Taxpayers to dig for £20M for Liverpool Dock

[Non-Believer]

Maybe it's time for expensive new signage outside the Sea Terminal site

                        WARNING

EXPENSIVE CLUSTERFUCK UNDER CONSTRUCTION

[John Wright]

11 hours ago, Utah 01 said:

..............yet you argue vehemently against the same for air routes; perhaps not your preferred mode of travel these days?

Three reasons. 
 

Huge difference between our air and sea links, in terms of 

1. what each carries,

2. Monopoly ( for good reason ) and plenty of competition/operators

3. the experience of other small jurisdictions operating vanity “national” airlines.

The steam packet was in a position created by our own ham fisted attempt at monopoly regulation. The UA. It wasn’t fit for purpose as far as monetising it own value and lack of ownership control were concerned. The regulation of sailings and fares worked quite well.

I don’t favour monopolies or excessive regulation, and I think open skies will work as things return to the post covid normal. But sometimes monopolies are the only thing your market size will support. Then regulation of service level and price ( as a minimum ) for the privilege is a necessity.

live more flights booked in the next 6 months than ferry crossings. Just. And more of either than since March 2020.

[John Wright]

12 hours ago, Mr Helmut Fromage said:

Wow - we’ve paid over the odds to buy a loss making ferry company, had our pants pulled down to the tune of £70 million for a parking space in Liverpool, the not investigated film industry lost silly money whilst being robbed blind by incestuous private film contracts (now dead) that Govt supported - but a fucking scheme to get people to spend locally is the problem -ARRRRFFFFFFFF

I love it when a CS outs themselves 

Apart from cash flow during covid, when lots of fares were refunded, without question, when, in the last 30 years, has it been loss making?

[Zarley]

12 hours ago, Lost Login said:

I was unimpressed with contribution of Wannerburgh which just seemed to be grandstanding. Yes heads should roll if and when we know where responsibility for the f**k up lies but simply calling for the heads of all senior bods in the DOI just seemed a cheap shot. 

But this isn't the only massive fuck up in their portfolio, is it. The senior heads are ultimately responsible for all of them and yes, they should roll.

Roll right out the door, do not collect massive goodbye payments and huge pensions on the way out, just GO. If our politicians had any guts, these heads would have rolled a long time ago and we might not be in this mess now.

Edited December 15, 2021 by Zarley

[2112]

45 minutes ago, Zarley said:

But this isn't the only massive fuck up in their portfolio, is it. The senior heads are ultimately responsible for all of them and yes, they should roll.

Roll right out the door, do not collect massive goodbye payments and huge pensions on the way out, just GO. If our politicians had any guts, these heads would have rolled a long time ago and we might not be in this mess now.

I agree.

However what I would like to happen by the ‘Star Chamber’ investigation is the previous administration role examined, in particular the roles of the Treasury Minister, the DOI Ministers (Harmer and Baker) and other MHKs (which may include Rob Callister). It will be interesting to see the decision making as to where the money was and is spent. It will be interesting to see Alf Cannan role in this debacle - after all he likes to portray himself as someone who likes value for the taxpayer. Alf Cannan proposed the Major Projects Unit within Treasury to manage Capital Infrastructure Schemes, so he knew of Government incompetence and did little until it was too late.

Edited December 15, 2021 by 2112

[monasqueen]

13 hours ago, hissingsid said:

 I reckon with a 237 year lease it has given us a permanent investment. 

And a 237 year building site? 

[joebean]

19 hours ago, hissingsid said:

Well the great debate is going ahead and will probably continue for some time.   It could cost over 40 million to abandon the

 

 

project which would be disastrous in my view because we would be without anywhere to sail the fast craft to.   I am totally for the project to go ahead because I believe Liverpool is the gateway to the UK from our point of view and with a 234 year lease we would be assuring a berth for our boats for the future .   There has been an amendment proposed by the public accounts committee who want to dissect every penny spent so far with a fine tooth comb which sounds commendable but will achieve nothing except tie up god knows how many civil servants on top wages so more expense.    The estimate for the project seems to have been well out considering they were dealing with sea walls and heaven knows what, add on brexit and Covid and it has just ran away altogether.   Daphne is on next after the lunch break so that could be interesting or not.    They will probably vote it through as really they have no option at this state of play but it will be a long and wearying session.

There is so much nonsense in this paragraph it is difficult to know where to start. And then, to polish the turd even further we get the “due to Brexit” comment. That really had me spluttering in my coffee this morning. Keep it up, I love a bit of comedy, first thing. 

[The Chief]

MHK's, Senior C/S and their 'one of us' mentality means that expenses paid jollies for shopping and entertainment oh and the occasional vital fact finding meeting are much more important than spending the same £100 million on infrastructure on our own island, the sooner they come out and say that the better.

