Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man

slieau dhoo

Members
  • Content Count

    33
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

9 Neutral

About slieau dhoo

  • Rank
    MF Junior Member
  1. disregarding people's own opinions (some of them very well made here), and the very good arguements for university study, my major question is what, if any, is desired end product of sending our islands youth to university? even before finances are considered, i think from a governmental viewpoint, 3 important questions should be being asked? 1- what %age of courses taken are of use to the iom economy both presently and for the future? 2- what %age of students go into a career that is related to the degree that they have attained? 3- what %age of manx educated students come back/permenently settle(difficult to measure granted) on the iom? i am pretty confident the government themselves have stated that the answers to 2 and 3 are low. i would suspect the answer to 1 is also low. As a result, putting all the emotive arguements for university to one side, its hard to argue that there are not some serious problems as it currently stands with the stratergy, if indeed there actually is a stratergy at all. im not saying we shouldnt be sending people to uni, what im saying is , is there a stratergy for why we are sending people to uni, and what as an island are we hoping to get out of it? it appears to me the gov statergy has been for last 20 years at least, loosely, "go and do whatever degree you want, wherever you want, we the gov will pick up the tab. come back to the island if you can but we wont be chasing you if you dont. if you come back you will find most employers wont actually care what the degree is in or where its from as long as its a 2:1 or above (it used to be 2:2) , and we wont be pushing or even helping you to find employment in the area of your degree. get a job in whatever field(usually finance sector, occasionally IT, sometimes civil service) needs labour even if you dont want to go down that route.... then everyones happy" now- that may have worked for many graduates in terms of salaries and a decent career(even if initial they ended up going into an area they didnt want to- eg engineers/IT graduates becoming accountants etc etc ), down the years, but lets not pretend its worked for every graduate, or the island as a whole.personally ive always been of the opinion its an absolutly absurd situation. this is a macroview of it all, and of course doesnt take account of the micro arguements for individuals, but i really do feel this is the perfect time to get a coherant stratergy regarding higher education, as opposed to the muddle along as we have been doing and pretend everything is ok with it, as the subject matter of education is effectively a moral taboo, and to say anything negative about people looking to go into higher education is seen by a great many as beyond the pale. of course i dont expect this to happen unfortunately
  2. I know that is a widely held belief but in my experience in recent years of traveling on and off island during the TT period, the boats were no where near full and I mean 2/3 empty, not just a bit of space and similarly with the airlines, any day, at any time, seats available. You could say that this was because there were not more hotel beds available but I dont think that is a limiter either, as talking to my family members who do come over, they say 90% of the fans they talk to are quite happy with camping as it is low cost. It is the main reason they can have a few days away on "holiday" without their Partner/ Wife/ family's because it costs so little. Its basically a couple of days "Boys Night Out" So you could build 50 new hotels but the boys would not fill them because their other half's would not let them, because it would be too expensive to get past them. i have not been on transport over tt for many years so personally cant comment. i'l take your word for it though. guess it depends who you talk to-The people that i know that travel over all say boats/planes are 90%+ full on way in, slightly less full on way out. from my own anecodtal evidence i know of several people who were intent on coming but couldnt get sailings/flights they wanted so didnt bother. i have also lost count of number of people that come for mgp/s100/go to irish meetings, that say they would come to tt but are not prepared to camp/homestay. yes the people that do come are happy to camp/homestay but there are great many that dont come for this reason. obviously it is total nonstarter to build hotels for 2 weeks a year, but if the DED's goal is to grow the TT so that more people attend, then splashing the cash on marketing and "managing" the event via the motorsport team is in my view, largely the wrong way to go about it. I personally think that the TT is well known enough in motorsport circles worldwide, that money spent on promoting it is not neccesary.people know about it, imo always have done, and the reason that we have not got many thousands more attending is for transport/accomodation reasons-namely cost and availability. whether it would be desirable or manageable to attract several thousands more visitors to our island for 2 weeks is another matter!
