Andy Onchan Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 38 minutes ago, Happier diner said: If its a project that is sponsored by the DOI, then the buck stops with the DOI. They have scoped the project and appointed all the consultants/contractors. They (and their minister) are wholly accountable for the project. These kind of cost over-runs don't just happen overnight, at least one if not two Ministers have been asleep at the wheel whilst this has been unravelling under their watch. One former Minister is an engineering graduate so would expect him to have some idea of how engineering/construction contracts work. 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted January 11, 2022 Author Share Posted January 11, 2022 2 hours ago, Andy Onchan said: My question was, of course, rhetorical. 😉 This debacle of a project has been through the hands of three ministers, Gawne, Harmer and latterly Baker. All three of these gentlemen should have had reports put across their respective desks on progress (or otherwise), including potential cost over-runs (the extras) and issues that would have caused the scope to have been re-drafted/amended Either that didn't happen or, each in their turn, chose to ignore them. Are all three culpable? Or is one more culpable than the others? It might also depend on how much any of them possessed and displayed the necessary natural leadership and thus commanded the respect of their civil servants in order to ensure that said reports were even ever placed on the desks concerned. At this juncture, I'm recalling Alf Cannan's recent remarks that DOI CS couldn't be trusted to give accurate or truthful information to their Ministers. Something obviously leads them to believe that they can get away with such conduct or that what is expected isn't a requirement. The fact that at least one of these Ministers spent their tenure endlessly making excuses for and defending DOI debacles is something of a clue, I'd suggest? 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 We can only imagine that there is going to be greater oversight of this fiasco, the departure of the CEO must be the first sign that the game is up? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Blonde Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 6 minutes ago, Max Power said: We can only imagine that there is going to be greater oversight of this fiasco, the departure of the CEO must be the first sign that the game is up? I (naively) had high hopes for Crookall and a new broom sweeping clean. But it seems that it's just going to be the same old same old with DOI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 27 minutes ago, Max Power said: We can only imagine that there is going to be greater oversight of this fiasco, the departure of the CEO must be the first sign that the game is up? The words stable, door, horse and bolted come to mind. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 21 minutes ago, James Blonde said: I (naively) had high hopes for Crookall and a new broom sweeping clean. But it seems that it's just going to be the same old same old with DOI. The same as Harmer.... said all the right things, even laid a top coat of tarmac on the prom to quell the masses but soon went south very quickly after that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 43 minutes ago, Non-Believer said: At this juncture, I'm recalling Alf Cannan's recent remarks that DOI CS couldn't be trusted to give accurate or truthful information to their Ministers. Something obviously leads them to believe that they can get away with such conduct or that what is expected isn't a requirement. Perhaps the fact that Treasury Minister at the time didn't seem to be particularly fussed about a project going massively over-budget? Or if he was, he had no power to do anything about it and didn't want to protest about that situation. The basic problem here is the culture of Manx Government. Politicians are told that their job is to get the money for the projects and then to leave it to the 'experts' who will deliver it for them. Any political interference is only acceptable about minor things, but not in trying to make things actually work or hold anyone accountable. All Ministers are supposed to do is make excuses and sign what they are told. What is more it's not even the job of other Departments to warn or help improve things. Unless they themselves are being really badly affected by things going wrong, the governmental Omertà makes sure that even the most disastrous projects go ahead and even when the inevitable happens the worst that happens is those in charge being quietly pensioned off. 6 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepyJoe Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 Bring on the Auditor General 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Blonde Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said: Perhaps the fact that Treasury Minister at the time didn't seem to be particularly fussed about a project going massively over-budget? Or if he was, he had no power to do anything about it and didn't want to protest about that situation. Talk within Treasury at the time was that there was movement to go against the DOI, chiefly lead by Cannan and Shimmins, but for whatever reason HQ didn't want them rocking the Comen ship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 17 minutes ago, James Blonde said: HQ didn't want them rocking the Comen ship. Perhaps the taxpayers should send him the xxxxxxx bill ! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numbnuts Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 4 hours ago, James Blonde said: Talk within Treasury at the time was that there was movement to go against the DOI, chiefly lead by Cannan and Shimmins, but for whatever reason HQ didn't want them rocking the Comen ship. I personally think this is what the problem has been. Amazing really that someone with zero knowledge and ability should be able to overrule his Treasurey minister over something as serious as this. But equally Quayle was hopeless over the Prom works too. He gets his gold plated pension and tax payers get the bill for all the serious failures. 3 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 5 hours ago, James Blonde said: Talk within Treasury at the time was that there was movement to go against the DOI, chiefly lead by Cannan and Shimmins, but for whatever reason HQ didn't want them rocking the Comen ship. But they could have rocked the ship if they wanted to. Muttering behind closed doors isn't a very effective way to get things done. Of course that might have lead to expulsion from CoMin or Treasury with all the lucrative 'supplements', as happened to Chris Thomas. But I doubt Quayle could have survived as CM in those circumstances. Quayle's main objection would be his usual one that fixing stuff would be too much like hard work, but he wouldn't have taken this line if he didn't have the backing of Green how and the most of the bureaucracy - including those in Treasury. As ever the problem isn't just in one Department but systemic. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny F Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 On 1/11/2022 at 1:01 AM, Stu Peters said: Apparently yes, we have a proper UK firm doing this for us now. Thanks for the response Stu, so in fact no we don't have anyone from IOM government on site. We may well be paying another UK firm to keep an eye on things but in my experience that is far short of the kind of direct oversight that we should have on a project of this size. I think that the big mistakes were made right at the start of this fiasco but we should now really commit to having a proper IOM taxpayer representative on site. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted January 12, 2022 Author Share Posted January 12, 2022 12 minutes ago, Johnny F said: Thanks for the response Stu, so in fact no we don't have anyone from IOM government on site. We may well be paying another UK firm to keep an eye on things but in my experience that is far short of the kind of direct oversight that we should have on a project of this size. I think that the big mistakes were made right at the start of this fiasco but we should now really commit to having a proper IOM taxpayer representative on site. I wonder when we'll get the official public announcement about the new firm then? And what spin to go with it as to the whys and wherefores? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Non-Believer said: I wonder when we'll get the official public announcement about the new firm then? And what spin to go with it as to the whys and wherefores? Don't be daft! Having said that, why haven't IOMG or their project manager set up a website (similar to MyProm) to inform people about the project and the progress (or lack of) of it??? A lot of questions being asked on here probably wouldn't arise if all the parties concerned were more transparent. Is that too much to ask?? Edited January 12, 2022 by Andy Onchan 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.