This horseshit about taking a loss is a steaming pile of crap to try and deflect that someone has signed an open ended contract with a bunch of conmen and shysters who saw them coming at the snake oil convention.

You couldn't make it up, i await the next round of 'we need another £30 million because the piles are wrong and the new ones come from Turkey, oh and it won't be ready until 2026'.

[Happier diner]

1 hour ago, Zarley said:

But this isn't the only massive fuck up in their portfolio, is it. The senior heads are ultimately responsible for all of them and yes, they should roll.

Roll right out the door, do not collect massive goodbye payments and huge pensions on the way out, just GO. If our politicians had any guts, these heads would have rolled a long time ago and we might not be in this mess now.

Strictly speaking they are accountable, not responsible.

[Happier diner]

14 minutes ago, joebean said:

There is so much nonsense in this paragraph it is difficult to know where to start. And then, to polish the turd even further we get the “due to Brexit” comment. That really had me spluttering in my coffee this morning. Keep it up, I love a bit of comedy, first thing. 

You may not like his paragraph, but sadly it's technically correct.

[joebean]

I didn’t have the opportunity of listening to the debate yesterday so await the publication of Hansard with interest. The pros and cons of a Liverpool dock might be a part of the debate but that is, largely academic now. We are in an “it is what it is” situation, having already committed around £40 million to this debacle. The final bill will, undoubtedly, be in excess of the sum agreed yesterday and, I think, Tim Crookall’s answer to the question about a possible further escalation, with its long pauses and “I hope not” remarks indicates that he considers it unfortunate but likely. 
The most important part of the debate surely must be the further investigation into this affair. The terms of reference for the investigation will be extremely important and will determine the course and results of it.
 

The investigation must start at the beginning and ask why Liverpool was the only option considered and then why that particular site. It must cover questions of due diligence; the contract negotiation and scrutiny; the appointment of contractors; the involvement of politicians; the actions of DoI management; contract management; project management; reporting and decisions made at each stage of the key milestones. That is not an exhaustive list.

 It is highly likely that this investigation will turn up many issues within DoI but it’s not all about DoI but the wider environment where these issues are allowed to happen repeatedly and to the extent they apparently do. Weakness, sheer incompetence and a deliberate covering of poor performance  extend beyond the Department and into the senior echelons of the CS and political levels. My concern is that a PAC investigation is unlikely to delve into these wider issues, where the roots of these failings lie.

There are calls for accountability, but there must be a clear definition of what “accountability” actually means. For a meaningful change in the culture of Government to occur, accountability must extend beyond naming and finger-wagging and include removal from office and loss of financial benefits. Accountability also means the consideration of prosecution where actions appear to go beyond mere incompetence and towards the deliberate. Given that the promenade “project” appeared to start without even a proper project plan I suspect that this particular episode is just another example of complacent and incompetent mismanagement at all levels but a thorough investigation needs to consider everything. It’s beyond a PAC enquiry in my opinion. 

[James Blonde]

What is utterly bonkers is that the same project management team who have been at the helm while the project has been so badly fucked up are still at the helm. The proviso for approving the extra funding should have been resignations of any DOI senior management involved with this scheme and appointing suitably qualified independent management. 

[Max Power]

35 minutes ago, joebean said:

 

The investigation must start at the beginning and ask why Liverpool was the only option considered and then why that particular site. It must cover questions of due diligence; the contract negotiation and scrutiny; the appointment of contractors; the involvement of politicians; the actions of DoI management; contract management; project management; reporting and decisions made at each stage of the key milestones. That is not an exhaustive list.

 

I may be wrong but I think that the main reason was that it was going to cost us very little, at the time!

[Omobono]

there are a few issues here which unfortunatley  did not come forth in the debate  yesterday , 

How much input has the steam packet had into the design and operation , ?

I understand that instead of opting for a tidal platform that is accessed by a ramp ,and tried and tested in the  River  Mersey for many years  which exists now  , the new platform will by Hydraulically operated , and suspended by  a series of tensioning cables ,and at a significantly  higher cost ,and risk of technical breakdown ,

I hear Ms Reynolds was leading the negotiations ,if this is correct where is her Marine Engineering experience 

Was  a full specification of the facility presented to Tynwald members before the debate  so at least they had knowledge  of what the department could expect for their money ? together with estimate of future operating costs 

I admire John Wannenburgh approach , he is new yet  but he is obviously frustrated  at the  total miss management of this scheme , where we will eventually find those responsible for this mess have been allowed to sail off into the sunset   with their pockets bulging ,

[James Blonde]

There needs to be an FOI request for all correspondence between Gawne/Harmer/Baker, Nick Black, and Reynolds - and the Steam Packet.