Spat between Chief Minister and Dr Glover

[The Voice of Reason]

6 minutes ago, manxman34 said:

Yet you saw fit to give her your patronising and unnecessary endorsement, which was hardly a compliment. After I pointed out she didn't need your validation, you then posted again, saying that she didn't. I observed that that was my original point. You then became further confused, or perhaps you didn't understand the irony in my original comment. No matter.

I didn’t recognize any irony in your original comment. However as you say, no matter.

[Itsmeee]

On 12/10/2020 at 10:07 PM, joebean said:

The issues between Dr Glover and Government serve to illustrate something that has always puzzled me about the Island. On one hand, you have a jurisdiction that only manages to pay its way; provide essential services; sustain and grow its population and provide a decent standard of living for its residents by being able to act relatively swiftly to seize commercial opportunities and, by doing so, attract private wealth and income generation into the economy. On the other hand, the Island is the closest thing to a socialist state within the British Isles in terms of Government ownership and control of services, infrastructure, transport and amenities. There is also a relatively high expectation that this should be the case by the population.

Couple this with a lack of political drive, talent, openness, co-ordination, willingness to reform and a general weakness across national politics and the result will be a powerful and hugely expensive government structure that is subject to very little control or change, except that control and change that it is willing to accept.

The culture within Government, reinforced at the top levels, is to promulgate the view that Government directly delivered services are the only trustworthy source and that private sector delivery would inevitably lead to service delivery that would be unreliable, unsafe and untrustworthy. Contracts have to be full of control mechanisms, regulation and whenever possible, subject to public sector oversight and management. It is not surprising that, in this environment, any attempt to contract-out or provide public recognition of the contribution of private sector delivery is resisted. Dr Glover committed the sin of expecting her contribution to be recognised and, failing to achieve this, to go public and recognise her contribution herself. For Government, this is intolerable.

Unless something, or somebody, comes along to change the prevailing culture, Government will continue to be insular, controlling and delivered at maximum expense. In the long-term this is likely to be unsustainable but I fear that until the point of unsustainability is reached, nothing will change. What is very evident is that the likes of Howard Quayle and David Ashford are not going to change the status-quo. They are servants of it.

You sir, or madam, are a freakin’ genius. Never before have I heard such a succinct and accurate description of the IOM culture.

[Barlow]

24 minutes ago, Itsmeee said:

You sir, or madam, are a freakin’ genius. Never before have I heard such a succinct and accurate description of the IOM culture.

Surely you would agree to the coda/correction made to the final sentence of 

joebeans's post:

"What is very evident is that the likes of Howard Quayle and David Ashford are not going to change the status-quo. They are servants of it."

On 12/10/2020 at 10:25 PM, Uhtred said:

No, not so much servants of it; profound beneficiaries of it.

 

Edited December 12, 2020 by Barlow

[Roger Mexico]

On 12/10/2020 at 10:07 PM, joebean said:

The culture within Government, reinforced at the top levels, is to promulgate the view that Government directly delivered services are the only trustworthy source and that private sector delivery would inevitably lead to service delivery that would be unreliable, unsafe and untrustworthy. Contracts have to be full of control mechanisms, regulation and whenever possible, subject to public sector oversight and management. It is not surprising that, in this environment, any attempt to contract-out or provide public recognition of the contribution of private sector delivery is resisted.

This is actually completely wrong and actually contradicts the intention of the rest of your post.

Firstly you can't complain that  "Contracts have to be full of control mechanisms, regulation and whenever possible, subject to public sector oversight and management". That's pretty much the definition of what a contract is.  If you are expecting commercial companies to deliver services and be paid for it, then what is supplied and how and for how much all have to be specified.  This applies to private sector contracts after all - so why should those involving government be any different?

The main purpose of commercial companies is to make money for themselves.  The clue's in 'commercial'.  So if there aren't watertight public contracts, then they will generally operate to maximise that and that will often be at the expense of the taxpayer.  Services will be poorer, delivered late or expensive.

You're also wrong that outsourcing services is something that the current Government culture objects to.  On the contrary, it is extremely enthusiastic about it.  What do you think Manx Care and the proposal to do similar with education are about?  Similarly the attempt (which continues) to corporatise the Post Office - not long after the MEA disaster showed just how dangerous such a thing would be.

And of course the biggest user of outsourcing is the DoI, both for projects, such as the Prom, and increasingly for running services such as at the Airport.  That's all going well isn't it?

[pongo]

Things mostly work fairly well here.

Apart from the promenade in Douglas. (They should have just ripped out the tramlines and quickly re-done the tarmac for now).

[TerryFuchwit]

1 hour ago, pongo said:

Things mostly work fairly well here.

 

Really?

You wouldn't think so listening to the "experts " on here.

