Dirty Buggane Posted July 21 Share Posted July 21 You missed out consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted July 21 Share Posted July 21 32 minutes ago, Dirty Buggane said: You missed out consequences. That is a tricky one though. Absolutely agree that there should be consequences, but for what and for whom? Stuff goes wrong, and the government is in a difficult position particularly when a project is underway. I don't know how you limit the impact of something that starts as an MHK's pet project and then gains legs as 'the will of Tynwald' and becomes a 'must be delivered at all costs' project, which is what Liverpool became. What is needed is a very large reality check at the very beginning of these projects - what is really needed, what is the objective, is it feasible and what are the possible downsides and costs? It always seems that the approach is how much will it cost to do, (ie it must happen) not how much it would cost not to do. When these projects are first mooted, where does the sponsoring MHK get their advice and is it from an appropriately qualified and independent quarter? Would a civil servant ever say 'you have to be out of your mind'? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Buggane Posted July 21 Share Posted July 21 Doubtful, as it most likely came from the civil service to start with ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarndyce Posted July 21 Share Posted July 21 Further down the food chain, business cases are demanded and pulled apart ruthlessly, no matter what the case is for. Shame these standards seem to get progressively weaker as we ascend the greasy pole all the way to the MHKs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted July 21 Share Posted July 21 6 minutes ago, Dirty Buggane said: Doubtful, as it most likely came from the civil service to start with ? In which case, the relevant MHk or Minister should say 'are you out of your mind?'. With Liverpool, as I recall the main driver was to secure a place to dock near to the city centre citing the need to maintain links with the city, and for football and shopping trips regardless of the fact that sailings to Liverpool were only daily for half of the year. At what point did anyone say 'well, that's a shame, but we have the necessary UK sea links through Heysham. Things change and regrettably this is one of them'? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred the shred Posted July 21 Share Posted July 21 The problem is the goal posts were moved with the three million shortfall it had to be raised the building could not be left unfinished although I doubt even with the initial assessment if it would ever have broken even let alone be profitable. If ever a scheme looked as if it had been calculated as to being a worthwhile venture on the back of a fag packet this is the prime example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cissolt Posted July 21 Share Posted July 21 (edited) 6 hours ago, Fred the shred said: The problem is the goal posts were moved with the three million shortfall it had to be raised the building could not be left unfinished although I doubt even with the initial assessment if it would ever have broken even let alone be profitable. If ever a scheme looked as if it had been calculated as to being a worthwhile venture on the back of a fag packet this is the prime example. Removed nonsense that isn't relevant to this topic Edited July 21 by cissolt Idiocy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted July 21 Share Posted July 21 8 minutes ago, cissolt said: The insinuation in the public accounts hearings was that the true cost was always known. And that the project would never have been approved had the true cost been put before Tynwald from the start. Has the Braddan project been the subject of a PAC review? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted July 21 Share Posted July 21 21 hours ago, Gladys said: Wasn't the borrowing from a commercial lender? Yes it is , HSBC I think but they will only lend with prior approval of central government ie treasury as it’s counted as government borrowing attracting v government preferential interest rates and ultimately repayable by treasury in default. I don’t think it’s for treasury or DOI to decide if a leisure centre is something that should be built if the elected representatives want it rather they assess the request for the loan based on original submission which turned out to be wrong due to what commissioners say is outside their control ie Covid, cost increases due to economic conditions, rampant inflation etc etc. As a ratepayer I was against the scheme from outset & told my MHK and the clerk of my view, unfortunately most residents didn’t bother and are now paying for that apathy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cissolt Posted July 21 Share Posted July 21 3 hours ago, Gladys said: Has the Braddan project been the subject of a PAC review? Damn I was reading the steampacket thread and thought was replying in that. No more Internet for me this weekend 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two-lane Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 Everything was settled for a price of £250 .... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c88049vlpx1o Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopek Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 Some heads need banging together here............ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 26 minutes ago, Two-lane said: Everything was settled for a price of £250 .... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c88049vlpx1o Except it isn’t settled. Braddan won’t sign up unless they get another 70 car parking spaces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopek Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 They're there, why not use them in the evening??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred the shred Posted July 31 Share Posted July 31 BC has asked if they can use the Dr Surgery up there after hours this apparently is not acceptable. I can see why , who is going to police the parking, clients of the RH will be using it all day and patients won’t be able to park. So even if the Govt. had allowed RH clientele to use the roadway, which is not suitable, there would still be a parking problem. How did this ever get through planning ? 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.