Taxpayers to dig for £20M for Liverpool Dock

[finlo]

1 hour ago, Happier diner said:

Well on the surface you are correct and maybe I am being pedantic, but the way I see it is: If the contract was with the DOI then the commercial/confidentiality terms are with the DOI. If the contract is with the IOMG then that is a much wider set of people. 

How does one define the IOMG as an entity

 

[Happier diner]

1 hour ago, Andy Onchan said:

If I didn't know any better I'd say your'e a former DOI Minister or Chief Exec of DOI 🤣

 

What no way

Nick

[Happier diner]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

You are veering off into a different argument.  But isn't it the position that DOI is responsible for discharging certain of IOMG's functions and responsibilities?  Nobody is saying IOMG is not accountable for this but that the lead responsibility is with the DOI.  Do you really think that DOI has no responsibility to perform its functions with due skill and care and that what happened is IOMG chose the wrong geezer so responsibility lies in a wider amorphous thing without a single human taking the rap? 

That really is semantic hair-splitting of the highest order, worthy only of a Yes Minister bureaucrat. 

I'm not saying any of those things. I have never defended the government or the DOI on the Liverpool fiasco

I have only ever tried to help by explaining how these contracts work as there seemed to be some posts that just were not practicable because of the ways things work and the suggestions that some posters have made would not be able to be legally executed. 

I think you need to re read what I have said. In fact in my very last post I did say that the DOI have the responsibility. 

FOR THE LAST TIME I DO NOT WORK FOR IOMG OR THE DOI and never have 🥳

[Gladys]

24 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

I'm not saying any of those things. I have never defended the government or the DOI on the Liverpool fiasco

I have only ever tried to help by explaining how these contracts work as there seemed to be some posts that just were not practicable because of the ways things work and the suggestions that some posters have made would not be able to be legally executed. 

I think you need to re read what I have said. In fact in my very last post I did say that the DOI have the responsibility. 

FOR THE LAST TIME I DO NOT WORK FOR IOMG OR THE DOI and never have 🥳

I haven't accused you of working for IOMG.🙂

I was just arguing with the semantic approach which seemed to "semanticise" responsibility and accountability away.

 

[Happier diner]

38 minutes ago, Gladys said:

.🙂 was just arguing with the semantic approach which seemed to "semanticise" responsibility and accountability away.

 

It wasn't meant to. 👍

[Two-lane]

18 hours ago, Gladys said:

Quote

Are the DoI's interests the same as the taxpayer's interests?

That is a good question.  They are aligned certainly - value for money, quality, functionality and so on.

 

You can't be serious. You cannot be serious ... well, you know the rest.
Taxpayers *spend* money and want best value. The DoI is nothing other than a group government employees who are *earning* money, and certainly have no interest in doing things cheap. In fact, over-complicating the job means more people and the possibility of promotion and therefore more income.

Not just this job, but Douglas prom. etc. and now Ramsey "flood prevention". The scheme proposed could be implemented by building a 6 inch high brick wall around the harbour, but instead the DoI proposes self-cleaning (!) plate glass, stainless steel and much granite - in order to give the residents "A sense of place". Where did the requirement for "A sense of place" come from? It certainly wasn't from me.

Perhaps I might suggest you take a trip to Specsavers and get yourself a new pair of Edna Everage glasses - this time without the rose-tinted lenses.

[Non-Believer]

[Gladys]

27 minutes ago, Two-lane said:

You can't be serious. You cannot be serious ... well, you know the rest.
Taxpayers *spend* money and want best value. The DoI is nothing other than a group government employees who are *earning* money, and certainly have no interest in doing things cheap. In fact, over-complicating the job means more people and the possibility of promotion and therefore more income.

Not just this job, but Douglas prom. etc. and now Ramsey "flood prevention". The scheme proposed could be implemented by building a 6 inch high brick wall around the harbour, but instead the DoI proposes self-cleaning (!) plate glass, stainless steel and much granite - in order to give the residents "A sense of place". Where did the requirement for "A sense of place" come from? It certainly wasn't from me.

Perhaps I might suggest you take a trip to Specsavers and get yourself a new pair of Edna Everage glasses - this time without the rose-tinted lenses.

Perhaps it should read "They should be aligned... ".

