Taxpayers to dig for £20M for Liverpool Dock

[James Blonde]

3 hours ago, code99 said:

I sincerely hope that your description does not apply to the whole community here on the IOM (or the IOMG). If it does then there is absolutely no point in fretting about the taxpayers’ millions that have been squandered so far. In those places where there is no community and everyone just wants to get a leg over everyone else, there is no accountability for anything. If that happens here, we should brace ourselves for more ‘graft’, failed projects/ programmes and then chants of the obligatory ‘the lessons will be learnt!’ claptrap… until the money runs out.

For the Island’s sake, ‘dog eats dog’ must not take hold here - that approach simply does not work in small countries like ours, because it inevitably leaves too many people in tears and the country bankrupt.

I wish I shared your naive view of island life. As has already been said, it changed to this a long time ago. Now nobody cares about anyone else. 

[Cassie2]

16 hours ago, CallMeCurious said:

Funny how they can 'find' £35m+ for the likes of this fiasco and yet can't do the basics like road repairs. Wonder who is in charge of project management in the DoI?

It seems very clear that the answer is nobody even remotely competent. That is for sure given:

- all the staggeringly absurd costs and

- all the beyond belief bad and dangerous designs and

- all the abysmally bad quality results 

 

Edited December 6, 2021 by Cassie2

[2112]

3 hours ago, code99 said:

I sincerely hope that your description does not apply to the whole community here on the IOM (or the IOMG). If it does then there is absolutely no point in fretting about the taxpayers’ millions that have been squandered so far. In those places where there is no community and everyone just wants to get a leg over everyone else, there is no accountability for anything. If that happens here, we should brace ourselves for more ‘graft’, failed projects/ programmes and then chants of the obligatory ‘the lessons will be learnt!’ claptrap… until the money runs out.

For the Island’s sake, ‘dog eats dog’ must not take hold here - that approach simply does not work in small countries like ours, because it inevitably leaves too many people in tears and the country bankrupt.

Didn’t the IOMG have a strap line ‘a caring and prosperous government’?. It’s neither caring and it’s much less prosperous but it likes to dick wave with its neighbours as to how successful it is.

[James Blonde]

I'm surprised that there hasn't been more alarm voiced by our elected (and non-elected) elite at the situation in Liverpool with alleged political bribes/corruption and big infrastructure projects. 

Are they planning to literally ignore this and vote it through? If they do then that will really show the Island up as a soft touch. 

 

[Non-Believer]

31 minutes ago, 2112 said:

Didn’t the IOMG have a strap line ‘a caring and prosperous government’?. It’s neither caring and it’s much less prosperous but it likes to dick wave with its neighbours as to how successful it is.

If my memory serves me, it was the stated aim of Sir Miles way back in 1986.

I remember feted local cartoonist John Herdman having a cartoon in the local press in 1990 depicting Sir Miles with an empty speech balloon by his head....the cartoon caption was, "Update on progress towards the caring and sharing Society"...

[Happier diner]

3 hours ago, James Blonde said:

I'm surprised that there hasn't been more alarm voiced by our elected (and non-elected) elite at the situation in Liverpool with alleged political bribes/corruption and big infrastructure projects. 

Are they planning to literally ignore this and vote it through? If they do then that will really show the Island up as a soft touch. 

 

I think the way these contracts work make it very difficult for politicians to interfere. If its some big civil engineering firm in the UK with an eye for an opportunity to make money, its not easy (or perhaps even legal) for some amateur politicians to interfere. There must be some engineering consultant representing our interests...us being the customer that is.

[Lost Login]

23 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

I think the way these contracts work make it very difficult for politicians to interfere. If its some big civil engineering firm in the UK with an eye for an opportunity to make money, its not easy (or perhaps even legal) for some amateur politicians to interfere. There must be some engineering consultant representing our interests...us being the customer that is.

Totally agree. Politicians may interfere etc but the idea that they have the knowledge to get involved at serious level re contracts is pie in the sky. They might be able to spot some obvious pitfalls and errors but most have no civil engineering qualifications, experience in large contracts. Like most of us they would not have a scoobies and be reliant on those appointed to advise, design etc.

From the link to Lars Ugland's comments the whole fiasco may be down to appointing the wrong party to design and cost the project and why they were appointed and under what terms needs to be looked at. The politicians would have approved the funding but you would have hoped expert advisors would have advised they had all the necessary knowledge etc. Once the die had been cast then it was probably difficult to pull out as the costs did not increase from £20m to £70m all in one go. As ever with these things it would be on a piecemeal basis. £10m to sort the first issue out and promises that would be it, then another £10m and similar promises. At each stage you are a little bit deeper in until you are over your head.

If you have contracted to pay £50m then what is worse,  walking away and getting nothing for the majority of funds or getting what you wanted but at a cos you would never originally have agreed to?

Things have obviously gone majorly wrong on this and I hope that tomorrow a fair bit of explanation is given as to why costs have grown but I doubt there will be too much to blame on individual ministers as this is a matter way above their pay grade. 

