building is probably the nicest of the buildings in the Govt Estate and the Garey ny Cloie gardens are lovely for a walk to clear your head.

Upstairs in the same building is Dept Education, Sports & Culture (DESC). Again space is at a premium, but on the first floor the views of Slieau Whallian and the woodland are even better.  Still not convenient for eateries, but Greens at St Johns is only a short drive away and very popular.  Travelling outside of Douglas for either DEFA or DESC can present problems with scheduling meetings, with half an hour needed to move from Legislative Buildings to their respective Departments, the DEFA and DESC Ministers would do well to invest in an electric vehicle rather than rack up huge fuel bills with their trips back and forward.

Dept Home Affairs & Justice (DHAJ) is also an out of town set up, although the travel time to get there from the Government Offices is only around 10 minutes.  The outlook is quite pretty across Cronkbourne Cricket Club.  The Minister’s office is not a bad space even though its in a pretty old building, but the massive wartime Board table is truly a thing to behold.  Imagine the history that you are sitting at, imagine the conversations that have happened in that Board room. Parking is OK, just watch for speeding traffic along Tromode Road as you pull out of the car park.

The Dept for Enterprise (DfE) Minister used to be able to boast the largest office of all Ministers (and yes for some size really matters!).  With a conference table to seat 10, large screen video conferencing, comfortable sofas and coffee tables, it’s a well-appointed space to receive visitors.  The DfE were due to move out of St George’s Court though to another central Douglas location, and it remains to be seen if the Minister will manage to get such an expansive space in the next building.  At least the new office won’t be overlooking the cemetery at St George’s church! 

The worst deal for an office has to be that for the Dept of Health & Social Care (DHSC).  Here the Minister can enjoy a tiny space, just big enough to hold a desk and a couple of spare chairs, with a view over the multistorey carpark. It’s often dark and would be suited to someone who doesn’t suffer from Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD), even the Boardroom has no outside windows (although there is a very cool glass wall that turns opaque at the flick of a switch). There is underground parking but the spaces are way too tight for many modern vehicles, so the new DHSC Minister would be well advised to leave their car in the Tynwald car park (for which members now have to pay) and walk along to their Dept.  It’s close to the Legislative Buildings, but can seem a long way on a wet and stormy day!

And what of the talk of a new Ministerial portfolio?  It’s within the Chief Minister’s gift to appoint another Minister as per Mr Cannan’s appointment of Mr Crookall as Minister without portfolio.  Without a portfolio, without a department and without anywhere to sit!  A space was hurriedly found for Mr Crookall, but it always felt like it was temporary, as it turned out to be. 
​
I’m sure all the Ministerial appointees will be thinking about what they can bring to the role, and what they can achieve on behalf of our country and us residents, but perhaps they might want to have half an eye on their potential working conditions too.
 

The Question Paper for the House of Keys sitting on October 13th 2026 has now been published.  This is the first opportunity that some of the newly sworn in first-time Members will have had to table questions. It is interesting that some members have not tabled a question at all, with only 18 questions making the paper.  It’s probably understandable for the two candidates and the Speaker not to table a question, but that leaves three Members not taking advantage of the chance to question the Chief Minister candidates prior to the election. I wonder why?

Although new Members have attended induction training for the last couple of weeks, it is clear that some of them are still lacking some understanding in how executive government, parliament and legislation all work and their relationships to each other. I think there is some naivety on display.

Some of the questions ask for commitments to action that the new Chief Minister simply couldn’t agree to, without going against legal advice.  Take the question from the Garff Member, Mr Henthorn, about the Agreement for Lease (AfL) for the Mooir Vannin windfarm. The Chief Minister does not hold that document.  Although it was signed by the Department of Economic Development, it was later handed to the Department of Infrastructure (DoI).  So the Chief Minister is not in possession of the document, but the new Minister for DoI will be in due course.  The Chief Minister could seek to direct the DoI Minister to release the AfL, but the DoI Minister will find that he/she is in possession of legal advice that means only a redacted form would be released. This is due to the commercial sensitivity of the other clauses.  Ministers will be required to handle lots of confidential documentation. Legal advice is always provided and Ministers who would choose to ignore the legal advice put the Isle of Man Government at risk of court action from parties to agreements. What would the House do if it were to inspect the unredacted document anyway?  Are Members specialists in lease agreements within the offshore energy sector?  What do Members think they can do to change the AfL, without undermining confidence in Government to make any agreement?  This has the potential to seriously damage business and investor confidence in the Isle of Man.  It will make the IoM Government difficult to make agreements with. The Afl was legally signed at the time by persons with the proper authority.  Government must stick to it's word.