[Apple]

5 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

The main purpose of commercial companies is to make money for themselves.  The clue's in 'commercial'.  So if there aren't watertight public contracts, then they will generally operate to maximise that and that will often be at the expense of the taxpayer.  Services will be poorer, delivered late or expensive.

You're also wrong that outsourcing services is something that the current Government culture objects to.  On the contrary, it is extremely enthusiastic about it. 

Well said. That ideology appears to be our Government overall strategy.

Like the UK, they see it as a way to 'reduce' government, reduce civil servants, wash their hands of the quality of the services they are charged to deliver (never forget that) and certainly distance themselves from any accountability.

It does not improve or produce high quality services for less money. Thats why the IOM Government has not published any relevant expectations on what Manx Care will bring in terms of performance, costs or quality standards. 

Up for debate next week again I hear.

Edited December 13, 2020 by Apple

[Chris Thomas]

8 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

Evening.

Post Office is not being corporatised. That is Tynwald and Board policy. It is - or should be at least - an arms length statutory board. 

Edited December 13, 2020 by Chris Thomas

[joebean]

9 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

This is actually completely wrong and actually contradicts the intention of the rest of your post.

Firstly you can't complain that  "Contracts have to be full of control mechanisms, regulation and whenever possible, subject to public sector oversight and management". That's pretty much the definition of what a contract is.  If you are expecting commercial companies to deliver services and be paid for it, then what is supplied and how and for how much all have to be specified.  This applies to private sector contracts after all - so why should those involving government be any different?

The main purpose of commercial companies is to make money for themselves.  The clue's in 'commercial'.  So if there aren't watertight public contracts, then they will generally operate to maximise that and that will often be at the expense of the taxpayer.  Services will be poorer, delivered late or expensive.

You're also wrong that outsourcing services is something that the current Government culture objects to.  On the contrary, it is extremely enthusiastic about it.  What do you think Manx Care and the proposal to do similar with education are about?  Similarly the attempt (which continues) to corporatise the Post Office - not long after the MEA disaster showed just how dangerous such a thing would be.

And of course the biggest user of outsourcing is the DoI, both for projects, such as the Prom, and increasingly for running services such as at the Airport.  That's all going well isn't it?

I presume you have no experience of Government contracts and Government outsourcing. Your post would indicate such.

[Apple]

Ok. What are the benefits to the public of an almo then please. Seriously, because no-one has explained it yet - only that it separates strategy and operational activity. 

[TheTeapot]

https://rachomics.blog/2020/12/30/covid-genomics-on-the-isle-of-man-the-history/

[2112]

2 hours ago, TheTeapot said:

https://rachomics.blog/2020/12/30/covid-genomics-on-the-isle-of-man-the-history/

Very good article, informative too.  The IOM always tries to portray itself as ‘punching over and above its weight’ and its a ‘leader’. In this instance, cages have been rattled, toes trod on and the establishment don’t like it, never mind about intentionality. If any of this research had resulted in positive publicity for the island, you could be guaranteed that our civil servants and politicos would be showered with praise.
 

Shame that Dr Glover was treated so poorly by certain individuals. I’m sure before long, when the COVID-19 dust has settled, the real recriminations will start ( especially if there is an honest open and corrupt free Tynpotwald select committee established on the COVID-19 pandemic).
 

 

[Hmmmm]

7 hours ago, TheTeapot said:

https://rachomics.blog/2020/12/30/covid-genomics-on-the-isle-of-man-the-history/

Nice informative read, of particular interest given the latest variant ravaging the UK.  Can't help thinking we, as an island, could have been well ahead of the game, if some real leadership was displayed to focus on the Public Health and best practice for addressing the complexities of the virus.  The timing of the blog is particularly relevant as the New Year honours awards for 7 island residents are announced.  I guess that is for a separate thread.

Seven named in New Year Honours List - Manx Radio

[Derek Flint]

Defeat snatched from the jaws of victory.

[Apple]

Dr Glover's report indicates border restrictions sooner than we did would have made some difference. 

Of course going against the arrogance of the political / medical egos currently trying to manage the Covid situation was only going to end in tears. I would have thought that some flexibility may have been afforded in the best interests of people on the island but then I am always unsurprised when we manage to shoot ourselves in the foot.

Even if no actual lives are saved the avoidance of having experienced the damaging and traumatic effect of Covid may have been avoided for someone and their family. That would have been worth it.

Ah well, we will just have to wait now for the probably damaging reports in the Daily Wail et al to show how "brilliantly" and "effectively" we managed the outbreak.

Knighthoods all round then.

3 hours ago, Derek Flint said:

Defeat snatched from the jaws of victory.

Quite so. 

I see senior managers in DHSC start their vaccinations next week. I assume all the older people and those with acceptable and special clinical needs have been done or will be over this weekend ?