Promenade - Megathread

[TerryFuchwit]

1 hour ago, Holte End said:

One can only imagine that MUA have a set amount under the framework agreement

that must be spent on scaffolding,

So it is not a case of a working scaffold.

But insuring that next year the same amount of money is allocated for scaffolding.

It would be really silly not to spend the monies allocated, then to have these monies

removed from your budget, at a time when you really do need scaffolding.

I believe civil servants call it " Pratical Application of Resource Allocation".

It's hard to work out if this is a joke post or you actually believe that's the reason.

[finlo]

2 hours ago, Boris Johnson said:

Just to add a bit of sanity to the argument, from what I am told the power station at Pulrose is very critical infrastructure. If it stops working the interconnector can not cope in peak demand.

Therefore the power station is run with a great deal of risk analysis and risk management, not in the Health and Safety way, in the stop things breaking down way.

Because of that if the power station needs a left handed spirit level bubble imported from Wuhan during a pandemic, it gets one. The scaffold will be there to solve or mitigate something that could or is in the process of going wrong.

Its a standing joke in MUA that the power station gets whatever it wants, the rest of the MUA have to justify every penny.

You might not like that but I would not want to be without power, would you?

I really do hope we're not counting on a bit of Kwikstage to keep the lights on!

[Happier diner]

2 hours ago, TerryFuchwit said:

It's hard to work out if this is a joke post or you actually believe that's the reason.

He probably actually believes it. 

[Holte End]

3 hours ago, TerryFuchwit said:

It's hard to work out if this is a joke post or you actually believe that's the reason.

It was a little bit of satire ffs.

[Holte End]

38 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

He probably actually believes it. 

I don't, but I wouldn't put anything past the MUA,

Which other Government body buys a commodity with taxpayers money,

then sell said commodity on to a non Government body at less than they bought it.

To be sold back to said taxpayers at a huge profit, set by Governments Office of Fair Trading.

Even I could make that one up.

[Happier diner]

2 hours ago, Holte End said:

I don't, but I wouldn't put anything past the MUA,

Which other Government body buys a commodity with taxpayers money,

then sell said commodity on to a non Government body at less than they bought it.

To be sold back to said taxpayers at a huge profit, set by Governments Office of Fair Trading.

Even I could make that one up.

As a statutory board, don't they have their own balance sheet and buy their own commodities. 

[Dirty Buggane]

The rest of the MUA have to justify every penny, Now you really are having a laugh😄

[kevster]

9 hours ago, Holte End said:

One can only imagine that MUA have a set amount under the framework agreement

that must be spent on scaffolding,

So it is not a case of a working scaffold.

But insuring that next year the same amount of money is allocated for scaffolding.

It would be really silly not to spend the monies allocated, then to have these monies

removed from your budget, at a time when you really do need scaffolding.

I believe civil servants call it " Pratical Application of Resource Allocation".

Making sure that your allocated money is spent in the year so as to keep the same allocation for the next year is not just a government thing - I've experienced it in the private sector as well

Edited February 14, 2021 by kevster

[Happier diner]

12 minutes ago, Dirty Buggane said:

The rest of the MUA have to justify every penny, Now you really are having a laugh😄

It does say standing joke...

[Happier diner]

Just now, kevster said:

Making sure that your allocated money is spent in the year so as to keep the same allocation for the next year is not just a government thing - I've experienced in the private sector as well

Yes but not just on scaffolding and not to such a scale. It's a thing of beauty all of its own.

[Holte End]

3 hours ago, Happier diner said:

As a statutory board, don't they have their own balance sheet and buy their own commodities. 

Depends on what you mean by buy their own commodities

If you mean chose what they want, like £14million worth of smart meters,

Then ask Treasury to pay for them from taxpayers money.

I would have to say "No they don't".

But Tim Baker likes the Arms length appoarch to anything he is in charge of.

[Two-lane]

19 minutes ago, Holte End said:

If you mean chose what they want, like £14million worth of smart meters,

By 2019 they were quoting £18.2 million - no doubt higher by now. It is about £400 per meter, which is about the same as I have seen quoted in the UK press.

I do wonder if that includes all the infrastructure required - receivers, computing systems, new software etc. - plus the inevitable upgrades every few years.

In an interview Allinson (who, as a doctor one would assume to have a bit of common sense) told Moulton that (in reference to the users) "there will be no charge for this. Manx Utilities will be picking up the tab".

It is difficult to know what to think about statements like that.

[finlo]

30 minutes ago, Holte End said:

Depends on what you mean by buy their own commodities

If you mean chose what they want, like £14million worth of smart meters,

Then ask Treasury to pay for them from taxpayers money.

I would have to say "No they don't".

But Tim Baker likes the Arms length appoarch to anything he is in charge of.

Not to mention the Land Rover products and Unimog's!

[asitis]

2 hours ago, Two-lane said:

By 2019 they were quoting £18.2 million - no doubt higher by now. It is about £400 per meter, which is about the same as I have seen quoted in the UK press.

I do wonder if that includes all the infrastructure required - receivers, computing systems, new software etc. - plus the inevitable upgrades every few years.

In an interview Allinson (who, as a doctor one would assume to have a bit of common sense) told Moulton that (in reference to the users) "there will be no charge for this. Manx Utilities will be picking up the tab".

It is difficult to know what to think about statements like that.

The same sort of thinking that gives us Tony Browns free hospital, and Eddie Teares not really public money !

[Zarley]

20 hours ago, Boris Johnson said:

Just to add a bit of sanity to the argument, from what I am told the power station at Pulrose is very critical infrastructure. If it stops working the interconnector can not cope in peak demand.

Therefore the power station is run with a great deal of risk analysis and risk management, not in the Health and Safety way, in the stop things breaking down way.

Because of that if the power station needs a left handed spirit level bubble imported from Wuhan during a pandemic, it gets one. The scaffold will be there to solve or mitigate something that could or is in the process of going wrong.

Its a standing joke in MUA that the power station gets whatever it wants, the rest of the MUA have to justify every penny.

You might not like that but I would not want to be without power, would you?

So if the scaffolding is crucial to the normal maintenance and problem solving ability to keep the power station running smoothly and without interruption, would it have not made more sense for such a facility to have been built-in to the structure in the first place? 

And is it not too late to obtain planning permission to have a permanent scaffolding structure to be added to the building now? Would that not save tax-payer's money in the long run? 

It seems a rather obvious solution to me.