Braddan Commissioners Community Centre

[Hairy Poppins]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

This keeps coming up, the fact that they were returned uncontested is just a fact of democracy and doesn't limit what they can do in office.  It is just another effect of an apathetic electorate. 

That is not to say this is proving to be a wild folly, but the fact that they were returned uncontested is irrelevant. 

The electorate should make sure they vote and interested candidates should stand to avoid uncontested results. 

I disagree, I don't think it's a fact of democracy at all. 

It's a democratic deficit that's caused by the whole system being unfit for purpose. 

There are too many local authorities and too many constituencies. They need reforming. 4+1 seems the most likely to succeed, say 5 seats on each authority. 

That's all it needs, even then it's still a lot.

[Bosley]

36 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Your comment owes more to anger than accuracy, but for the record here are the Braddan elections this century, courtesy of the IOM Elections website:

2021:  (Deferred from 2020) Elected unopposed:  

• Andrew Charles Richard JESSOPP
• Neal Maurice MELLON
• Andrew David MORGAN
• John QUAYE
• Peter SCOTT

2016:  Elected unopposed:

• Christina CORKILL
• Andrew Charles Richard JESSOP
• Neal Maurice MELLON
• John QUAYE

The remaining seat was filled by David Dentith after a second un-contested election.

I’m not angry at all. I think the people of Braddan are basically stupid and don’t have the right to moan about this. I also said in the last 10 years which is round about right as you confirm that every election since 2016 has been uncontested. And even in 2012 there were 7 candidates for 5 seats so hardly any opposition at all. The fact that Jessopp had been publicly elected 10 years or more ago is largely irrelevant as since the Roundhouse has been proposed he’s been subject to no public vote. 

My point was what are the people of Braddan moaning about? If they don’t like these muppets building up massive debts and pissing away their money then they should have done something about it in at least two elections. Because as it stands since at least 2016 nobody has voted for any of them. It’s too late now to get angry about it. 

[Jarndyce]

3 hours ago, WTF said:

the only excuse of a defence coming out of braddan is that their rates are still cheaper than douglas .

Neither an excuse, nor a defence…

[Gladys]

44 minutes ago, Hairy Poppins said:

I disagree, I don't think it's a fact of democracy at all. 

It's a democratic deficit that's caused by the whole system being unfit for purpose. 

There are too many local authorities and too many constituencies. They need reforming. 4+1 seems the most likely to succeed, say 5 seats on each authority. 

That's all it needs, even then it's still a lot.

Absolutely agree that LAs need reform, but regardless of that, the arrangement we have now is if there are no other candidates, the one standing is in.  That is democracy. The people have spoken by not standing in contest and the one that is standing is therefore implicitly accepted by the electorate.

What is the alternative?  To declare an election void then re-run it, possibly again and again until there is a contest?  Meanwhile, there is no council. 

Edited July 20 by Gladys

[Non-Believer]

Another point already mentioned is that there's nothing on the statute to stop LA members, elected or unelected, running up a world of debt for their ratepayers, sometimes without authorisation. We've seen it in Braddan; in Ramsey with the Courthouse to a lesser degree; and in PSM when the Clerk decided to indulge in a spot of property speculation with Manxonia House.

Where is the body with the charge of overseeing Budget Responsibility? Although having Central Govt do that would be beyond hypocrisy. 

[Banker]

16 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

Another point already mentioned is that there's nothing on the statute to stop LA members, elected or unelected, running up a world of debt for their ratepayers, sometimes without authorisation. We've seen it in Braddan; in Ramsey with the Courthouse to a lesser degree; and in PSM when the Clerk decided to indulge in a spot of property speculation with Manxonia House.

Where is the body with the charge of overseeing Budget Responsibility? Although having Central Govt do that would be beyond hypocrisy. 

They do have to get prior approval and did so securing a loan based in original estimates, however they then had to apply for an additional £3m+ to cover the over runs. 
As far as I know they have to get approval from both DOI and treasury for any loan so they’re not illegal.

[Non-Believer]

2 hours ago, Banker said:

They do have to get prior approval and did so securing a loan based in original estimates, however they then had to apply for an additional £3m+ to cover the over runs. 
As far as I know they have to get approval from both DOI and treasury for any loan so they’re not illegal.

