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

[BBC News] Prices rise for Manx electricity

Recommended Posts

I agree we should have all those things but its the way its gone about. I think I should have a big-ass television the size of the screen at the Palace Cinema, but I can't quite afford it so I'll missapropriate funds and get it. Bet I'd get some chokey time for that.

 

Or maybe I should rig up the Electrical Meter so it bodges the reading and gives me it cheaper, then I could afford the telly that way, bet the MEA would be right on top of me now hollering Prosecute! you can't go doing that, it's theft that! double bloody standards.

 

So the way the extra loans were granted wasn't properly authorised. Do you think if they had been applied for and authorised in the same way as the original loan, that they would have been declined? What would the government have done then with a half finished power station?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they had applied for the extra loan in the same way they had the original then of course the government would have passed it. That doesn't make it morally right, if they would have gotten the money anyway then why not play it by the books?

 

Its like saying 'I'm sure my mate wouldn't mind if I borrowed his car, he'd let me,' you still bloody well ask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If they had applied for the extra loan in the same way they had the original then of course the government would have passed it. That doesn't make it morally right, if they would have gotten the money anyway then why not play it by the books?

 

I think the response to the select committee was that it would have taken too long due to the red tape.

 

Its like saying 'I'm sure my mate wouldn't mind if I borrowed his car, he'd let me,' you still bloody well ask.

 

Sure, but the big issue there is giving em the keys in the first place. This very large project was planned and approved and went titsup, focusing on the loans and calling for blood just seems misguided to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If they had applied for the extra loan in the same way they had the original then of course the government would have passed it. That doesn't make it morally right, if they would have gotten the money anyway then why not play it by the books?

 

Its like saying 'I'm sure my mate wouldn't mind if I borrowed his car, he'd let me,' you still bloody well ask.

 

I suspect it would have caused a row, which would have dragged on for months, and costs would have escalated. They probably thought they were doing the right thing in expediting the release of funds to finish the projects.

 

Cocking up the whole specification and costing exercise at the beginning would appear to have been the real "crime".

 

S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/poli...icle1654931.ece

 

You recon?

 

Like I said above, what was the alternative outcome you'd want out of the MEA loans affair? People posting here calling for blood, PK doing his usual sideline kicking. Kicking who exactly? This catch all 'they' cloud?

 

Who fucked up? What did they do? Should we not have a power cable to the UK? Should we not have a gas pipeline? Should we not have a gas powerstation (probably). Who's fault is that, tynwald will have approved each of those capital projects, democratically. They went over-budget, and a dodgy sidestep was used to secure more cash, but should these projects been left unfinished?

 

Yep, it was a fuckup, they should have been budgetted better, and parts were clearly over-specified, but the government's dealt with it pretty well in hindsight. The alternatives, a large unfinished project or a black list on our country for future lending are far worse than a few quid on our bills.

Dear me, the gold sale, talk about old news. With the www at your disposal surely you could have done better than that? Still, it's nice to see the patriotic wankers sticking to the script to wit:

 

whenever I criticise the Manx so-called "government" all of the usual suspects crawl out of the woodwork in it's defense. This defense consists pretty much of criticising the UK government, claiming Tynwald isn't as bad as they are and that's about it. As if that then makes Tynwald a shining light - pathetic really.

Incidentally, claiming Tynwald is democratic really is a little naiive don't you think? As to the gov dealing with it pretty well in hindsight, I mean, what have they done exactly? How many years ago did the scandal break? As to me kicking the catch all "they" crowd Tynwald should be bringing the MEA lot to book and chucking out of government those who let this reach rediculous proportions. Clear enough for you? But like all the other blamestorming they claim to do I don't expect much to happen anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incidentally, claiming Tynwald is democratic really is a little naiive don't you think? As to the gov dealing with it pretty well in hindsight, I mean, what have they done exactly? How many years ago did the scandal break? As to me kicking the catch all "they" crowd Tynwald should be bringing the MEA lot to book and chucking out of government those who let this reach rediculous proportions. Clear enough for you? But like all the other blamestorming they claim to do I don't expect much to happen anytime soon.

 

You're just some bitter forum stalking vulchure who can't wait to get stuck in. Fuck any kind of specifics, you just want to have an anti establishment rant, as always.

 

The MEA board was changed. Who specifically do you see as responsible in the Government of the time who's still there now? Forget 'they'. Who?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're just some bitter forum stalking vulchure who can't wait to get stuck in. Fuck any kind of specifics, you just want to have an anti establishment rant, as always.

 

The MEA board was changed. Who specifically do you see as responsible in the Government of the time who's still there now? Forget 'they'. Who?

Dear me, getting a bit hormonal aren't we? As to me having a "rant" it would seem you need to look a little closer to home for one of those...

 

The MEA board wasn't "changed" as you put it, they resigned en masse. Now let's have a little look at one of your more lucid moments:

 

So the way the extra loans were granted wasn't properly authorised. Do you think if they had been applied for and authorised in the same way as the original loan, that they would have been declined? What would the government have done then with a half finished power station?

Exactly. But the MEA board did not approach Tynwald for the dosh they needed, they essentially put it out to tender. It eventually went to a Barclays division headed up by one Mr Proffitt. Now with Tynwald backing the loan they would have got it cheaper, from the Barclays division headed up by one Mr Proffitt, but they didn't. So the loan cost more than it needed to which means, of course, that the Barclays division headed up by one Mr Proffitt made more money from it. I wonder if Mr Proffitt was on a pay plan which included profit sharing? I would be very surprised if he wasn't.

