Taxpayers to dig for £20M for Liverpool Dock

[Happier diner]

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

Of course they knew exactly how many civil engineers the DoI had and if they had the relevant qualifications[1].  Even as malfunctioning[2] an HR Department as IOMG's will know what these people's official titles are and what their cvs say.  What they don't want to reveal is just how few of those who are being paid to do the jobs have the right or relevant qualifications or experience.  Especially when those at the top of the hierarchy don't either.

People are appointed to jobs because they are mates or mates of mates or a good Manxie and happen to work in vaguely the right field - as 'consultants' say or 'engineers'.  Failing that, they are good bullshitters who don't seem intelligent or dedicated enough to threaten those appointing them.  The only priority is maintaining an easy life - and that applies to most of the politicians as well.

Don't expect things to improve.  Thomas has just been sacked for wanting to follow the advice of experts and do things properly, rather than listen to those who made attractive promises.

 

[1]  I bet Beamans knew as well, but in consultancy you don't keep getting jobs from the same client if you tell them what the truth is, rather than they want to hear.  And Beamans get a lot of work from IOMG.  Of course the appointment of Beamans illustrates the basic problem here - they don't specialise in such reorganisations (at least anywhere else) but they are mates.  

[2]  I nearly wrote 'useless', but they're actually far worse than that.  Even Cannan realised this, promised reform as top priority over a year ago and then did ... nothing.

I'm not sure I agree with you. Yes it's good to have engineers with some experience of the industry. 

However you have to remember that this is a landing stage/ferry terminal. That's a specialist bit of kit/construction and something that cone along less than once a generation. Therefore it would be crazy to employ a person full time with those skills.

So, what should happen is that you appoint a specialist engineering consultant ( which they did). What seems to have happened is that's its all gone Pete Tong. 

My questions would be

1. Was the specialist employed sufficiently early on enough in the process.

2. If they were why have they got it so spectacularly wrong.

What the DOI need is experienced project managers that can properly run projects, ask tje right questions, react early when things go wrong. They do not have to be experts in particular fields apart from say roads and small structures. 

[english zloty]

3. How much larger and how different is the technical spec of the new boat compared to the design freeze specification required for the new terminal? 
 

4. how much does the electoral cycle impact upon the natural critical path of large capital projects? 

[newaccount]

 

[Omobono]

7 hours ago, Zarley said:

I'm not sure whether or not heads have rolled, but eyes most certainly have. 

has Jeff    Robinson just   been promoted to deputy Chief Executive  ?they are currently advertising for a director of Highways , 

you could not make this  up ,  no wonder Alf is champing at the bit to sort this department out  its a disgrace 

[Omobono]

4 hours ago, Happier diner said:

I'm not sure I agree with you. Yes it's good to have engineers with some experience of the industry. 

However you have to remember that this is a landing stage/ferry terminal. That's a specialist bit of kit/construction and something that cone along less than once a generation. Therefore it would be crazy to employ a person full time with those skills.

So, what should happen is that you appoint a specialist engineering consultant ( which they did). What seems to have happened is that's its all gone Pete Tong. 

My questions would be

1. Was the specialist employed sufficiently early on enough in the process.

2. If they were why have they got it so spectacularly wrong.

What the DOI need is experienced project managers that can properly run projects, ask tje right questions, react early when things go wrong. They do not have to be experts in particular fields apart from say roads and small structures. 

and to provide proper oversight  and make sure the taxpayer  is receiving value for money 

[Happier diner]

55 minutes ago, Omobono said:

and to provide proper oversight  and make sure the taxpayer  is receiving value for money 

So you employ an industry expert consultant, and then employ someone else to provide oversight?

[woolley]

Thanks for the film, newaccount. Don't get much for our hubris do we? At first, from his gait, I thought the bloke was walking a mutt and it was pulling him along, till I realised: Aahh, he's filming himself.

Early in the thread @TheTeapot said "a fiver on £47m". Well that bet aged badly. This will be a running sore forever. A total leap in the dark that should never have been taken.

[TheTeapot]

4 minutes ago, woolley said:

 

Early in the thread @TheTeapot said "a fiver on £47m". Well that bet aged badly. This will be a running sore forever. A total leap in the dark that should never have been taken.

Amazing really, it'll be double that. Madness. 

[woolley]

10 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

Amazing really, it'll be double that. Madness. 

Probably silt up every 5 minutes. Somebody needs shooting.

[woolley]

2 hours ago, TheTeapot said:

Amazing really, it'll be double that. Madness. 

If we get very, very lucky!

[woolley]

25 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

They’re having the dredging argument at the moment apparently. It will need to be constantly dredged to be kept at a depth to accommodate the Manxman. 

Well, we really have the whip hand in that argument don't we? Having sunk £70m into the Mersey mud up and over our waders, what are we going to do? Abandon the confounded edifice? Nobody's gonna pay for any ongoing costs other than muggins here. Why would they? Nightmare.

Edited July 26, 2023 by woolley

[woolley]

3 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

The argument is apparently between IOMG and SPC as to who pays to keep it clear and usable all year round. Making it basically an accounting argument. Are we going to pay for it directly or via reduced dividends from the SPC due to increased operating costs. 

Muggins then. Pointless argument.

[woolley]

It's amusing to look back at old threads sometimes:

https://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/59046-should-the-taxpayer-fund-a-landing-stage-in-liverpool/

Another:

https://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/60378-minister-to-visit-liverpool-to-discuss-new-ferry-berth/

 

Edited July 26, 2023 by woolley

[CallMeCurious]

41 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

The argument is apparently between IOMG and SPC as to who pays to keep it clear and usable all year round. Making it basically an accounting argument. Are we going to pay for it directly or via reduced dividends from the SPC due to increased operating costs. 

And no doubt someone somewhere will be creaming off charges and handling fees etc. and no doubt one or two more CS posts to administer it.

[Non-Believer]

8 hours ago, offshoremanxman said:

Are we going to pay for it directly or via reduced dividends from the SPC due to increased operating costs. 

Only one option there. SPC dividends are already "earmarked" for bailing out all sorts of Govt liabilities (at least part of the reason we bought it) so an expense such as this is going to come from direct taxation or increased Steamie charges, I'd suggest.