thesultanofsheight

Regulars
  • Content count

    6,021
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    60

thesultanofsheight last won the day on July 19

thesultanofsheight had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,515 Excellent

4 Followers

About thesultanofsheight

  • Rank
    MF Veteran

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,021 profile views
  1. I think John Wright is probably right in that you can't go assuming that some overt conspiracy to suppress exists as they clearly can't sack everyone overnight (if that is what the report suggests) and then have vulnerable children at risk whilst they re-recruit. Even if it's as bad as claimed it's going to take time to restructure the Dept and get everything lined up. In the meantime they have lots of vulnerable customers who will still need to be supported. If anyone leaked the document it might have a big impact on service delivery and create a whole pile of witch hunts that might leave kids exposed to harm.
  2. Fair enough I misunderstood you. I would imagine such a document would have a very restricted circulation list though. It would probably be easy to track where it went if it was released.
  3. You seemed to be threatening to do that so I just thought I would ask the question as the Mods have issued warnings in the past about such things. Someone would have to have the report to do that in the first place wouldn't they? I assume the circulation list will be limited so it would always bounce back on someone in government which is why nobody will likely do it.
  4. Cretneys claims are interesting for two reasons. One for what you said above, but two to try to claim that this monumental fuck up with Vision 9 has nothing to do with him as he wasn't (apparently) consulted by the DED at any time. This is the man that has an issue getting contracts signed and yet will happily ensure we pay for services under a non-contract to the tune of £1.2m. I'm a little bit sceptical of his claims not to have been consulted or involved to be honest.
  5. Are you planning on doing this then? I think the Mods would probably have an issue as it would make them liable for allowing its publishing.
  6. I agree with you and I've often said that what that approach has done is created an economy that really isn't a properly functional economy. When we got a good share of VAT money it was fine pushing basic GDP from manufactured employment and state activity as we got a great big skim off the top of everything. You create a wealth bubble and then constantly get a skim off the bubble the bigger it gets. It didn't really matter if it was manufactured activity, or more PS jobs at inflated wages that meant that people spent more on cars, shopping, or home improvements etc because it made the IOM look prosperous to HMRC (it's biggest economic contributor). But the reality has been that the real economy has been pushed further and further down under the weight of all the manufactured activity and now we need to rebuild the Manx private sector as a hub for actual commercial activity as with the revised VAT arrangements (which might change further with Brexit and the UK leaving the customs union) it's becoming about transactional activity that drives actual tax receipts from that activity or more private sector taxpayers turning externally funded (non state) capital or income into local taxes. We are moving towards more what the Channel Islands have always been - a direct tax economy where taxes are raised on actual private sector activity rather than VAT share off a collective spend. I'm not sure we are managing that transition well either as I think only a few in IOMG get strategically where we need to be going and that at some stage we need to shed some of the baggage to get there. So in a very long winded way I agree that things could implode. But for how much longer can we keep the plates spinning and spending everything we have in reserve to keep it all going anyway? We need to get to a position where money in = money out and where the private sector assumes the main tax burden of the Island by generating more real jobs that pay tax on real commercial activity. We aren't there by a long way.
  7. You are right. I think Gelling was pretty much on record for saying that at the time too. I think the main problem now (going back to the independent pay review) is one of perception. The private sector know where it's heading because they are living it and seeing it and they are living in the real economy daily. Despite making some minor concessions the public sector has largely been living in fantasy land and would still like to hold off reality for as long as possible. The private sector sees how relatively well off they have been treated recently too which is where this pressure is coming from. This review needs to be done. Some won't like it but it's tough as wages and pensions are the biggest slice of taxpayer cash spend by far - over £300m a year. If the government genuinely wants to save money that's where you look first isn't it? At the biggest outgoings you have?
  8. I'd say it's up to Moffatt to prove her wrong (which she hasn't done as disputing figures in the paper is not factually proving that someone is actually wrong). A ratio of around 30% must easily apply as the working population here is about 35,000 and the number in government is around 8,500-9,000. Then there's other agency workers and people on contracts etc. So they can even argue exact statistics if they want; but whichever way anyone cuts it IOMG is the Islands biggest employer by far and it's annual wage bill is well over £300m a year. If it's serious about saving money and providing taxpayer value shouldn't it be independently reviewing the biggest single taxpayer cost in the Isle of Man to see if things are right? Moffatt would seem to just prefer arguing about exact ratios and percentages like it really matters. Typical public sector tactics. Ignore the elephant in the room but create a false argument as to exactly how big it might, or might not be, in order to distract people.
  9. I said I was citing other people's perceptions as relayed to me. Perception is all that counts locally.
  10. It will most certainly will get kicked into touch you can see that already. But only because the CS believes that absolutely none of this stuff (which let's face it applies to everyone in the private sector at some stage) should apply to them. It's a tacit admission that a lot at the top probably know they're well overpaid for what they do and will fight tooth and nail for that not to be exposed by any form of independent survey. You are right about the size and scope of government report. Another sheath of expensive official paperwork that someone might as well wipe their arse on as it's had no value as a catalyst for anything else for about 10 years now as nobody wants to adopt any of its recommendations.
  11. Well no surprises here at the total antipathy to any form of scrutiny that might be applied to the Manx CS in any way. I doubt she is thick. Even if she is she got the vote to carry and the proposal approved by other MHKs so they must be thick too. It's only now it might actually happen that the usual suspects are bricking themselves that they might be found out. The ratios don't really matter. We all know about 30% plus of the Manx working population work in the Manx PS. If you rolled that out to households (where one household contributor or more might be paid from taxpayer funds) you might conceivably get to about 40-50% of every Manx household needing taxpayer cash to survive. No wonder they seem frightened at the prospect of a review of any kind.
  12. I'm simply relaying what people have told me they think has happened. To be fair it doesn't matter what the reality of the situation actually was. Local folklore and all that is what attaches to all local businesses. That's why Martin has been as successful as he's been as he's been a sort of underdog for such a long period with the beer tent and some basically shabby but well liked pubs. That's why I think strategically this isn't a brilliant move by HR. They've potentially lost the local folklore aspect by being shown to be predominately a well bankrolled local millionaires business that's bought itself in to the TT hospitality market. Not my words either but basically the thrust of what I've heard back from others so far. I wish them luck. I just think it's been bad strategy. But then again only bad strategy if they intend staying as a local brewer. The rate at which there gaining pubs in the UK suggests to me that they don't really aspire to be a true local brand in the way Bushy's is.
  13. Its a tricky one for me. I think it's bad tactics and a poor strategic decision to effectively not only outbid Bushy's but also offer a five year deal as well. If the Hooded Ram had simply taken another pitch and competed with Bushy's like H & Bs has done previously then I think people would have said fair enough it's an open market. But the fact that this is open chequebook tactics to boot them off the site from a business that is clearly now being driven by a multi millionaire then I think Hooded Ram has lost a lot of its "we're just a small Manx business trying to expand against the weight of IOM Breweries" credentials by doing this. Someone gave that website link above and I see that they now have 4 or 5 pubs in the UK and just one in the IOM. The small local business sympathy doesn't seem apply anymore I'm afraid and more than a few people have picked up on this. It's just another corporate muscling in to a market space that is ripe for exploitation. I actually quite like Raj and think he's a great businessman but maybe he's spoilt some of the local credentials the business had by pulling this off. Only time will tell I suppose.
  14. I'd be up for at least debating that properly. It might be a better allocation of funds than a lot of what we're doing.
  15. What? Full of even more crap?