 

Incidentally I'm not bitter (I have nothing to be bitter about) but if I get blatantly ripped off it does piss me off, just like it would anyone else. And let's face it, government money would be far better spent on items like education (so that those passing through the system know how to spell "vulture" for example) then lining the pockets of already wealthy individuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The MEA board wasn't "changed" as you put it, they resigned en masse. Now let's have a little look at one of your more lucid moments:

 

The board is different, therefore it has changed. Is that hard to understand?

 

Exactly. But the MEA board did not approach Tynwald for the dosh they needed, they essentially put it out to tender. It eventually went to a Barclays division headed up by one Mr Proffitt. Now with Tynwald backing the loan they would have got it cheaper, from the Barclays division headed up by one Mr Proffitt, but they didn't. So the loan cost more than it needed to which means, of course, that the Barclays division headed up by one Mr Proffitt made more money from it. I wonder if Mr Proffitt was on a pay plan which included profit sharing? I would be very surprised if he wasn't.

 

Right, but the original, larger, government approved loan was also through barclays. Was that dodgy too?

 

You seem to have ignored my question, who's responsible in government? Who's blood do you want?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right, but the original, larger, government approved loan was also through barclays. Was that dodgy too?

What are you on about - the issue is around the second unauthorised loan - are you being deliberately thick or what? I also consider it naiive in the extreme to think that NO feedback on what was happening with the MEA project found it's way back to Tynwald. Although it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if you think they were all blissfully unaware of what was going on.

 

You seem to have ignored my question, who's responsible in government? Who's blood do you want?

It's a question of responsibilty. SOMEONE should have been managing this project, either collectively as in Tynwald or individually as in a head of department (DTI? Treasury? whoever.) Haven't you managed to grasp that concept yet? Ultimately I guess the buck stops with the CM but I don't expect him to shoulder the responsibility. From what I have seen the enquiries seem to be leaning towards the DTI. From the MEA side they have a duty to spend public money responsibly so the question is therefore if they have failed in this and if so is there any comeback either individually or collectively.

 

Time will tell however the loss of Pam Crowe doesn't help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phew, it's all getting a bit racey here. However, there is nothing to indicate that anyone 'filched' the money that was improperly borrowed, nor to show that the money was not needed to complete an important infrastructure development. The development may have been misconceived, but I would suspect that is with the luxury of 20:20 hindsight.

 

We have what we have and we will not find any culprit with assailable assets sufficient to eradicate the debt. IMO pursuing any 'responsible' is now a sideshow which will just make us feel better; it will not solve the problem that we now have.

 

As others have posted, my keen interest (having had the unauthorised debt issue resolved, satisfactorily but not with culpability) is how to mitigate the cost of repayment and that must surely be in maximising the revenue from the assets which have been created, such as the much vaunted, fibre optic, although that was a very short-lived avenue. The concern has to be that inertia from fear of 'doing anything' because of previous shit hitting the fan, is actually precluding a creative and mature way of dealing with this unholy mess.

 

To add to the scalp hunters, I wonder whether the FSC has considered the fitness of those board members at the time to act as directors of IOM companies in future. It may not be a real sanction, but it would certainly send out the right signals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phew, it's all getting a bit racey here. However, there is nothing to indicate that anyone 'filched' the money that was improperly borrowed, nor to show that the money was not needed to complete an important infrastructure development. The development may have been misconceived, but I would suspect that is with the luxury of 20:20 hindsight.

 

We have what we have and we will not find any culprit with assailable assets sufficient to eradicate the debt. IMO pursuing any 'responsible' is now a sideshow which will just make us feel better; it will not solve the problem that we now have.

 

As others have posted, my keen interest (having had the unauthorised debt issue resolved, satisfactorily but not with culpability) is how to mitigate the cost of repayment and that must surely be in maximising the revenue from the assets which have been created, such as the much vaunted, fibre optic, although that was a very short-lived avenue. The concern has to be that inertia from fear of 'doing anything' because of previous shit hitting the fan, is actually precluding a creative and mature way of dealing with this unholy mess.

 

To add to the scalp hunters, I wonder whether the FSC has considered the fitness of those board members at the time to act as directors of IOM companies in future. It may not be a real sanction, but it would certainly send out the right signals.

 

Agreed. Thank you to you and Droid for clarifying the situation and putting it in focus.

 

S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To add to the scalp hunters, I wonder whether the FSC has considered the fitness of those board members at the time to act as directors of IOM companies in future. It may not be a real sanction, but it would certainly send out the right signals.

 

Yep. It's particularly sickening to see people who may have mis managed a project to bring wind turbines to the IOM now running a company bringing renewables to other countries.

 

But if no laws were broken, what can you do?

Edited by ai_Droid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phew, it's all getting a bit racey here.

Now that is funny, "racey" is not a term I would have used to describe some poor saddo trying to defend the indefensible.

 

To add to the scalp hunters, I wonder whether the FSC has considered the fitness of those board members at the time to act as directors of IOM companies in future. It may not be a real sanction, but it would certainly send out the right signals.

I'm not sure that Messers Butt, Callister, Rodan et al would like the label "scalp hunter" to describe their work on the Select Committee on the MEA. Of course if various members of the MEA board are hauled before the beak and found guilty of whatever then I don't see them paying any substantial amounts back into the public purse as a consequence. But that's not the point. The fact remains that if you do nothing then nothing changes. The first step to making change is admitting that the current is bollocksed so change is needed. That's not as simple as it sounds. After the Mount Murray fiasco the then CM's first reaction was to drip and moan about how much the enquiry had cost. That's not exactly taking advantage of opportunities shall we say.

 

So is change needed? From the evidence there is no doubt in my mind that capital projects funded by public money need to be kept under tight control by those pulling the purse strings. It's not exactly rocket science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...