  3. What are the costs and budgets of this department? You must know, to state as fact that they are considerable and, in some eyes, bloated. point taken on my use of the word "fact" in above sentance censorship. of course it's not "fact", its up to individuals to decide if the budget/costs of the department are considerable/bloated. i will edit and i apologise. i have been told figures from what i believe to be reliable persons involved in the field of motorsport, but i would never dream of posting them on a public forum without concrete proof. needless to say, with this information, along with the official statements from the department themselves,i believe that the deparments budget is "bloated", and the return from this investment to the taxpayer/success of the TT is questionable at best. Im sure the motorsports team would disagree with this and produce a list of "achievements". All im suggesting is that these "achievements" have come at a cost. Again it is up to the individual to decide if this is worth it or not. the point i was getting at is that throwing money at marketing and "manageing" the event through a motorsports team, in my opinion, a bit of a pointless exercise, when there are glaring issues with accomodation and transport that are hindering the event. Travel and accomodation issues need to be seriously tackled first, if DED are serious about "growing" the event.
  4. Then I shall look forward to the Formula 1, Junior and Production TTs next year According to this the name changes came before Signature's involvement. Correct PL, it is a myth that nothing had changed prior to the new regime. The MMCC were running the event for the government on a very limited budget, they resigned from their contract to negotiate a new one but never got a phone call. The event budget was then increased dramatically,more staff brought in and agencies hired to do much of the work carried out by the MMCC and a handful of tourism staff.. I'm not saying that a lot of work has been done to improve elements of the TT and sell it to the wider world with great success, just that it has to be viewed in perspective of the level of current investment against what the level used to be. agree totally with max here. the fashionable thing to do has been to perpetuate the belief (myth), especially from within DED itself, that the tt was dying on its ass from mid 1990's- 2005/06, and the creation of a dedicated motorsports officer/development team has saved the event from certain extinction. utter nonsense! this has been pedalled from within the department to validate their own seemingly self determined roles within the civil service.Whoever writes their incesseant PR on the "recent success" is wasted here and should look for a career with max clifford or alistair campbell. though i suspect this very PR is outsourced at a considerable cost! I am very much pro TT and have argued its validity on here and elsewhere, but ultimately the DED motosports team and its associated tt steering commitee have signifcantly increased the costs of staging the event to the tax payer, not to mention increased the costs/workload/unneccesary red tape to both the TT, and other motorsports events....events that have previously run well very well thank you before government intervention. i am not suggesting that everything was rosey before the DED motorsports team was created, and i agree some good things have come out of it, namely the event sponsorship deals, and tv rights that have undoubtedly raised much revenue for the event. but this said im of the opinion that the costs and the budget of this department are considerable, and regarded by many as somewhat bloated, with the return from this taxpayers investment being questionable at best with regard to the TT, the simple fact is that if there were more hotels available at a reasonable cost, more sailings and flights available at a reasonable cost, then then more people would come and it would be even more profitable. this is the crux of the matterm and a glaring fact that is rarely acknowledged. rightly or wrongly, the extra accomodation and transport options are not avialble, so the event has to make do with the numbers that attend as it is, and henceforth the associated profit that comes with this. No amount of spending/PR romanticising from the motorsports team will change this fact.
  5. again..... there really is no difference! good, bad and indifferent driving everywhere the constant need to compare and contrast is pretty pointless tbh. ditto the whinging. accept that other road users (and yourself for that matter),are likely to be less than perfect, wherever you are, and henceforth drive accordingly more important things to worry about in life etc etc.......
  6. no proof, but i too have heard similar tales of heavy handed "visits" to those that oppose developments if true an absolute disgrace, but sadly not a huge suprise.
  7. newsflash- iom is no better or worse than anywhere else in world. theres good and bad driving everywhere. this constant need to compare and make stereotyped comments regarding driving, may be a national obsession, but frankly, its totally inaccurate. ive been (un)lucky to drive in several different european countries in last few years and there really is no "better" or "worse" standard. simply accept that your fellow drivers may not be perfect and henceforth,drive accordingly. if you are on the wrong end of some bad driving , dont fret, let it go and get on with your life! if you feel that you have experienced something overtly dangerous or a certain road/junction causes you regular problems, than i would suggest you report it to the relevant authority. constant carping on about "standards" and need for regular testing, refresher courses, MOT's, stricter penalties etc, is just making policy for the minority, and increasing costs/hassel for the majority. the same majority that get through their life without ever being involved in road accidents.life is hard enough without more uneccesary hassel! in my experience when passengering with self proclaimed "good drivers", they are often anything but! just let it go and get on with your life! there are more important things to worry about than being cut up in a filter lane or roundabout!
  8. slieau dhoo