Many of the questions come with price tags attached.  Mrs Maltby (Douglas South) asking for expansion of apprenticeships is a point in case. There is no doubt that changes made to apprenticeship schemes (rates paid in each year, taking them away from larger companies) has undermined the programme and we do clearly need a good apprenticeship route. But there’s a cost. Similarly Dr Glover (Onchan) is asking for an expensive extension to Childcare Credit. Laudable and would be much welcomed by working families but expensive to deliver, and with restricted childcare actually available likely to cause a lot of frustration for families trying to find places.  Mr Saunders (Douglas East) is asking about mental health and suicide prevention, but his question seems to miss how much work and investment was carried out in the last administration (£3million invested in the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services, Mental Health support in schools, Suicide Prevention Strategy approved), and perhaps he needs to have looked at what is already in place and asked about the funding for the Suicide Prevention Strategy deliverables?  After the last budget and the tax threshold changes that reduced government revenue by £25 million (forcing a further drawdown on reserves), there’s very little room in the budget for more spending. 

Mr Broad’s (Ayre & Michael) question around the debt burden is a little confusing.  The Island has very little debt (mostly from bond issues) and plans are in place to pay those bonds as they become due.  In fact the Island holds more in Reserves than it does in Debts – which is an unusual position for many Governments around the world and puts us in the company of Singapore, Norway, Kuwait and the other Crown Dependencies.  Mr Cochrane (Middle) also chooses to ask about Government finance and the structural deficit, although rather missing the point that the Pillar Two tax receipts, expected to be around £35 million, were included in the last budget anyway…so Pillar Two is not the financial salve that he seems to hope it will be.  The structural deficit exists even with Pillar Two receipts, and indeed was made worse by changing the tax allowance thresholds.  The tax cut is something which Mr Thomas seems to mention quite a lot at the moment, without pointing out that this made the draw down on Reserves even larger in the last budget. He ordered the tax threshold changes without addressing Government expenditure. Less collected in, but still the same payments out makes a deficit worse.  The budget was more unbalanced by his action.

I think a lot of new Members really don’t understand the structure of Tynwald and how the concept of ‘all working collegiately together for the good of the Island’ would actually be a really poor model to aspire to, as suggested by the question from Mrs Baptist (Glenfaba & Peel).  Once the Chief Minister is elected and selects their Council of Ministers, those Members make up the executive government of the Island.  It’s then up to the rest of the Members (the backbenchers) to do the scrutiny and to ‘hold Government to account’.  For proper scrutiny to work, there must be a willingness to ask the difficult questions, to push Ministers to explain and defend policy, to take a full role in the Tynwald Policy Review Committees (PRC) and call Ministers and Officers to give evidence, provide data and to work within the PRC to evaluate that information.  You just can’t do proper scrutiny if you’re all busy sitting around holding hands and singing Kumbaya.  Members are there as parliamentarians and should behave in a professional manner towards other members and Officers at all times, but there’s no need for a group hug.

Mr Davison’s (Glenfaba & Peel) question illustrates that he really hasn’t understood how the separation of powers, works maybe a little refresher on the Latimer House principles would be in order?  I’m pretty sure this would have been covered in the Induction training but if not I’m sure there will be copies of Prof Kermode’s book on Ministerial Government lying around.  Perhaps time to have a read?  The Council of Ministers debate, discuss and advise on papers from the different Ministers regarding the functions, operations and legislation for their respective Departments.  Policy development is carried out within the Departments (Minister consulting with other political Members and Officers).  Ministers are in CoMin to represent their Departments and to seek agreement from CoMin as another layer of check on what they have prepared.  The House of Keys is a representative democracy.  Members are sent to the House not as Delegates (told what to say by their constituents) but as the Representative from the constituency.  They are elected for their judgement, not to relay instructions.  Members owe their constituents their careful use of their judgement and they betray them if they sacrifice it to opinion (Edmund Burke, 1774).  A Member sitting in the House is there to decide matters for the whole country.  A Member who is trying to bargain just for local interests will be selling the country short.  Members have the time, briefings and committee work that voters generally lack, so we expect them to reach better informed decisions on complex issues, not just be a mouthpiece for the loudest voices in their patch.
 
