Connectivity

[Happier diner]

2 hours ago, A fool and his money..... said:

If you truly believe that amongst all the multiple failings and ongoing uncertainty associated with this project, amongst all the mistakes that were made, they know exactly what every penny, every million even was spent on, then you are extremely naive.

Remind me when I have ever said that.

[A fool and his money.....]

23 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

Remind me when I have ever said that.

OK, you haven't. But you have claimed to be sticking to the facts.

I've asked you which facts and you've yet to respond with any. 

[Roger Mexico]

8 hours ago, Gladys said:

No, definitely not shifting the blame from government.  Just pointing out that, yet again, a populist approach has influenced a very significant project for the island.  

Many people might have liked to keep the ability to shop and watch football in Liverpool.  The job of government is to point out that that is no longer realistic but this is what can be done. 

I don't actually think it's a 'populist approach' as much as populist justification.  Decisions are ,made based on the whims, prejudices and personal benefits of those making them and then any public consultation (which is probably afterwards) is slanted and the results cherry-picked to claim they are doing what the people want.

(This incidentally is true of most things that are praised/denounced as being populist.  But that's another topic).

Anything they don't want to hear is ignored or denounced, no matter what the evidence, both about the project itself and actual popular support.  I've heard Cannan himself try to support this disaster on the grounds that people "wanted to sail to Liverpool" and ignore those who pointed out they might have been less keen if they had been told the correct price tag.

5 hours ago, Gladys said:

I think they have a pretty good idea why it went so over budget.  At a guess, I would say it was an insufficient pre-work assessment of what was actually needed to stabilise the site. 

Everyone keeps forgetting that the Public Accounts Committee produced a Report last December detailing an awful lot of what happened, including a lot about the tender process:

https://www.tynwald.org.im/spfile?file=/business/opqp/sittings/20212026/2023-PP-0123.pdf

It's very well worth reading.

[Happier diner]

1 hour ago, A fool and his money..... said:

OK, you haven't. But you have claimed to be sticking to the facts.

I've asked you which facts and you've yet to respond with any. 

Well seen as you have been honourable ill change "facts' to opinion, common sense or something that is obvious. 

It's pretty certain that the overspend is not significantly due to petty theft. It's arguably most likely, or even certainly due to a combination of

Poor planning and pre investigation 

Inadequate design

COVID 

With a bit of theft thrown into the mix. 

[A fool and his money.....]

12 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

Well seen as you have been honourable ill change "facts' to opinion, common sense or something that is obvious. 

It's pretty certain that the overspend is not significantly due to petty theft. It's arguably most likely, or even certainly due to a combination of

Poor planning and pre investigation 

Inadequate design

COVID 

With a bit of theft thrown into the mix. 

The truth is we don't know. I'd put money on us never finding out either.

I just find it very difficult to believe that they:

Failed to get the job designed properly.

Failed to plan the job properly.

Failed to investigate the ground conditions properly.

Spectacularly failed to cost the job properly.

But the only thing they didn't fail at was putting systems in place to avoid any form of foul play whatsoever - to the point it remained minimal and exactly what would be expected in any construction project.

The job was in Liverpool FFS. Go and live there for a couple of months, you'll see what I mean.