b4mbi

Which is why A) most of the profitability should be used to go back into the service and financing new vessels B) treasury should ringfence returns for exclusive use in the upkeep, maintenance and development of the whole island's marine infrastructure. Then the arguments on pricing should be lessened, and the perception would not be that the profitability of the business is being milked to fund the pensions deficit. Also helps with the 'arms length free from political interference' argument.

The terms member and shareholder are interchangeable in respect of corporate ownership. A Manx tax payer or voter is not a member, rather a stakeholder. The Treasury, a Government Department, is the legal entity which owns the ultimate parent company which owns IOMSPC.

It's a requirement in Manx company law for a 1931 act company (which MIOM is) to have an annual general meeting. I.e. at least once every 12 months a meeting between shareholders (members/the treasury) and directors. Members can call a general meeting at any time, if they so wish, and clearly have the power to appoint/remove directors. This is separate to the new strategic sea services agreement, which would be an agreement between the company and the DOI on the operational service level expected for linkspan exclusivity.

So the much vaunted heritage steam railways will be converted to electric as well? Not on board with that idea. But banning importation of Peat Andre is an excellent idea.

In order of priority: 1) Seawall 2) flour mill nearly making profit 3) Liverpool Arms closure 4) Dog shit on the beach 5) Dog shit on the pavement 6) Dog shit in my house 7) Dogs 8) Cats 9) Seagulls pinching my scone 10) Bin collections 11) My rates are too high 12) Why does Laxey only have 4 pubs when it used to have 6? 13) Who put those stupid rocks on the beach, why can't we have sand? …….. 99) Martyn who? 100) Syrian refugees.

Why would a 31 year old British PhD student be doing "research on the UAE's security strategy"? Aren't you kind of asking for trouble doing that? - think he's been caught bang to rights. At least his PhD will be able to state that "Yes, UAE's security strategy in dealing with espionage seems to be pretty effective"

I don't know! She's my MHK and that certainly doesn't represent my view. COMIN were right to block vote this down, as to my mind it's fairly clear we are simply not equipped or resourced to deal with refugees from war torn areas. And you don't need a committee or a review to tell you that. From a humanitarian point of view of course it's harsh yes, but their plight is not a problem we as a nation of 85,000 can assist in resolving, and I think you'd create more problems than you'd solve if we accepted even a notional amount of refugees just so that we could be seen to be doing the right thing. And why just Syrians? People are being displaced and in conflict zones throughout the world, Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan, just that western media doing a better job making people aware of the Syrian conflict.

Serbian coal power station expansion using Chinese funding and engineering. Come on CCC, lobby harder..

Nice of Mr Boot to say he will engage with this newly formed lobby group. I hope between them, they will turn off this rain and cold wind, and bring back summer, reckon they'll have 6 or 7 month turnaround on that and they can publicise their first joint success! More seriously, yes, we have to do our bit and I wholeheartedly support the drive to a sustainable renewable energy solution for the Island's needs, but to do that needs £££ which no-one will give us for free! The only way to get that £££ (without massive tax hikes) is to exploit the natural gas reserves in our territorial waters, which we have the full economic and legal right to exploit. This is the only pathway to the sustainable energy production that would fit with the commitment to an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 (compared to 1990 levels) They have to get away from the mentality that natural gas is bad - how do they think over 90% of the electricity we use is generated at the moment? And where does that gas come from? Energy self sufficiency is the modern day holy grail for any nation, imagine the possibilities if you didn't have to rely on any other country for your energy needs? Realistically, the Isle of Man is such a small, insignificant contributor to man-made climate change, that I do wonder what the Climate Change Coalition hope to practically achieve? Persuade China to close down its coal fired power stations??

Thanks for reporting back John, and condolences for Zippy. Not a good year for Rainbow

I didn't claim gas is sustainable energy production. Exploitation of gas is a pathway to it.

But what are those targets and how are they measured? 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050? By a certain percentage of our energy needs provided through renewable sources? What energy? Just electricity? What are the baseline measurements? How is carbon emission defined? He's absolutely right in one thing though. How are these renewable energy sources financed? If we accept that government must fund them are we prepared for significant tax increases? 5 x 6 MW windmills off Aberdeen cost £190m, and l'd guess we'd need roughly twice that many to power the Island by 80% renewables. MUA has £450m debts (only £260m of this to external bondholders though, rest is to Treasury) - The main input cost to MUA for power (electricity) generation is.... GAS, significantly cleaner energy source than coal or oil. If we have significant gas off the coast, exploitation of this resource is the ONLY viable pathway to a sustainable energy production in the medium term future. i.e. by 2050. It could have the potential to realise sufficient revenue for Government to fund these renewables and to facilitate the repayment of the MUA debt. Of course, the greens hearts are in the right place and I think most reasonable people would agree that sustainable renewable energy sources must be the future and that we must be seen to be "doing our bit" but they don't have a realistic plan about how to achieve their long term aims. Someone has to pay for it, as no-one will build these turbines for free. How has Norway got to where it is as a leader in renewables sector? By exploiting it's hydrocarbons, which has allowed it to build a massive sovereign wealth fund to fund investment in renewables. Like it or not, £££ (or lack thereof) is the main issue.

Taxpayers are NOT outlaying any money, so fail to see how the award of an exploration licence is a bad thing for the taxpayer??!! Nothing there, taxpayer loses..... nothing. Load of gas there, taxpayer wins.... and wins big through hydrocarbon tax, when they can pretty much set their own rate. Oh, and how is 95% of our electrical power currently generated? Through the Combined Cycle GAS Turbine at the power station - and where does that GAS come from? Russia? Middle East? Norway? Potentially this is a very, very, very good thing for the Island - of course provided the gas is there! And if it is, managed properly, this could be the medium term economic pathway to a fully renewable/sustainable energy economy. I.e. it provides the funding for Gov to be able to buy its own wind turbines. Got to be better to own the windmills/tidal energy generators ourselves than just lease our seabed to external operators who export all the power benefits back to UK. Full renewables owned by us, we'd control our own destiny as we wouldn't be reliant on ANY other nation state for our energy needs. A nationalists dream in fact. As if you're energy self sufficient... it's a pathway to true independence.

Yes, best we do nothing. That's how to progress. Especially by spending no taxpayers money at all.

Evidence?