Jump to content

Taxpayers to dig for £20M for Liverpool Dock


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 338
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I proposed this in March last as the pandemic took hold. Close the project and take the hit on the expenditure so far. It was never the right thing to do, and Covid was the perfect face saving excuse

Is it fair to conclude that the taxpayer has been massively misled with this, and there has been no subsequent accountability in respect of the mounting costs of this project.  Running costs are

It really is mind blowing incompetence and seemingly no responsibility for the overspends and what the tax payer is left to fund. I asked on facebook maybe 8 years ago in a open question could anyone

Posted Images

11 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

The initial assurance was that there was no cost to the IoM taxpayer. Then it was £3M and via increments to £15M and then further on up to, "We are where we are".

There have been reports of extra expenses for previously unforeseen dredging requirements and clearance of contaminated ground of the purchased site.

This looks like another long haul that will "cost what it costs".

Wasn't the initial no cost based on someone else simply taking all the costs to plan it, build it etc then lease it to IOMSPC?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it fair to conclude that the taxpayer has been massively misled with this, and there has been no subsequent accountability in respect of the mounting costs of this project. 

Running costs are going to be considerable too, but nobody seems remotely bothered about this. 

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just picturing a boardroom scene where the sponsor of this project walks in and says " Ladies and gentlemen, you know I said this was (for arguments sake) 9 million, and you thought it was a goer at that, it seems I'm a bit out on costs, its actually 53million and rising"

How would that pan out.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TerryFuchwit said:

Wasn't the initial no cost based on someone else simply taking all the costs to plan it, build it etc then lease it to IOMSPC?

I can't remember about any original leasing proposals but IIRC correctly, it started when PP announced that the landing stage would be no longer available because of redevelopment.

PP were going to provide a replacement facility initially, that's why there was "no cost" to the Manx taxpayer, other than perhaps a leasing arrangement pertaining to that? Then it went to a 50/50 arrangement with IoMG.

Then it was decided that IoMG was going to go it alone, purchasing the site from PP with an initial prediction of £3M. This was all back in the days of Phil Gawne/DOI.

Costs have risen incrementally since then, through £15M, £20M, £30M up to where we are with Barber's latest figures release.

There's no getting out of it now though, the facility is needed, started and will have to be seen through. It can't be altered or stopped. The best we could hope for would be a PAC probe into where, how and why, eventually.

The major objection is that despite this spend we will still be dependant upon Heysham for freight. Win win for PP.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Derek Flint said:

Is it fair to conclude that the taxpayer has been massively misled with this, and there has been no subsequent accountability in respect of the mounting costs of this project. 

Running costs are going to be considerable too, but nobody seems remotely bothered about this. 

Well Del, unfortunately most of us Manx taxpayers will greet this debaclé with barely a tut and shrug because by now we're inured to the lack of accountability and oversight. We've become conditioned to it and easily fall for government sales-talk that what they're pursuing is in our best interests. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Derek Flint said:

Is it fair to conclude that the taxpayer has been massively misled with this, and there has been no subsequent accountability in respect of the mounting costs of this project. 

Running costs are going to be considerable too, but nobody seems remotely bothered about this. 

 maintenance costs won't be much as they never seem to bother dredging harbours over here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Derek Flint said:

Is it fair to conclude that the taxpayer has been massively misled with this, and there has been no subsequent accountability in respect of the mounting costs of this project. 

Running costs are going to be considerable too, but nobody seems remotely bothered about this. 

This is something Kate Costain was asking a lot of questions about before she quit. I suspect it is something she may have known was a touch dodgy. Lawrie Hooper just seems to have let it drop.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It could and should be a question for PAC to ask and get to the bottom of, eventually. What such an inquiry would ultimately achieve would be another question. "Lessons will be learned" or another MEA with no one to blame would be the predictable outcomes.

Regardless of how the costs have risen or where the money has gone, there'll be no getting it back, it would be pointless pursuing it. People will have retired and/or are already no longer in office so there will be no accountability.

Hands will be wrung and everybody will be expected to move on. As DF has pointed out, then we can start dealing with the running costs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Pipsqueak said:

 maintenance costs won't be much as they never seem to bother dredging harbours over here.

There is no flap gate so the river does the dredging. The only channel to keep clear is where the river dumps its debris in the approaches.

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...