Then there are the questions that ask for significant changes in legislation. Mr Kemp (Rushen) is asking for the new executive to have agreed national priorities, developed and agreed programmes for delivery and to have drafted, consulted upon and progressed the relevant legislation through both Branches within a year.  Admirable, but hopelessly unachievable and I would by wary of any candidate who would agree to such a commitment.  The timeframe is unrealistic and the task is impossible. 

P.S. Government is always accountable for delivery – see earlier note regarding Tynwald PRC functions.  Maybe Mr Kemp missed that part of the Induction training?
 

One of the joys I find in writing these blogs is the chance to position myself as a critical friend.  I’m supportive of good governance and want the very best for our Island including an effective Tynwald, but I can be candid about the weaknesses I see as events unfold.  The current candidates for Chief Minister have published their policy proposals and engaged in hustings, first from their fellow Members of the House of Keys, and then with the Great Manx Public.

The vote will be called on Tuesday 13th, after opening statements, another round of questions and a closing statement.  Members have already had 3 hours of questions in their hustings, but there won’t be that many asked on Tuesday, when Members are limited to one each.  I suspect the candidates will have strategically placed questions with their respective supporters. It’s a skill to ask a question of both candidates that serves to promote one but not the other. And as one of the candidates themselves has already stated, they are both quite similar. 

There has been much made about what the job needs, although the characteristics that the candidates seem to be offering perhaps don’t align with what the job actually does need.  The Chief Minister not only heads up our executive branch of government, but has a wider looking role. There’s not much mention by either candidate so far of their ability to act as a national figure head or their aptitude for it.

As Chief Minister they will select their Council of Ministers and Chairs of Statutory Boards.  I think it’s pretty clear from the hustings that jobs for votes have already been offered to certain parties.  I worry about how much the hunt for votes and support has clouded the candidate’s careful assessment of whether a particular Member has the right temperament, intelligence and capability to do the job.  That might be a particularly hard judgement to make for someone who has never served in Government before.  Instead jobs will be awarded to those who lobby loudest for them and promise a vote.  This is not the most rational way to create a Council of Ministers.

There seems to be much agreement between the Candidates about the need to tackle housing, make government more efficient, strengthen the economy, improve health and invest in education and infrastructure.  However, neither of them is talking about how we pay for these things. The Efficiency Programme in the last administration was great at identifying projects that would save us money in the long run, but only after some investment up front. Efficiency changes, such as taking services online to reduce printing and speed up handling, are rarely welcomed by our communities. Efficiency changes need investment and need a strategic direction; just airily waving your arm around and saying we need to streamline government isn’t the most convincing pitch.

So the million dollar question (or the £100 million structural deficit question) is how do candidates propose to fund all the things that they want to do?

I’m just going to step aside a little and make a comment about how the last administration was also trying to tackle the same things.  Alf Cannan pursued a Jersey style Housing Association – until it emerged that it would cost well over £1.2 million to set up (a new Board, several hundred staff transferred with no guarantee over their employment contracts, new premises needed, fleet, Government Technology Services and Office of Human Resources support still required – add another £1m or so).  In Jersey, Andium provides a return to the  government of around £30 million per annum, which to me feels like an additional tax on some of the poorest in society.  Surely social housing should run at cost, not for government profit?

Housing aside, the last administration had a Recruitment Control Framework in place to ensure that only necessary job vacancies were filled.  The Efficiency Programme identified a number of possible workstreams.  And Treasury held Department budgets to a minimal CPI uplift, even when wage rises were higher, forcing the Departments to cut roles and find efficiencies within their workforce and activities. Most Departments came in on budget most years, a testament to the Ministers, political members and senior leadership teams for achieving some pretty impressive budget management.

Strengthening the economy has been an ongoing factor for years.  Moody’s (the credit rating organization) recognise the diversity of our various GDP earning sectors as one of the strengths of the Manx economy.  The Department for Enterprise (DfE), and Department for Environment, Food and Agriculture (DEFA) have handed out millions of Government money to support economic growth. DfE has moved legislation on behalf of various sectors to help improve their efficient operation (Data Asset Foundation Act, Financial Services Act and Retirement Benefits Schemes Act). And to be blunt, that’s probably the most core thing that Government does, make, amend or repeal legislation to allow business to find markets, expand their client base and increase their earnings.

Health funding has been massively uplifted over the last 5 years and even those working in Health Care will tell you that funding isn’t really the issue.  Archaic contracts, recruitment challenges and outdated working practices have more impact on the provision of things like GP appointments.  And a review of the relationship between DHSC and Manx Care has already been commissioned and is due to be delivered later this year.

