Happier diner Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 5 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said: What I haven't seen yet, from any MHK that frequents this forum, is an admission that they have been party to any detailed financial information surrounding the overruns on costs. Which can only lead me to believe that they have been told to STFU and nod it through as the real story behind this is way beyond anything that could be called a "national embarrassment" (from the start to where we are now). The word "strategic" is liberally peppered in IOMG documentation for projects such as this but it's clear that whatever strategy was applied has gone badly awry from day one. I did ask @Stu Peters if he had been made party but he ignored me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 Just now, Happier diner said: I did ask @Stu Peters if he had been made party but he ignored me They ignored my invitation to comment on it, way back when the overspend/unbudgeted-for amount was approved. It's not as if there's nothing to discuss, is there (other than we're already committed)! What I find quite interesting is that IOMG throw money and legislative time enacting bills etc at anti-money laundering and corruption aimed at the private sector but somehow when when large sums of public money are at risk it's side-stepped. If this had happened in the private sector and there was an aggrieved party plod would have been all over this with their size 11's. The best we've been offered is a PAC report in 2023. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 Just a quickie: no we MHKs haven't been told to 'nod it through'. We were briefed on the current situation by DoI before the vote in Tynwald, which included where the major cost overruns had occurred. I've no experience of civil engineering projects so possibly asked some wrong questions, and it's probable we were given answers biased by the DoI closing ranks and presenting the 'extra funding' vote as the only option, although all the others we could think of were discussed. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted January 10, 2022 Author Share Posted January 10, 2022 2 minutes ago, Stu Peters said: Just a quickie: no we MHKs haven't been told to 'nod it through'. We were briefed on the current situation by DoI before the vote in Tynwald, which included where the major cost overruns had occurred. I've no experience of civil engineering projects so possibly asked some wrong questions, and it's probable we were given answers biased by the DoI closing ranks and presenting the 'extra funding' vote as the only option, although all the others we could think of were discussed. The "DOI closing ranks" in order to force the matter through sounds damning enough to me. In these straitened times Treasury strives to keep the Island's finances sunny side up. The DOI exists to undo as much of it as possible. Would you be able to expand and elaborate on the nature of these "cost overruns" on these boards please, Stu? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 7 minutes ago, Stu Peters said: Just a quickie: no we MHKs haven't been told to 'nod it through'. We were briefed on the current situation by DoI before the vote in Tynwald, which included where the major cost overruns had occurred. I've no experience of civil engineering projects so possibly asked some wrong questions, and it's probable we were given answers biased by the DoI closing ranks and presenting the 'extra funding' vote as the only option, although all the others we could think of were discussed. Cheers Stu Were you given any indication of what the general problem was that was causing such a significant overspend? If you thought the DOI were 'closing ranks' did you not feel confident enough to vote it down. I appreciate you are not a civil engineer (neither am I) but the fundamentals are quite simple really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 59 minutes ago, Stu Peters said: Just a quickie: no we MHKs haven't been told to 'nod it through'. We were briefed on the current situation by DoI before the vote in Tynwald, which included where the major cost overruns had occurred. I've no experience of civil engineering projects so possibly asked some wrong questions, and it's probable we were given answers biased by the DoI closing ranks and presenting the 'extra funding' vote as the only option, although all the others we could think of were discussed. So no detail and no indication as to whether more funding would be required? And, according to your previous comment, if DOI have employed "new people", what information can you share with us about the "old people"? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopek Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 Did any MHK ask for the briefing details to be made public? Afterall, it's us who need to understand. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 We should have more information by the end of month, because of Watterson's amendment which: requires the Department of Infrastructure to publish by the last day of January 2022 a report to Tynwald which should include (i) a detailed cost breakdown of the budget as envisaged in February 2019, July 2019, July 2021 and December 2021; (ii) a detailed explanation of each area in which the budgeted cost has increased along with all relevant reports; though Stu for some reason was the only non-CoMin MHK to vote against. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 I don't know whether the briefing is in the public domain so can't post it or any details here. Not being awkward, but some of it is probably commercially sensitive stuff that could be used against us. The only comfort is that this will all be painstakingly scrutinised by a Tynwald committee at some point, names and pack drill included, and I expect that WILL be in the public domain. I didn't feel inclined to vote against it because of the reasons I gave earlier - even had I been convinced beyond reasonable doubt that there was something sniffy about the project, the fact would remain that we were deeply invested in the site and would have lost that money and not had a berth in Liverpool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 5 minutes ago, Stu Peters said: I don't know whether the briefing is in the public domain so can't post it or any details here. Not being awkward, but some of it is probably commercially sensitive stuff that could be used against us. The only comfort is that this will all be painstakingly scrutinised by a Tynwald committee at some point, names and pack drill included, and I expect that WILL be in the public domain. I didn't feel inclined to vote against it because of the reasons I gave earlier - even had I been convinced beyond reasonable doubt that there was something sniffy about the project, the fact would remain that we were deeply invested in the site and would have lost that money and not had a berth in Liverpool. Thanks for your honest replies Stu. The taxpayers deserve better from the people who got you and us into this position. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 2 hours ago, Andy Onchan said: So no detail and no indication as to whether more funding would be required? And, according to your previous comment, if DOI have employed "new people", what information can you share with us about the "old people"? I'm not sure if the new people are actually employed yet. Not seen any ads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 1 hour ago, Happier diner said: I'm not sure if the new people are actually employed yet. Not seen any ads. So do you know that the old people have been given the elbow instead? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cissolt Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 Another DOI project with no budget or project plan. In all my years of project management ive never ran a project with no budget constraints. Government have over 100 trained project manager at the very least 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finlo Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 2 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said: That was what I was going to ask. If “new people” are now involved what’s happened to the “old people”? They've been elevated to CEO status. 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passing Time Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 7 hours ago, Kopek said: Are Liverpool still pressing ahead with their Cruise Terminal? Or has the cruise market cooled to the point that they may abandon it? They're holding off for the time being. Hoping that some clown in IOM government will offer to fund it 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.