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

2 hours ago, asitis said:

Covid , the excuse that keeps on giving.

Especially to the CS, all the overtime done this year will be worthy of note, unless of course they are doing it free for the good of the Island.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SleepyJoe said:

There may be some financial impact of covid inflicted delays, but 'significant' ?

It's not as though it's revenue generating

Yup like double or treble ? nonsense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/8/2021 at 11:26 PM, P.K. said:

I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised that the cost of abandoning this folly hasn't even been looked at.

Personally l suspect looking at Liverpool sans a freight option is built on purely historical grounds. Why use tonnage designed for freight at this berth at all? Also for me there is nothing worse than threading my way through Liverpools morning rush hour to make a morning crossing. Especially as the new M6 spur makes Heysham very much the stress free option. However the public transport at Heysham is pants.

This is an opportunity to create a better and more flexible option than the current offerings and they're letting it go begging...

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 to write it off. 

 

But Manx Government hubris, the need for ‘projection of power’, usurped any sensible resolution.

come September, I hope Manx voters ask members how they voted on this issue, and why? 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Derek Flint said:

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 to write it off. 

 

But Manx Government hubris, the need for ‘projection of power’, usurped any sensible resolution.

come September, I hope Manx voters ask members how they voted on this issue, and why? 

I'm totally in favour of Liverpool as the main port but with freight and decent passenger facilities. Once they realised that full freight handling was out of the question, IoMG should have walked away. The costs have escalated to embarrassing levels, particularly as nobody seems to have a handle on them. We are building a facility which will be as much a benefit to Liverpool as the IoM and they should be meeting some of the costs.

Heysham is a disgrace. People arriving at that railhead must be waiting for the SS officer to point them left or right as they get off the train! (In fact they do have their own uniformed version on security) 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am surprised, actually thinking about it I'm not, that some of our elected haven't been asking some awkward questions about just how costs go to 53 million from 3 million or even 9 million. Thats some difference to explain away imo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, asitis said:

I am surprised, actually thinking about it I'm not, that some of our elected haven't been asking some awkward questions about just how costs go to 53 million from 3 million or even 9 million. Thats some difference to explain away imo.

 

download (5).jpeg

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, asitis said:

I am surprised, actually thinking about it I'm not, that some of our elected haven't been asking some awkward questions about just how costs go to 53 million from 3 million or even 9 million. Thats some difference to explain away imo.

It isn't 53m though.  That's already been clarified?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The link to the document that Max Power posted (Topic P8, April 2nd) being the question from Claire Barber, now doesn't appear to work for some reason 🤔.

AT posted on Thursday last that the £53M was a "publication error".

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, SleepyJoe said:

A case for the Auditor General

Where is the Auditor General?

Sat by the Tynpotwald Magic Money Tree with the Witchfinder General and the Noncefinder General. 

  • Haha 1
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...