So, leaving aside the fact that much of the issues being championed by the candidates are already being addressed, both candidates seem to either be ignorant of the progress that is already being made, or willfully trying to distance themselves from it. And as for ‘quick wins’ do you really think that all previous Ministers haven’t looked for quick wins?

Both candidates suggest that they have a mandate for ‘Change’ but I’m not convinced that is necessarily true.  8 Members of the Keys didn’t stand again.  Of the Members that did, over half were re-elected. So does that really count as a mandate for change?  We all know that there are two things the Great Manx Public don’t like, firstly, the way things are and secondly, change!  But whoever heads up the next Council of Ministers, they will need to lean heavily on experienced Members.

Neither candidate has clearly defined what that change looks like and it’s a dangerous world to step away from known structures without defining where you are going to.  I am not sure you can advocate for a change agenda without having experienced or fully understood the structure and working practices of the organization you are trying to change. Can you really ‘hit the ground running’ when you admit you’ll have to spend the first few months collecting the evidence?  The key question here is what is the evidence for the new structure that these candidates think is warranted.

The primary role of Tynwald is as legislative body.  The Cannan administration inherited a mess from the Quayle administration who passed dozens of Bills in their last year.  Largely they were able to produce a bonanza of Bills because all the Bills were slimmed down and relied heavily on secondary legislation (Regulations) to bring them into force.  So the Cannan administration inherited an already crowded legislative programme with a legacy backlog to be tackled.  It’s a total red herring to claim that Private Member’s Bills had somehow derailed Government, as the drafting resource available for PMBs is strictly limited. 

It’s interesting to see the experienced Member trying to distance himself from Government, when he has previously held 3 ministerial positions.  He has been dismissed from CoMin for acting in a way that was at odds with collective responsibility, dismissed from DoI for not reforming the department at the speed expected and then ended up in Treasury when the Chief Minister wanted to break the Island Plan promise over the Minimum Wage increases and felt compelled to push through a reckless tax-giveaway budget in election year, costing government £25 million of recurring revenue and increasing the drawdown on reserves. Chris Thomas was brought in to be a ‘yes man’ for Alf Cannan present rapid modifications to the budget. Hardly a glorious track record.

But the first-term candidate has history within Tynwald too.  After an unsuccessful bid to join Legislative Council a few years ago, the very intemperate email that she sent to MHKs who didn’t vote for her caused much alarm on the Members’ floor of the Legislative Building.  Does anyone know where I can buy one of those ‘Doesn’t play well with others’ t-shirts?

I think there are still key questions to be answered by both candidates

• How will you afford all the service expansions you are advocating for, whilst still claiming to be streamlining government?  Will you consider tax rises? What other sources of income would you pursue?
• How will you create a sensible, realistic strategy to achieve the change in governance that you claim you will deliver?  Do you need to amend the Council of Ministers Act or Tynwald Standing Orders?
• Are you certain that you are considering appointing the most capable Member to any given role, or have you just tried to buy your way into the Chief Minister position? What due diligence will you do before making appointments?
• Will you commit to working strictly within the Ministerial Code and how will you deal with Ministers who break the Code?

One of the newly elected first timers described this House of Keys as one of the most progressive.  It’s taken me a while to understand that she meant ‘wanting to make progress’ rather than politically progressive. Listening to the Chief Minister hustings, I definitely have no sense that we are in for a progressive administration.  No one is highlighting tackling poverty, supporting low earners or stronger protection for tenants. 
​
I feel genuinely concerned for Keys Members who will be required to judge these candidates on Tuesday 13th. Neither has presented a clear vision for what their administration would look like, or about what the Island can expect from their tenure.  

So now we know the candidates for Chief Minister, what happens next?

The Speaker has determined that the sitting to nominate a Chief Minister (the election sitting) will take place on Tuesday 13th October.  The Chief Minister’s election will be decided by our 24 Members of the House of Keys.

Before the election sitting
Policy proposals from each candidate were submitted at the same time as nominations. House of Keys Standing Orders requires that policy proposals are published on the Tynwald website, so we will all get to see what sort of proposal each of the candidates is advancing.

Between now and then there will be a hustings for Members to question the candidates.  This won’t take place in the House of Keys Chamber, but is likely to be in the Barool Suite.  Every Member of the House is invited. One assumes they will all attend, and given the importance of selecting the head of executive government if your representative isn’t at the hustings you should be justifiably indignant about it. Already there are patterns of non-attendance at the Tynwald induction sessions emerging. Let’s hope that doesn’t continue.  

