Taxpayers to dig for £20M for Liverpool Dock

[Happier diner]

1 minute ago, offshoremanxman said:

To be fair it needed independently auditing from the minute the £15M turned into £30M. 

But all contracts are audited by an independent quantity surveyor aren't they?

[hissingsid]

The fact is we need it if we are going to attract the numbers of visitors over the Doctor is expecting and we will own it he stated on Mannin Line.   We just need to get the airlines sorted out now.

[Gladys]

2 minutes ago, hissingsid said:

The fact is we need it if we are going to attract the numbers of visitors over the Doctor is expecting and we will own it he stated on Mannin Line.   We just need to get the airlines sorted out now.

Why do we need that particular facility?

[Non-Believer]

The Doctor has been sniffing something that is a by-product of something that somebody is growing in a pot in a DfE office.

[James Blonde]

2 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

The Doctor has been sniffing something that is a by-product of something that somebody is growing in a pot in a DfE office.

A crock of shit perchance?

[code99]

21 hours ago, James Blonde said:

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. 

Without some ‘social glue’ to hold the society together - i.e., a sense of belonging and a general willingness to contribute to the welfare of others, the future for this Island could be bleak, IMHO.

The ‘Liverpool Dock’ debacle is not the last project that the GMP will spend a fortune on. I can conjure up a scenario where the IOMG commits taxpayers’ money to gas exploration initiatives (just to get something happening and to demonstrate that they are doing something), even though this sort of high-risk project is currently a private venture. The upcoming review of the gambling industry in the UK will invariably result in some tightening of the rules, albeit not necessarily back to pre-2005 deregulation levels. So, hold on to your hats, the Island could be for an ‘interesting’ ride...spuds (but not herrings because of climate change) could be back as staples on the menu.

[monasqueen]

It won't be spuds - too warm for them. There'll be different fish, too.

It'll be yams and pilchards. 😋.

[Non-Believer]

This is what needs to happen.

[Happier diner]

51 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

This is what needs to happen.

You are probably right, cut our losses kind of thing.

Not an easy thing to do and costly. Bit like sacking a premier league football manager. But maybe the cheapest in the long run.

[2112]

4 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

You are probably right, cut our losses kind of thing.

Not an easy thing to do and costly. Bit like sacking a premier league football manager. But maybe the cheapest in the long run.

You have a point but if the island has to throw good money after bad, with nothing ended up, no Liverpool as a port, then there has to be serious sackings/redundancies in the DOI, a staff cull. I don’t believe it would happen, too costly.

[The Voice of Reason]

We cannot lose Liverpool as our principal port of entry into the UK.

The uplift in costs from the initial estimates are indeed quite shocking and we need an explanation and challenge those costs which need challenging.

A clear and transparent explanation as to why they have risen so much is needed. At the moment there is none.

[Gladys]

Just now, The Voice of Reason said:

We cannot lose Liverpool as our principal port of entry into the UK.

The uplift in costs from the initial estimates are indeed quite shocking and we need an explanation and challenge those costs which need challenging.

A clear and transparent explanation as to why they have risen so much is needed. At the moment there is none.

Agree with all of that except that Liverpool is our principal port of entry.  It hasn't been for many years 

[Non-Believer]

1 minute ago, Gladys said:

Agree with all of that except that Liverpool is our principal port of entry.  It hasn't been for many years 

It's only accepted as such out of tradition, as our "closest" UK city, for football connections and more recently for shopping expeditions.

Does Liverpool have the same dedication for the Island? (apart from being a cash cow, apparently?)

[finlo]

1 minute ago, Non-Believer said:

It's only accepted as such out of tradition, as our "closest" UK city, for football connections and more recently for shopping expeditions.

Does Liverpool have the same dedication for the Island? (apart from being a cash cow, apparently?)

It's handy for them to offload class A's at inflated prices!

[joebean]

9 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

We cannot lose Liverpool as our principal port of entry into the UK.

The uplift in costs from the initial estimates are indeed quite shocking and we need an explanation and challenge those costs which need challenging.

A clear and transparent explanation as to why they have risen so much is needed. At the moment there is none.

It’s a port of entry because we have a boat going there. If we had a boat going somewhere else, that would be the port of entry. It’s this kind of thinking that pushed us into paying for a site that was unsuitable and signing a contract that was probably flawed. It’s way past time for Government to think outside the box and to seek advice from those in the know, rather than in-house time-servers. As I said before, this saga needs to be properly scrutinised. Such scrutiny would start at the decision to stay in Liverpool, then the contract “negotiations” and the subsequent cost and construction issues. Key decisions and who made them and why need to be identified and those responsible held to account. It is our right to know.