I don't have rose tinted glasses, if you read my posts on the topic, you will see I have been critical of not just this but other follies. 

However, you have to pay attention to the detail and correct lines of responsibility and the contractual arrangements in place. You can't just ride roughshod over those things which may make the simple solution we see as unrealistic, such as sending someone from the Sea Terminal to sit on site in Liverpool. That would be a disaster as it would cloud the contractual lines of responsibility even if there was someone there who was qualified to do the job. 

My own view is as I have posted above, this was a prestigious project and the desire to claim a bit of the Liverpool waterfront as forever Manx may have affected cold, hard judgements.   At some point, the viability must have been called into question, possibly when further voids were found.  At that point, who made the decision to plough on to the tune of many millions in additional cost and why?  The additional cost seems never to have been quantified at a time when the plug could have been pulled, not without cost, but with a known cost. 

 

[Augustus]

On 1/13/2022 at 10:00 AM, Andy Onchan said:

The buck stops with the DOI Minister on behalf of IOMG, irrespective of which entity's name is on the contract. The clue is in the name, "Infrastructure". Unless you're saying no one is responsible?

In any case it's too late for subtleties/niceties.

If I didn't know any better I'd say your'e a former DOI Minister or Chief Exec of DOI 🤣

 

 

Edited February 13, 2022 by Augustus
.

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, Augustus said:

Of course it is DOI that is legally responsible. Look it up in the Government Departments Act. No such legal entity as "Isle of Man Government". Lord Lisvane looked into this a few years ago. No progress since. What a surprise.

I suspect in reality the legal situation with the lack of a Single Legal Entity shouldn't make much difference, but it's far too good an excuse for letting Departments ignore the expensive shenanigans that others get up to - and hoping that they will return the compliment. There was some progress[1], everyone claims they think it's a good idea and yet things mysteriously stalled in 2017. 

It would be interesting to know @Chris Thomas's thoughts on the matter, though I think he may have got quite a list of things he worked on in Cabinet Office that mysterious ran into the sand.

 

[1]   This didn't really have much to do with Lisvane, though he made it clear he thought it was a very good idea and I got the impression he was puzzled by the lack of progress on something that ought to be fairly simple and was claimed to be uncontroversial.

[Happier diner]

It's not just us look.

https://metro.co.uk/2022/01/13/big-bens-80000000-new-look-finally-unveiled-after-five-years-in-scaffolding-15913163/

Started  at £29M and ended up £80M

[Gladys]

2 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

It's not just us look.

https://metro.co.uk/2022/01/13/big-bens-80000000-new-look-finally-unveiled-after-five-years-in-scaffolding-15913163/

Started  at £29M and ended up £80M

Hardly much of a comparison.  The clock tower is an international and historical landmark.  Also, if we compared the cost of each project as a percentage of the respective GNP, theirs would still be small change.  The restoration of a national monument, including the clock machinery, could be expected to include many unknowns.  

See your point, though, but it doesn't make me feel any better.   

[monasqueen]

Quite apart from anything else, Big Ben will look good, and it will work.

Can that be said for......  The Prom.......  Liverpool Dock Terminal...  ????

[Mercenary]

9 hours ago, Gladys said:

Hardly much of a comparison.  The clock tower is an international and historical landmark.  Also, if we compared the cost of each project as a percentage of the respective GNP, theirs would still be small change.  The restoration of a national monument, including the clock machinery, could be expected to include many unknowns.  

See your point, though, but it doesn't make me feel any better.   

Bit of a fallacy there though, you could point to any number of UK projects of similar or larger GDP % (Hinkley, Trident, HS2, Westminster, etc).

The Big Ben comparison is of at least a similar size project.

Edit: the UK has the 'green book' for this very reason

Edited January 16, 2022 by Mercenary
Expansion

[Gladys]

1 hour ago, Mercenary said:

Bit of a fallacy there though, you could point to any number of UK projects of similar or larger GDP % (Hinkley, Trident, HS2, Westminster, etc).

The Big Ben comparison is of at least a similar size project.

Edit: the UK has the 'green book' for this very reason

Is it a similar size project, really?  Did the clock tower (Big Ben is the bell) start off costing taxpayers nothing then gradually edge up? I don't know where the fallacy is, they are just not comparable, apart from the amounts involved. 

Edited January 16, 2022 by Gladys