Taxpayers to dig for £20M for Liverpool Dock

[asitis]

1 hour ago, Andy Onchan said:

Were any detailed financial reports made known to you?

If this wasn't the case then our political elected are not representing the people that elected them !

I'm glad I don't pay large amounts of income tax now being retired, but if I did I would be enraged at them constantly pouring it down the drain !

[Manxman2000]

18 hours ago, Derek Flint said:

I wonder if the sensible thing to do right now is to mothballl the site. Take the hit on the on costs and wait and see if the world is ever actually going to get back to normal?

you may not get the chance to do that.  if you walk away now you risk being taken to court to clear the land and make it presentable to the apartment owners of the near by towers who have their backs up anyway over the development.  then you will have the upkeep costs of the land to appease them.  even if it was a bomb site prior to the purchase by the IOM Government.  also if you put the project on the back burner for now, what will the costs be in five years or ten years.  will it ever see the light of day again.  this was certainly a disastrous desision made by the last tynwald but started by the king of the spend  who was made redundant by the electors at the last but one election.  I would walk away now depending on any penalties that would have to be paid, it may be less costly to carry on regardless. try to sell the lease, may as well get the MHK's to sing the impossible dream at the next sitting of tynwald.  

[Gladys]

8 minutes ago, Manxman2000 said:

you may not get the chance to do that.  if you walk away now you risk being taken to court to clear the land and make it presentable to the apartment owners of the near by towers who have their backs up anyway over the development.  then you will have the upkeep costs of the land to appease them.  even if it was a bomb site prior to the purchase by the IOM Government.  also if you put the project on the back burner for now, what will the costs be in five years or ten years.  will it ever see the light of day again.  this was certainly a disastrous desision made by the last tynwald but started by the king of the spend  who was made redundant by the electors at the last but one election.  I would walk away now depending on any penalties that would have to be paid, it may be less costly to carry on regardless. try to sell the lease, may as well get the MHK's to sing the impossible dream at the next sitting of tynwald.  

We need to see that these options have been considered and costed, not the somewhat air plucking of figures that we are currently seeing.  

[ManxTaxPayer]

Yeah we're seeing some crazy plucking figures alright. 

[Happier diner]

1 hour ago, Andy Onchan said:

Questions for the MHKs that frequent this forum:

Did any of you receive an invitation to a presentation from DOI outlining the reasons for the additional funding (other than just headlines like COVID, BREXIT etc etc) ?? Were any detailed financial reports made known to you?

As far as I am concerned we're well beyond the acceptable limits of contract confidentiality now. It's time we were party to the detail.

Contract confidentiality does not have limits. Unless criminality is involved 

However like I said earlier there is no reason we should not be able to see board meeting minutes and financial statements.

Edited December 20, 2021 by Happier diner

[Gladys]

1 minute ago, Happier diner said:

Contract confidentiality does not have limits. Unless criminality is involved 

However like I said earlier there is no reason we should not be able to see board meeting minutes and financial statements.

Which board? 

[Happier diner]

36 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Which board? 

There must be a project board. 

[Non-Believer]

3 hours ago, Petefella said:

There are several ministers who were ministers under the old government my MHK is one of those. How long do you propose we give them diplomatic immunity for? Especially Cannan who was formerly at Treasury when this fiasco was building up and being ignored. 

To the best of my knowledge ( I stand to be corrected) none of the ministers from the previous administration went back into their previous departments. Ashford obviously was at Health.

So they've all got new Departments to learn, the new areas of responsibility, new people to work with, all that takes time and won't happen instantaneously, probably a few months?

The "constants" in any Dept are the CS, they are the ones who keep the Dept running, even over an election period when they effectively may not have a Minister for a period.

Somebody above has asked are our MHKs representing the taxpayers? My gut feeling on this is that our MHKs are now representing #clubtynwald who ultimately got us into this mess and they now presumably feel obliged to see it through to the bitter end.

Unfortunately as we've seen many times before, #clubtynwald's vanity has no price tag.