    Rain

    ^^this tbf but hey why let the facts get in the way of an ill informed rant
  9. imo it goes a bit deeper than purely excessive prices. The fact is pubs/clubs are simply not as popular as they once were. Personally i think the internet/home enterainment is as bigger killer to the pub scene as are excessive prices. People would rather sit in on the net and socialise, picking and choosing who they virtually communicate with. they also have almost unlimited access to their own preferance of tv/music /computer games due to the relative cost of such home enterainment reducing over the last 20 odd years. when you add in the aforementioned cheap supermarket booze then it's easy to see why pubs are dying on their arse. Pubs seem to be slightly unfashionable at the moment. The general attitude seems to be "why should i go down the pub and sit with strangers/people i dislike, listening to music i dislike, drinking overpriced drinks, when i can sit at home talking to people i actually want to talk to, drinking at a cheaper price, watching and listening to what i want" imo the atmosphere in pubs in iom has been becoming increasingly terrible over the last 10-15 years. You have landlords/staff who to be perfectly blunt, should not be in the trade. I would have thought that actually wanting to talk to people and make them feel welcome is the main skill of the job (im generalising with the criticism here, there are some good bar staff around but the majority are pretty poor). It also appears that the art of conversation itself between punters seems to be a dying artform. The days of walking into a pub and striking up a conversation with loose acquaintences or even complete strangers appears to be long gone. most people appear to want to sit in silence or talk in their own group. woe betide anyone who dares to deviate from this! You also have the problem of empty pubs scaring off potential customers. people say "i would go down the pub, but its always empty". Unless people get sick of communicating online and get back out into face to face communication, i cant see the pub scene improving any time soon
  10. many many thanks to all who have explained things in a clear fashion (special mention to vinnie) over the last few pages. im sure im not the only one who had a basic, but ultimately incomplete grasp of what has been going on.THe last few pages have seen the final dots joined to complete the picture. the actions of the gov over the last 30 years have suddenly become alot clearer! the answers given on here (thanks wooley/tugger and others) to my question "why did it take the uk so long to review the agreement if they knew it was being abused by the manx side?" were a) they didnt know it was being abused due to their own incompetance and it took the complaints of the CI/murphy and his ilk, before they took notice or b)they did know or at least strongly suspected what the manx were up to but were happy to let it go as they didnt want to rock the boat/had bigger fish to fry/knew by letting it continue at least some of the money would stay in the UK via UK/iom buiness links. i accept that either or a combination of both, are probably true but it does pose yet more questions in my eyes. for example if it was a) and they genuinely didnt know it was going on due to incompetance then why wasnt the agreement reviewed more often, especially in light of the obvious acceleration in IOMs economic growth that they would surely of noted by viewing the paperwork from the manx side?surely this would of been standard practice due to the transitional nature of economies. the loss to the uk exhequer over the 30 year period even by their own vast economys standards would be fairly significant (certainly significant enough for example,a major newspaper to get seriously stuck in, more so than the usual anti tax haven half of page standard stuff we see regulalrly) and certainly enough for more people like murphy to get upset and start causing a fuss. i think the iom(and the uk for that matter) can be quietly pleased the whole episode has gone largely unoticed in the general scheme of things. for example does anyone know any heads role on the uk's side? if it was b) and they strongly suspected/knew what the game was then the question has to be asked why were they willing to let it continue considering the losses? i accept that the loss may be considered small by some people relative to the size of the UK's economy but even so it is still a loss of x million per year that the uk are entitled to. i appreciate the answer's given- especially the arguement that alot of the cash will end up back in UK anyway via business links but that doesnt get away from the fact that the UK was loosing millions per annum with the orginal agreement.i simply find this quite strange bordering on unbelievable that they willingly let this happen? is there yet more to this than meets the eye?
