Non-Believer Posted October 28, 2023 Share Posted October 28, 2023 17 hours ago, Cueey Lewis And The News said: He’s just seems so bitter about being canned by the DOI this time round. Normally he seems to have a bit of common sense and strategy about his approach but most of what he has done recently just seems to be to poke sticks at Cannan because he booted him from the DOI. Some people might suggest that getting hoofed from the DOI could be a career saver, given the number of political careers that it has sunk. Perhaps he can't see that? Given some of the very misguided statements he made while in office (regarding some points about the airport, for example), getting the push before he made a complete fool of himself might have been a godsend to him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred the shred Posted October 28, 2023 Share Posted October 28, 2023 Before he made a complete fool of himself….that boat has sailed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade Runner Posted October 28, 2023 Share Posted October 28, 2023 23 hours ago, Stu Peters said: You have obviously forgotten that one of my first questions in parliament was whether IOMG could offer significantly reduced fares on ‘quiet’ crossings to encourage more visitors. I think a cheap package deal with hotel accommodation would bring droves of visitors in. I was told it wasn’t our job… Stu, This is just rubbish, asking a question is not changing the situation, at all. You could next week ask "Can we implement a 2 party state in Israel" That would have as much effect in the world as you first question You must see the IOM Gov system is broken without party politics? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted October 28, 2023 Share Posted October 28, 2023 4 hours ago, Blade Runner said: Stu, This is just rubbish, asking a question is not changing the situation, at all. You could next week ask "Can we implement a 2 party state in Israel" That would have as much effect in the world as you first question You must see the IOM Gov system is broken without party politics? Not at all. A question like this in Keys or Tynwald raises an issue and provides an opportunity for other members of parliament and the public to join you. Since none could be bothered I left it alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moghrey Mie Posted October 28, 2023 Share Posted October 28, 2023 On 10/27/2023 at 11:18 AM, joebean said: Maybe Manx Radio have it in for Chris Thomas with the way they edit his interviews but, once again, I finish the interview and am none the wiser what he is asking for, or why. He is the master of putting words together that mean nothing. It’s like reading an undergraduates essay in social sciences where things are discussed at length, without any conclusion being reached. I think he wants Tynwald to reset the agreement to interfere with Steam Packet’s judgement about what vessels they need in the next few years. Or maybe it’s to allow the Company to use their judgement. Or maybe to engage in some kind of consultation with some people before resetting the agreement in Tynwald for reasons unspecified. Interviews with politicians like this just fill up the space for news without bringing any news. A shorter news slot and a couple of decent tunes would be better. This agreement took 6 years to negotiate and was intended to run for 25 years. https://www.gov.im/media/1366193/sea-services-agreement.pdf 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted October 28, 2023 Share Posted October 28, 2023 6 minutes ago, Stu Peters said: Not at all. A question like this in Keys or Tynwald raises an issue and provides an opportunity for other members of parliament and the public to join you. Since none could be bothered I left it alone. No...you were told, "It wasn't our job" (your previous post) and walked away from it, presumably without pressing any further and having taken that statement at face value? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joebean Posted October 29, 2023 Author Share Posted October 29, 2023 (edited) On 10/28/2023 at 10:05 PM, Moghrey Mie said: This agreement took 6 years to negotiate and was intended to run for 25 years. https://www.gov.im/media/1366193/sea-services-agreement.pdf 25 years from 2019 is 2044. It doesn’t need a calculator to work it out. Now in 2023, 21 years early, one of our “ I have achieved nothing but talked a lot” politicians wants to “reset” it. It’s just an excuse for more talk and dithering with an asset that is supposed to be held at arms length and allowed to run as a business. It will have to be allowed to run as a business, rather than another government-run service unless taxpayers are going to be continually used to inject money into something run in an unpredictable and uncommercial manner. We already have a long list of government services that require more money and we are depleting reserves to prop the government budget up, temporarily. That can’t go on for another 40 years. The truth is that the Government bought the company to protect it from the venture capitalists. Now they need to protect it from themselves and politicians with little to do but kick political footballs around aimlessly in the corridors of Tynwald. Watching Chris Thomas playing political football is worse. It’s a man playing out a 0-0 draw with himself, dragged out over 5 years. Edited October 30, 2023 by joebean 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted October 30, 2023 Share Posted October 30, 2023 On 10/29/2023 at 8:41 AM, joebean said: Now in 2023, 40 years early How can you be 40 years early on an agreement that only has a 20 years life? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A fool and his money..... Posted October 30, 2023 Share Posted October 30, 2023 On 10/28/2023 at 10:12 PM, Non-Believer said: No...you were told, "It wasn't our job" (your previous post) and walked away from it, presumably without pressing any further and having taken that statement at face value? Ever the revolutionary our Stu - until he was elected Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joebean Posted October 30, 2023 Author Share Posted October 30, 2023 1 hour ago, John Wright said: How can you be 40 years early on an agreement that only has a 20 years life? Well, you can if you are writing half-awake and at least half-stupid. Anything is possible. I’ll correct it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joebean Posted October 30, 2023 Author Share Posted October 30, 2023 1 hour ago, John Wright said: How can you be 40 years early on an agreement that only has a 20 years life? But wasn’t it a 25 year agreement? Not that it makes a huge difference to my sums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted October 30, 2023 Share Posted October 30, 2023 7 minutes ago, joebean said: But wasn’t it a 25 year agreement? Not that it makes a huge difference to my sums. It had a 25 year life. 5 years have gone. It now has a 20 year life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted October 30, 2023 Share Posted October 30, 2023 9 minutes ago, joebean said: Well, you can if you are writing half-awake and at least half-stupid. Anything is possible. I’ll correct it! Don't worry Joe. I often send messages to say I will meet someone at 40 minutes past something. Who arranges to meet someone at a time like that unless they have fat fingers? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joebean Posted October 31, 2023 Author Share Posted October 31, 2023 12 hours ago, John Wright said: It had a 25 year life. 5 years have gone. It now has a 20 year life. Well, OK. Its still early in the agreement, which was the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 31, 2023 Share Posted October 31, 2023 On 10/29/2023 at 7:41 AM, joebean said: 25 years from 2019 is 2044. It doesn’t need a calculator to work it out. Now in 2023, 21 years early, one of our “ I have achieved nothing but talked a lot” politicians wants to “reset” it. It’s just an excuse for more talk and dithering with an asset that is supposed to be held at arms length and allowed to run as a business. It will have to be allowed to run as a business, rather than another government-run service unless taxpayers are going to be continually used to inject money into something run in an unpredictable and uncommercial manner. We already have a long list of government services that require more money and we are depleting reserves to prop the government budget up, temporarily. That can’t go on for another 40 years. The truth is that the Government bought the company to protect it from the venture capitalists. Now they need to protect it from themselves and politicians with little to do but kick political footballs around aimlessly in the corridors of Tynwald. If the Sea Services Agreement has turned out, in practice, to be lacking in some areas than altering it to be more in line with the actual operational requirements makes perfect sense. Although I'm not sure the word "reset" is appropriate... I keep hearing the term "allowed to run as a business" but you have to acknowledge there has been a massive sea change (sorry...) in the business model. As a publicly owned enterprise it essentially no longer has a bottom line to be concerned about. Of course, "funding the future of the business" is essential but I don't want to see too much profit meaning folks are being taxed twice. Of course, it's a balance that gov are bound to get badly wrong as per... 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.