All members (including the Speaker) have until noon on the day before the election sitting to submit written questions. Each question is limited to 50 words and the order for questions is drawn at random.  Members can submit more than one question (and they have to rank them in order of importance), but will only end up with one question on the Order paper.  If their name is drawn and there is already a very similar question higher up the Order paper, then they can use their second ranked question instead (or the third etc.).  If they don’t have an alternative question then their original question will be grouped to be asked with similar questions. The pressure is on now for all Members to find at least a couple of sensible, probing questions to challenge those who have put themselves forward for the top job.  Interestingly, the candidates can submit questions too! The Question Paper will be published on the evening before the election sitting.

The Election sitting
For the election sitting, the Speaker will read out the names of the candidates, their nominators and seconders.  Each candidate gets 10 minutes to make an opening speech.  There are a few things to look out for in these speeches.  Their opening speech is a set piece and so one would expect the candidates to be able to speak with confidence, little reference to their notes and to stick within the allotted time.  It’ll be their chance to show how well they connect with the other members, but they need to avoid making grand commitments that they can’t follow through on. 

Then comes the Question Paper.  I am sure many new Members will look forward to their maiden contributions in the House, and everyone will want to contribute to demonstrate to their constituents that they are stepping up to play a full part in our parliament, so expect everyone to have tabled a question.  If your representative hasn’t submitted a question, maybe drop them a line to ask why?

The answers to any question are limited to 3 minutes (or if questions are grouped then an additional minute per additional question).  Questions are asked to both candidates, rotating who gets to answer first.  This is a great opportunity for Members to evaluate the breadth of knowledge and policy consideration from the candidates.  Candidates will have seen the questions the night before - so it’s not quite as spontaneous as the Constituency hustings questions.  One hopes they have done their preparation, but again look out for anyone just reading a pre-prepared script as an answer.

In the event that a candidate has submitted a question, they will also get to answer their own question.  It would be interesting to see this strategy in play, as it provides an excellent set piece opportunity for a candidate to distinguish themselves from the other candidate.  I wonder if either candidate will take up this option?  It’s likely that the candidates will also have ‘planted’ favourable questions, certainly with their nominators and seconders.
Once all the questions have been asked, the candidates get to offer a closing speech of up to 5 minutes.  Look out for clarity of expression, certainty of direction and a clear call for support.

Voting
By this stage it’s safe to assume that both candidates will have at least three votes as generally people do vote for themselves, plus their nominator and seconder.  The Speaker will read out the nominations and invite votes.  Votes are recorded electronically and will be published.

Members of the House of Keys cannot abstain from a vote, they must vote yes or no to each of the candidates.  If they support one, then that’s a yes vote, and they will cast a no for the other candidate. However, if they vote yes to both, or no to both, then their vote will be declared invalid. 

To win, a candidate must get votes from the majority of voting Members present.  On the assumption that all 24 members are present in the Chamber as the vote is called, then the winning post is 13 votes.  So the straightforward scenario is one candidate gets 13 or more votes, and that’s job done. 

If nobody reaches a majority?
But if neither candidate reaches 13 votes, then the House will vote again.  This hasn't happened recently, but it's a possibility. If neither candidate gets 13 votes on the second time of asking, then the Speaker shall adjourn the House and call for fresh nominations. 

• If there are no new nominations that day, then the House will be adjourned to the following day. 
• If there are to be new nominations, then those plus a policy paper must be submitted at least an hour before the election sitting resumes and be circulated to Members. 

New candidates will be able to give a 10 minute speech, answer Members questions and give a closing speech prior to the next round of voting, but there are no hustings.

This process continues until someone gets the magic 13 votes.  Then there will a Confirmatory vote from the House that the Member be nominated as Chief Minister.

The decision as to who will lead the executive branch of government now rests in the hands of the Members of the House of Keys, and a nation watches.  We are watching the Members to see who is supporting who, who asks a probing and revealing question and which way they vote. We are watching the would-be Chief Ministers to see if they are suitable to be the figurehead of our nation, to represent us on the international stage and to lead an administration to maintain and support our quality of life.
​
What happens after the election sitting?
The winning nominee will be off to Government House to meet the Lieutenant Governor for formal appointment. And then they will need to appoint their Council of Ministers…

A critical friend's guide for newly elected Members of the House of Keys
 
Congratulations on your election. Fifteen new MHKs have just entered the Keys, and departmental members, chairs and statutory board members will be appointed once the Council of Ministers is formed. This is the moment to think about where you can sit without compromising yourself, and where you really can't.