  11. vinnie k......... last 2 posts are absolutly superb and sum up what has been "really" going on over here the last few decades.it is a pity that those 2 posts cannot be distributed inside this weeks courier to educate us all. (for the few of us that dont throw it straight in the bin!) my only question is assuming that the uk surely knew these "abuses" were being undertaken from the manx side, why did they wait until so long before re-defining the agreement? What if anything, were we doing to appease the uk, to allow the agreement to continue in its orginally form? it seems far too charitable of the uk, to allow the agreement to continue for so long if they knew it was being abused by the manx side?
  12. Paisley? He wouldn't need a tannoy. it did cross my mind aswell. from a distance it was rather reminiscant of the old doctor. was beginning to wonder who the joker was trying to stir up sectarian tension in port erin! ha does anyone remember dr paisley actually coming to the prestebytarian(sp?) church in port erin in the mid 90's for some function or other? of course the amusement was that his church was and still is, situated right next to the catholic church!!! seem to remember a keffuffle at the time over the heavy security/police prescence he required and, more to the point, whether the manx taxpayer or the church/himself were paying for it!! cant remeber the outcome of it all.
  13. trying to recruit youngsters for the pe gospel church youth week or such like, im led to believe a combination of a poor tannoy system, and a shouty over excited northern irish accent, meant i had to ask a 3rd party what it was all about aswell.......
  14. hahaha and eat the lunch and wash the dishes "i wasnt going to speak in this debate".......closely followed by "i can remember a time in the dim and distant past" and it really is time to switch the radio off. that or face a volley tedious anecdotes including his involvement in the great wurlitzer debate, how the people of ballasalla are a hardy bunch, the grim old days when the treasury was waiting on martin baker's to pay their tax bill before attributing funds( and that really was hard time mr president!!), a teary eyed reminicise about his days snaring rabbits as a youth on the airfield or his opus as he recalls riding "the little poofer" from ballasalla into castletown
  15. Quite so. People talk of Bell's experience and statesmanlike qualities, but the fact of the matter is that whenever in the past he was in a department which allowed a formulation of policy he made a number of blunders and poor decisions. I think a lot of people overestimate the role of treasury minister. Although a strong and talented individual who knows what they're doing can use the treasury to effect change and put their stamp on politics, the nature of the work means that a weak and callow individual can simply state a couple of overarching objectives, sit back and let his or her civil servants and the wrangling between different departments dictate how things ultimately unfold. My guess would be that Bell fits in with the latter more than the former, and I think the piecemeal and occassionally gimmicky evolution of the economy testifies to this. As for other qualities, I find it difficult to believe that a man who's characterised as having a loud hissy fit every time things start going against him can be described as a statesman. Ignore the pre-prepared speeches and press releases, and focus on how Bell responds when he's forced to think on his feet: recent talk of 'the enemy within', headless chicken demands that something be done whenever the debate's is going against him and so on aren't the hallmarks of a statesman. They sound more like the kind of hapless mentalism which started to creep in during the dying days of the Major and Brown governments in the UK. I desperately hope I'm wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if the next five years do little but demonstrate once and for all how out of his depth Bell has been for much of his career and how poorly he deals with it. That said, I don't think Karran is a viable contender. I simply can't imagine people voting for him out of anything but a desire to mount a protest, and even then I don't think it's unreasonable to imagine that some of those MHKs who aren't so enamoured with Bell would nevertheless vote for him out of a desire to keep Karran out. All in all, we've a long five years ahead of us. +1 well said a comprehensive list of his (many) failings was in a thread on here a while back. id suggest his "fans" take a read of this before they hail him as our saviour moving planning responsibilities to DED will be one of his first moves ... il look forward to inevitable bleating of "boost for the construction industry....stimulate the housing market....high net worth indivduals....need to attract can do people...need for rich to reside here... immigration key to plug pension black hole" you might want to make the most of our countryside while its still there!
×
×
  • Create New...