Taxpayers to dig for £20M for Liverpool Dock

[Ringy Rose]

1 hour ago, Non-Believer said:

From memory (I stand to be corrected), Peel's own proposal was to build a facility a little further up the estuary

I think so too, and it would have been a lot easier to construct further up. There’s a reason why the container port remained in Seaforth whilst the docks closer to the city were closed. 

[asitis]

1 hour ago, offshoremanxman said:

The bit that I still can’t fathom is who on earth decided that the mighty DOI could do a better job than Peel Ports one of the largest and most established port developers in Europe? I mean seriously. They offered but someone somewhere seriously thought “no we can do a much better job of managing this ourselves” tell Peel to piss off. 

More or less exactly what happened with the MEA power station fiasco too !

[offshoremanxman]

4 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

Chris Thomas is trying to defend the indefensible and is doing it by trying to be reticent about the costs. It will out in the end though. Maybe after his career is finished.

The issue is though it isn’t his fault. This was in flight long before he ended up in the DOI. Yes he’s trying to defend the indefensible and is making a very bad job of it but it isn’t specifically his fault. 

[Two-lane]

27 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

The issue is though it isn’t his fault. This was in flight long before he ended up in the DOI. Yes he’s trying to defend the indefensible and is making a very bad job of it but it isn’t specifically his fault

What is his job? Who pays his salary? Who does he work for?

If you were magically made Minister for the DoI would you take a wander around the works, then come back here and make endless excuses to the media? Would you be prepared to stand up in the public bar of some less-select pub on a Friday night and spout that nonsense?

[offshoremanxman]

3 minutes ago, Two-lane said:

What is his job? Who pays his salary? Who does he work for?

If you were magically made Minister for the DoI would you take a wander around the works, then come back here and make endless excuses to the media? Would you be prepared to stand up in the public bar of some less-select pub on a Friday night and spout that nonsense?

No but then I’m always amazed how government works at the Ministerial level because I don’t agree with Glover simply walking away from the department either (actually to qualify that I would agree with him if he actually said I’m leaving the DOI as it’s an accident waiting to happen sitting over a department of so many dangerous out of control assholes who fuck up everything they touch rather than him pin it on the Ranson thing that happened in an entirely different department). I think also the DOI has done a very good job of love bombing Mr T and convincing him that it’s the public that’s wrong and it’s all so awful that everyone hates them because it’s private contractors who are fucking up not them - rather than the realization hit him that they have a sort of negative Midas Touch and almost everything they touch turns to shit because most of them are total fuckwitts and the whole lot needs to be disbanded as it’s irredeemably broken. 

[Nom de plume]

This & the previous administration would certainly be up there as the worst in the Island’s history.

Literally everything they have touched has turned to shit.

[Non-Believer]

57 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

The issue is though it isn’t his fault. This was in flight long before he ended up in the DOI. Yes he’s trying to defend the indefensible and is making a very bad job of it but it isn’t specifically his fault. 

I fully agree, but he's treading the same path as his predecessors Harmer and Baker who bent over forwards for the Department and its "officers" as well and they were subjected to the public's ire at election time.

The general public, especially those with any interest and who are cognisant of what has been going on may not be as kind as you to CT though. He's not doing himself any favours by ducking and defending, if not being "economical with the actualité", a lot of people would like to see some responsibility apportioned and somebody hung out over this, not covered, defended and apologised for.

We are going to be £100M+ in hock for this and we all know where it will be getting recouped from eventually, the same place as every other DOI squanderfest. There is very little consideration or sympathy for the taxpayers.

[Ringy Rose]

I’d have far more respect for him if Thomas came out and said the DOI got the scale of the project wrong but that carrying on is cheaper than abandoning it.

I know the DOI fees rises have come from Treasury and not from anywhere else, but I don’t get why he’s standing up and saying the ridiculous stuff he’s coming out with.

Edited May 20, 2023 by Ringy Rose

[Non-Believer]

14 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said:

I’d have far more respect for him if Thomas came out and said the DOI got the scale of the project wrong but that carrying on is cheaper than abandoning it.

He can't do that though because duty protocol obliges him to defend his Department. He can't admit any failings because it would show "weakness" within the Dept. and might even cause the floodgates to open in that respect.

He is compromised though, the electorate put him in position to represent their interests which the DOI have no interest in. He needs to twig on that the electorate may well give him the bullet over this in due course, at which point the DOI will have chewed up and spat out yet another MHK (including Glover but discounting his reasons, I make it four so far in 10 years). Sadly, I doubt that he's in a position to do anything much though.

Rest assured that the people at the DOI will simply carry on laughing, taking the piss and loading their wheelbarrows with their pensions and lump sums with no loss, either financially or in shame whilst the taxpayers cop for the lot.

[Two-lane]

24 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

because duty protocol obliges him to defend his Department.

I looked, but I did not find.... Is there a document which describes this obligation (to defend the department no matter what)?

[The Voice of Reason]

16 minutes ago, Two-lane said:

I looked, but I did not find.... Is there a document which describes this obligation (to defend the department no matter what)?

There was, but Ashford shredded it  ( allegedly)

[Gladys]

2 hours ago, Two-lane said:

I looked, but I did not find.... Is there a document which describes this obligation (to defend the department no matter what)?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.legislation.gov.im/cms/images/LEGISLATION/PRINCIPAL/1987/1987-0013/GovernmentDepartmentsAct1987_1.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjv3-3yzIT_AhU7SkEAHRo4DbcQFnoECBAQBg&usg=AOvVaw2i9Gpgj0D3yfUHoDyEy9o8

Try this.

PS for a start. 

Edited May 20, 2023 by Gladys

[Dirty Buggane]

Surely his job is to make the department runs in an cost efficient and professional way, And to kick ass and dispense with people who are incompetent and are costing us the Manx Public long millions. Not to defend the indefensible and to look a right scrotal sack whilst attempting it.

[Gladys]

6 minutes ago, Dirty Buggane said:

Surely his job is to make the department runs in an cost efficient and professional way, And to kick ass and dispense with people who are incompetent and are costing us the Manx Public long millions. Not to defend the indefensible and to look a right scrotal sack whilst attempting it.

If you read the Act, any Minister is the department and it operates under delegated powers.  Have to look at any directions, but they can only implement what is provided in the Act, not alter them.

If the prime role of a Minister is to defend the department, they are merely defending themselves. 

From this, the role of the Minister is actually to carry out the functions of the department, they can then delegate the carrying out.

Have to dig a little (probably a lot) deeper to see if there is more.  But the Minister is the department.  You could argue that, of course  it is the role of the Minister to defend it, but then you have to look at the role of an MHK.  They are the representative of the people, so is it a role to defend a department against the interests of the people? 

It probably in reality more complex than that but, as I said, it's a start. 

 

 

 

[code99]

The last time CT pulled a fast one was when he resigned from his Ministerial post about a year or so before the GE and then sniped at the IOMG… the same IOMG in which he was formerly one of the key players. I wager he will try to do something similar the next time around i.e., resign before the GE and then diss the Government in order to re-establish his personal independent ‘voice’. We will have to wait and see. IMHO, our political edifice is no longer fit for purpose.