If that's the case then Jessopp and Co. must be off the hook because somebody in Treasury must have crunched the numbers and deemed that this project culminating in 30%+ Rates increases for Braddan was acceptable 🤷‍♂️

[WTF]

2 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

If that's the case then Jessopp and Co. must be off the hook because somebody in Treasury must have crunched the numbers and deemed that this project culminating in 30%+ Rates increases for Braddan was acceptable 🤷‍♂️

acceptable or had to be accepted ?, not the same thing.

Edited July 20 by WTF

[Non-Believer]

47 minutes ago, WTF said:

acceptable or had to be accepted ?, not the same thing.

And who would have spoken for the Braddan ratepayers during this decision-making?

BC were obviously representing themselves, their project and their egos, Treasury were holding the purse strings and making the call.

But who represented the ratepayers who were being lined up for a stiffing, indeed who was keeping the ratepayers in the loop, if at all? What information were they getting to allow their opinion to be heard?

Something smells very bad.

[Bosley]

22 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

But who represented the ratepayers who were being lined up for a stiffing, indeed who was keeping the ratepayers in the loop, if at all? What information were they getting to allow their opinion to be heard?

It’s the rate payers fault. Last two elections uncontested. A ten million pound folly being built and no accountability. They only started moaning when they realized how much their rates were going up by after it had been built. Before then nothing. . 

[Gladys]

27 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

And who would have spoken for the Braddan ratepayers during this decision-making?

BC were obviously representing themselves, their project and their egos, Treasury were holding the purse strings and making the call.

But who represented the ratepayers who were being lined up for a stiffing, indeed who was keeping the ratepayers in the loop, if at all? What information were they getting to allow their opinion to be heard?

Something smells very bad.

The Commissioners are the representatives of the ratepayers, surely?  

Not sure what is being approved when DOI ( isn't it DOI not Treasury?)  approval is sought.  Is it the borrowing, the terms of the borrowing or the project the borrowing is intended to fund? 

[Non-Believer]

3 minutes ago, Gladys said:

The Commissioners are the representatives of the ratepayers, surely?  

Not sure what is being approved when DOI ( isn't it DOI not Treasury?)  approval is sought.  Is it the borrowing, the terms of the borrowing or the project the borrowing is intended to fund? 

Well, DOI or Treasury; but being simplistic, if BC were approaching either for the initial sum or the bail-out one might have thought that they might have had the grace to keep those who were eventually going to cop for it, informed.

And if either were the lenders, one might have thought that their DD might have included how this was going to be repaid and what the borrower's means were and how it would affect their existing finances/revenues. Or did BC just say, "It's ok, we'll hike the Rates by however much is needed"?

The actual ratepayers appear to have been the last line of consideration here.

[Gladys]

5 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

Well, DOI or Treasury; but being simplistic, if BC were approaching either for the initial sum or the bail-out one might have thought that they might have had the grace to keep those who were eventually going to cop for it, informed.

And if either were the lenders, one might have thought that their DD might have included how this was going to be repaid and what the borrower's means were and how it would affect their existing finances/revenues. Or did BC just say, "It's ok, we'll hike the Rates by however much is needed"?

The actual ratepayers appear to have been the last line of consideration here.

Wasn't the borrowing from a commercial lender? 

[Non-Believer]

9 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Wasn't the borrowing from a commercial lender? 

I don't know, but what I'm driving at here is where was the consultation with those who would be ultimately paying for it and where was the due diligence from those who were approving the move (DOI or Treasury)?

It must have been obvious that it was unaffordable without a huge impact on the ratepayers so why were they not kept informed? Or was it down to voter apathy and it was felt that they didn't need to consult/consider?

There are parallels here with other public-funded projects IMHO.

[Gladys]

3 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

I don't know, but what I'm driving at here is where was the consultation with those who would be ultimately paying for it and where was the due diligence from those who were approving the move (DOI or Treasury)?

It must have been obvious that it was unaffordable without a huge impact on the ratepayers so why were they not kept informed? Or was it down to voter apathy and it was felt that they didn't need to consult/consider?

There are parallels here with other public-funded projects IMHO.

The OP refers to a news item from April 2020 regarding the bids received for the project which exceeded expectations. In  2021 there were the LA elections,  Jessop stood unopposed.  There is your consultation. 

The amount and nature of due diligence by DOI would depend on what they were actually approving.  Without some digging around I don't know what that was exactly.  I doubt it was to approve the whole project, but just the borrowing and may have only been a specific aspect of that.  BC  did keep the public informed on progress, through various press releases as I recall,  and possibly via Council meetings.

100% agree that this has gone the way of almost all government projects and the reasons for that need to be addressed with real (not soundbite) financial discipline and responsibility.