  

[James Blonde]

42 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

I think the way these contracts work make it very difficult for politicians to interfere. If its some big civil engineering firm in the UK with an eye for an opportunity to make money, its not easy (or perhaps even legal) for some amateur politicians to interfere. There must be some engineering consultant representing our interests...us being the customer that is.

It doesn't necessarily need them to directly interfere, but surely some alarm bells should be ringing with the erratic and unexplained price rises on a project that has Joe Anderson's finger prints on?  (More Joe Anderson too)

It needs forensic auditing yesterday. We should be able to say with 100% certainty that no corruption or malpractice has take place on this contract (and any IOMG contract for that matter) but from what I can see that's not something we can say with any degree of certainty. 

This is a brilliant article that looks at the situation. It's a shame IOM Newspapers or the NPM can't do such investigative journalism! 

https://fearandloathing2021.wixsite.com/fearandloathingblog/post/too-big-to-fail-or-too-tainted-dumb-to-survive

[James Blonde]

Just now, Lost Login said:

If you have contracted to pay £50m then what is worse,  walking away and getting nothing for the majority of funds or getting what you wanted but at a cos you would never originally have agreed to?

Depends how much cash has been handed over. Were in very real danger if sunk cost fallacy, 

[Happier diner]

3 minutes ago, James Blonde said:

It doesn't necessarily need them to directly interfere, but surely some alarm bells should be ringing with the erratic and unexplained price rises on a project that has Joe Anderson's finger prints on?  (More Joe Anderson too)

It needs forensic auditing yesterday. We should be able to say with 100% certainty that no corruption or malpractice has take place on this contract (and any IOMG contract for that matter) but from what I can see that's not something we can say with any degree of certainty. 

This is a brilliant article that looks at the situation. It's a shame IOM Newspapers or the NPM can't do such investigative journalism! 

https://fearandloathing2021.wixsite.com/fearandloathingblog/post/too-big-to-fail-or-too-tainted-dumb-to-survive

 

3 minutes ago, James Blonde said:

Depends how much cash has been handed over. Were in very real danger if sunk cost fallacy, 

If criminality is involved then that's different. Who would be brave enough to make an allegation and get the police involved. Tim C?

[James Blonde]

7 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

 

If criminality is involved then that's different. Who would be brave enough to make an allegation and get the police involved. Tim C?

Who knows if there is. But it should be concerning that one of the most prominent people in the early negotiations has been accused of some rather serious stuff. 

[Andy Onchan]

33 minutes ago, James Blonde said:

It doesn't necessarily need them to directly interfere, but surely some alarm bells should be ringing with the erratic and unexplained price rises on a project that has Joe Anderson's finger prints on?  (More Joe Anderson too)

It needs forensic auditing yesterday. We should be able to say with 100% certainty that no corruption or malpractice has take place on this contract (and any IOMG contract for that matter) but from what I can see that's not something we can say with any degree of certainty. 

This is a brilliant article that looks at the situation. It's a shame IOM Newspapers or the NPM can't do such investigative journalism! 

https://fearandloathing2021.wixsite.com/fearandloathingblog/post/too-big-to-fail-or-too-tainted-dumb-to-survive

To be fair it's not really investigative journalism, it's more a time line of events with some commentary as the info is already out there.

The missing info is within IOMG itself and the other interested parties associated with the project. This needs to be taken up by someone with parliamentary privilege, to shine a light on what's really gone on. Will such a person step forward? 

[asitis]

1 hour ago, Lost Login said:

Things have obviously gone majorly wrong on this and I hope that tomorrow a fair bit of explanation is given as to why costs have grown but I doubt there will be too much to blame on individual ministers as this is a matter way above their pay grade. 

 

I don't disagree, but we need to drill down and find out who is responsible. There is clearly something we are not being allowed to know in respect of the contract, as before now the project surely didn't make financial sense at all !

TBH our elected can delegate responsibility to whatever team of muppets have got us here, but they shouldn't be allowed to delegate accountability as that is what they were elected to be, accountable to the taxpayers ! If they are not then they shouldn't have executive over the public purse !!

[finlo]

2 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

Agreed, and the missing information is likely when and why Peel Ports withdrew its offer to develop the project for government. As if that is true, that will be the point at which it should have become clear, even to an idiot, that it wasn’t economically viable as a project. As you say someone with Parliamentary privilege could dig here (PAC?) and in that context that timeline might prove helpful if it’s ever possible to slot that information into it. 

Bet it turns out to be Longtail!

[Non-Believer]

Hooper called for more clarity and information on exactly "why?" last time Baker asked for more funding, at the tail end of the last administration, that's why Crookall is back with it now. But that request should still stand, to ensure it's not a case of throwing good money after bad. Plus, if granted, is this the last call for funds? 

This is why the job needs auditing, severely, before any more money is signed over. The GMP have a right to know...it's their money.