Taxpayers to dig for £20M for Liverpool Dock

[Gladys]

11 minutes ago, The Duck of Atholl said:

There is no walk away. We’re in too deep and have signed a very long lease.

That doesn't necessarily mean it has got to be used. 

[Non-Believer]

54 minutes ago, asitis said:

Whoever signed this contract, which seems to let them have us by the short and curlies needs to be emptied .

Surely a business case at 3 million doesn't still add up at 60 million does it ?

I have it on extremely good authority (from amongst the elected) that PP advised IoMG of potential problems with this land at the time purchase negotiations commenced; and also cited those problems as the reason why they were withdrawing their offer to construct the Teminal as per originally.

Despite this, somebody within IoMG decided that it was a good idea to press on regardless. It's high time that person or persons stepped forward.

[2112]

17 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Correction.  It's now claimed "The 'majority' of work on Douglas promenade will be completed by the start of next month".  Though you would have though after so many months and missed deadlines, the 'majority' of the work would have been done already.

(Note that even the ever-faithful Manx Radio felt obliged to put majority in scare quotes to indicate their scepticism of the whole thing).

So instead of finishing and walking away, it’s temporarily finished, until a further date or time to do whatever else needs doing? It’s a good job nobody wants to invest in tourism.

[Peter Layman]

41 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

I have it on extremely good authority (from amongst the elected) that PP advised IoMG of potential problems with this land at the time purchase negotiations commenced; and also cited those problems as the reason why they were withdrawing their offer to construct the Teminal as per originally.

Despite this, somebody within IoMG decided that it was a good idea to press on regardless. It's high time that person or persons stepped forward.

That person should be dragged out by the bollocks never mind step forward

[asitis]

6 minutes ago, Peter Layman said:

That person should be dragged out by the bollocks never mind step forward

Assuming they are male ?

[finlo]

2 minutes ago, asitis said:

Assuming they are male ?

Is that why Reynolds is offski!

[James Blonde]

3 hours ago, 2112 said:

will there be sympathetic overtones with Liverpool if the IOM walk away, leaving a mess in the process?

Just grass it over and walk away. 

[The Chief]

12 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

I have it on extremely good authority (from amongst the elected) that PP advised IoMG of potential problems with this land at the time purchase negotiations commenced; and also cited those problems as the reason why they were withdrawing their offer to construct the Teminal as per originally.

Despite this, somebody within IoMG decided that it was a good idea to press on regardless. It's high time that person or persons stepped forward.

thats because MHK's and a large proportion of the island seemed to have a hard on for all things Liverpool and the thought of no transport links gives them sicky feelings,

I mean when you take into consideration tax payer funded jollies to Heysham or Liverpool its not difficult to see why senior CS's signed it off.

[finlo]

2 minutes ago, The Chief said:

thats because MHK's and a large proportion of the island seemed to have a hard on for all things Liverpool and the thought of no transport links gives them sicky feelings,

I mean when you take into consideration tax payer funded jollies to Heysham or Liverpool its not difficult to see why senior CS's signed it off.

Heysham is quite nice actually not much shopping granted, it's the port that's a dump.

[asitis]

I really can't see the financial realities of Liverpool at all, given that it is a non freight port and therefore largely serviced by a boat which can't sail for 6 months of the year ? At 3 million it may have been a good idea but at 60 ?

Perhaps the truth of the matter is we are contracted into something we would love to get out of, but as usual something has gone badly awry with the expertise needed to make sure we are not royally shafted !

[finlo]

The corrupt Liverpool council won't be helping things either.

[Peter Layman]

12 hours ago, asitis said:

Assuming they are male ?

I don't think a woman would be this stupid

[Peter Layman]

13 minutes ago, asitis said:

I really can't see the financial realities of Liverpool at all, given that it is a non freight port and therefore largely serviced by a boat which can't sail for 6 months of the year ? At 3 million it may have been a good idea but at 60 ?

Perhaps the truth of the matter is we are contracted into something we would love to get out of, but as usual something has gone badly awry with the expertise needed to make sure we are not royally shafted !

at 3 million it was a terrible idea. As for expertise, have you lived on the island long?

[Roger Mexico]

34 minutes ago, The Chief said:

thats because MHK's and a large proportion of the island seemed to have a hard on for all things Liverpool and the thought of no transport links gives them sicky feelings,

I mean when you take into consideration tax payer funded jollies to Heysham or Liverpool its not difficult to see why senior CS's signed it off.

I'm not sure that a large portion of the Island or even many MHKs do have a thing about Liverpool as a seaport.  It's had an irregular service, especially in Winter for many years and most people have discovered these things called aeroplanes and that you can there quicker with those.  And the phrase "jollies to Heysham" is probably the most implausible argument in history.

What I think is going on here is two things.  The first is the belief in a lot of the civil service that if you do exactly the same thing as last year, then no one will criticise you.  So a sea service to Liverpool has to be maintained because there has always been one, no matter the lack of demand or viability or how things have changed.

The second is the sort of blind faith in HNWIs that has marked the last 20 years in Manx Government (and indeed infests quite a few who comment on here).  Suck up to the right people and prosperity will magically happen; throw (taxpayers) money at the rich and it will be multiplied and come back to you.  In practice of course, the rich just take the money for themselves and ask for more (that's how they got rich in the first place).  So we get the tax cap that lost vast amounts of revenue and the Government effectively paying to build the Mount Murray Hotel.  The people just thought "The Whittakers are our mates - they'll see us right".  And in a sense they did.

[Lost Login]

I cannot support the costs etc re Liverpool Dock and the fact they seem to be out of control. If there is a matter that the PAC should be looking at urgently it is this rather than Watterson's request for a Covid enquiry which just seems to be a bit of populism. 

Having said that long term we do need to need to secure a decent ferry terminal somewhere and a decision has to be made what we want. Do we want a ferry service that basically just caters for freight and people travelling in cars or do we want a ferry service that is generally attractive to the whole of the population and for weekend breaks?

If the latter then Liverpool is the only real option as far as I can see. If the former then there is much wider choice of options. Heysham is reasonable close but it has a tendency to silt up and has limited access at low tides. The entrance is narrow so sailings are cancelled as boats are not allowed in even though they can sail. Birkenhead and or Hollyhead might be better options for all year round use but the crossing is longer etc.

I remain in favour of the IoM having its own terminal on the Mersey. It is a question of where and at what cost as I doubt anybody would sell or enter into a long lease cheaply.