[Andy Onchan]

1 hour ago, Happier diner said:

Contract confidentiality does not have limits. Unless criminality is involved 

However like I said earlier there is no reason we should not be able to see board meeting minutes and financial statements.

So, MHKs voted through a shed load of money without knowing what they were paying for on our behalf?

If they haven't been presented with any detailed information but voted this through then none of them deserve to be in Tynwald. 

 

[Petefella]

2 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

To the best of my knowledge ( I stand to be corrected) none of the ministers from the previous administration went back into their previous departments. Ashford obviously was at Health.

Alf Cannan was Treasury Minister and the expenditure was presumably signed off by Treasury who would also have surely required the DOI to keep them updated regarding any material changes to what was approved by Tynwald? So I’m happy holding existing MHKs and the Chief Minister to account to be fair. As for Ashford he was as much use as a chocolate fireguard in health and I’m sure the same will apply in Treasury. 

[Non-Believer]

30 minutes ago, Petefella said:

Alf Cannan was Treasury Minister and the expenditure was presumably signed off by Treasury who would also have surely required the DOI to keep them updated regarding any material changes to what was approved by Tynwald? So I’m happy holding existing MHKs and the Chief Minister to account to be fair. As for Ashford he was as much use as a chocolate fireguard in health and I’m sure the same will apply in Treasury. 

I can appreciate your frustrations but unfortunately the system doesn't work like that, particularly in regard to elections. After an administration is dissolved, the slate is effectively wiped clean (highly convenient for some of course) and following the election we start afresh. There is little or no accountability for what went on before.

Of course with regards to expenditure, it all depends what DOI were telling Treasury too...if anything at all. Assuming of course that Treasury were asking for anything.

We have been here before.....

[Petefella]

16 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

I can appreciate your frustrations but unfortunately the system doesn't work like that, particularly in regard to elections. After an administration is dissolved, the slate is effectively wiped clean (highly convenient for some of course) and following the election we start afresh. There is little or no accountability for what went on before.

Voters work like that. You sound like Chris Thomas to be honest. Finding some sort of constitutional technicality to get people off the hook. Cannan was Treasury Minister. This overspend happened on his watch as a leading part of the last comin.  He’s now Chief Minister, he can’t just wash his hands of responsibility. It’s not like a company that’s liquidated every 5 years and leaves it’s debts behind. 

[Lost Login]

5 hours ago, Petefella said:

I fully agree with that I’ve already written to my MHK to ask a similar question. I would encourage that people write to all those who supported it asking for their clear reasons why they supported it.

Or they can listen to Tynwald or read  Hansard to see if their MHK explained the reasoning for the way the voted. Then they are not wasting their MHK's time with letters asking them to explain again something they have already set out.

[Petefella]

1 minute ago, Lost Login said:

Or they can listen to Tynwald or read  Hansard to see if their MHK explained the reasoning for the way the voted. Then they are not wasting their MHK's time with letters asking them to explain again something they have already set out.

There isn’t that much on Hansard and to be honest I thought my MHKs job is to answer questions from the people who voted them into office. Why would being accountable be wasting their time? 

[Lost Login]

Just now, Petefella said:

There isn’t that much on Hansard and to be honest I thought my MHKs job is to answer questions from the people who voted them into office. Why would being accountable be wasting their time? 

I listed to Tynwald and re-read Hansard. David Ashford, I thought, clearly explained why a member should or should not  vote for the funding of the new Liverpool landing stage. As he voted for the funding then I think he has explained why he voted as he did. Similarly my MHK's explained in the debate why they voted as they did. I may or not agree with their decision but by making a little bit of effort myself, rather than relying on being spoon fed, I can see why they voted as they have. It seems you cannot be bothered to do that and expect your MHK to send you a personal letter because you not appear to want to spend the time to check yourself.

Yes an MHK's job includes assisting constituents. Expecting an MHK to answer questions because a constituent can not first be bothered to check themselves seems slightly unreasonable. Both parties surely have a level of responsibility to the other. It is not a one way process.