If you worked for a department, or sold it services, or accepted grant aid from it, you should not be involved in any political oversight of it. This is no comment on your honesty. It is structural. A departmental member is there to scrutinise spending, performance, contracts and policy. Proper scrutiny only works if you can ask hard questions without worrying who you'll embarrass. If you spent years inside that department, or invoicing it, you carry loyalties, friendships, enemies and habits, and probably a financial history.

You’re a member of our national parliament now, and you absolutely should not be marking your own homework or carrying out vendettas against civil servants who you believe wronged you. The officers you'd be overseeing and working alongside may be former colleagues or the people who signed off your invoices. They may hesitate to challenge you, and you may hesitate to challenge them. Or worse still any challenge your presence might be seen as bloodletting and lead to complaints, grievance investigations and employment tribunals.

The sensible answer is a to pick a different portfolio. Your knowledge is valuable, and it can be used elsewhere without the conflict. If you have received agricultural grants, don’t go into DEFA. If your business supplies services to Infrastructure, pick another department. If you are a registered nurse, don’t go into Health. If Cabinet Office have you on their supplier list, go somewhere else.

In larger jurisdictions, a conflict is usually a paper trail. In the Isle of Man, it is also a web of people. Everyone knows everyone. Your partner, your supplier, your cousin, your former employer, your neighbour and your golf partner may all be connected to a government department or Statutory board (such as Manx Utilities or the Post Office). A conflict doesn't need a contract to exist. In some sectors only a handful of firms can do the work, and government is often the biggest customer. If you own one of them, nobody will believe you are neutral on procurement.  Local media and social media will notice a connection long before you've explained it.

Many candidates have made much of their business experience, and it is them that carry the heaviest load. If your company is contracted to supply government, any part of it, your interest is both current and financial. And this applies to not only the contracts you currently hold, but also to any future ones your company might bid for. Any decision touching procurement, budgets or policy in your sector affects you. And sad to say, handing the firm to a relative doesn't fix the problem. On our Island, everyone knows whose company it really is.

Candidates had to declare their interests as part of the election process. Elected Members are duty bound to maintain an accurate and up to date declaration of relevant interests. The Register of Members’ Interests rules exist to identify interests that could reasonably be seen as bearing on how you do your duties, and "reasonably be seen" is the standard to keep in mind.

At the start of every meeting, the Chair should canvass the room for any conflicts of interest. Even if you have previously declared an interest, you should declare it again so it’s recorded in the minutes. In our well connected Island it is almost impossible to get through a week of parliamentary and government work without having to declare a friendship or connection with someone applying for a grant, or prior friendship of an applicant for a post. In such cases you must recuse yourself. And that recusal must be real. Leaving the room for the vote after lobbying for a decision beforehand is worse than not recusing yourself at all.

Divesting your company so you have no control over it, creating an independent arrangement or ending your supply relationship with Government are all costly measures. But all cheaper than a scandal. All are better than exposing yourself to the reputational damage, adding to the popular urban myth about ‘brown envelopes’ and dodgy deals. The reputation of Tynwald and the Isle of Man relies on each elected Member managing any possible or perceived conflict of interest to remove suspicion. You can be scrupulously honest and still be badly hurt, because the public sees circumstances, not intentions.

If your firm holds a departmental contract and you vote for a related measure, it looks self-serving. If you vote against, people wonder what you're hiding. If your family business benefits from grants from a Department, then you should have nothing to do with that Department at all. There is no neutral move, and your integrity is invisible from the outside. On a small island the effect is magnified. Reputation travels by word of mouth, and one Member's apparent conflict can taint the reputation of the whole House. Your Keys colleagues and the public should have every reason to be wary of anyone who lets doubt build. "I've done nothing wrong" is a weak defence in public life.
The question is, how would this look to a fair-minded Manx resident reading about it over breakfast? If the honest answer is "bad", then treat the conflict as real. Before any decision, ask yourself:
1. Could I, a relative, a friend or my business benefit, directly or indirectly?
2. Would a reasonable observer think my judgement might be affected?
3. Would I be comfortable seeing this decision, and my part in it, reported in full?
If any answer makes you hesitate, declare it, step back and take advice before you act. Don’t wait for the storm to start.