Jump to content

Taxpayers to dig for £20M for Liverpool Dock


Non-Believer
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

Bear in mind; this project is being "overseen" by a Government Department that our very own Chief Minister has described as being "unfit for purpose".

That Department is staffed by officers that our very own Chief Minister has described as "not being able to be relied upon to pass accurate or truthful information".

Were this a private sector project, those statements alone would be enough to slam the brakes on, see a complete re-evaluation carried out and any other avenues and options considered or even reconsidered. Apart from those persons in the latter statement being removed.

But this is public money so it's ok, not much to see here.

 

Where does the word 'overseen' come from? You have put in in quotes. Where is the quote from? Genuine question.

Isle of Man government is the 'employer' which is another word for customer. i.e the entity which is paying. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

Where does the word 'overseen' come from? You have put in in quotes. Where is the quote from? Genuine question.

Isle of Man government is the 'employer' which is another word for customer. i.e the entity which is paying. 

Yes, O Troll...employing and over-seeing on behalf of the Manx taxpayers and paying with their money.

Simple question, keeping things relative. If you were having a £20,000 extension built on your house and the cost progressively ballooned to over £70,000 and quite possibly beyond; would you be happy or would you be questioning what you had signed up for?

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

Yes, O Troll...employing and over-seeing on behalf of the Manx taxpayers and paying with their money.

Simple question, keeping things relative. If you were having a £20,000 extension built on your house and the cost progressively ballooned to over £70,000 and quite possibly beyond; would you be happy or would you be questioning what you had signed up for?

I would be questioning what I had signed up to.

I am not trolling. I am not defending the government. I am merely saying it ain't that simple now. It's a right cock up in fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it hard to believe, that with the state of the islands finances at the moment, people  can still be happy at blowing what will be 100 million on this farce ! Shopping ,football and the TT are not commercially viable reasons to have the port without freight. As we now own the SPCO, we should be looking to maximise what benefits the profits therefrom can bring, and operating on a strictly bottom line principal, not some feelgood "presence" factors justified by, well nothing whatsoever. Three people blew 30 million of the film fund  public money on some unquantifiable benefits, which are still "unquantifiable" !

Weekend shoppers, Everton and Liverpool supporters, and a once a year event on the island won't cut it. As for the projection of 500,000 visitors a year what a load of cobblers ! The airport will need to up its projections of 2 million passengers a year as well. 

I don't honestly believe anyone would have voted for this to go ahead if at the outset the cost would have been realised. Surely Mr Cannan can't let a department, who he has already described as unfit for purpose, continue to damage public finances in this way !

 

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compare the move of Liverpool terminal with the move of London's council workers from the City Hall to "The Crystal".

I have selected a few quotes from today's Torygraph article. I have highlighted some, which rang a few bells....

.................

Critics say the financial benefits of moving the Greater London Authority to the Crystal in east London have been exaggerated.

Sadiq Khan recently admitted these plans have been pushed back to January, with the refurbishment of the Crystal taking far longer than expected. 

Susan Hall, head of the GLA Conservatives, says: "The moving costs have already rocketed by 70pc to £13.6m. And the Mayor still hasn't confirmed the final bill for the building works.”

"The Crystal is quickly becoming a symbol of Sadiq Khan's mayoralty: delayed, over budget and deeply uninspiring

But Khan has been quick to swat away any criticism.

There's always snags and issues that come up in any major construction, in any infrastructure project.” 

...............

The article is at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/12/13/opponents-count-cost-sadiq-khans-delayed-deeply-uninspiring/  but unfortunately you may find this to be behind a paywall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the great debate is going ahead and will probably continue for some time.   It could cost over 40 million to abandon the

 

 

project which would be disastrous in my view because we would be without anywhere to sail the fast craft to.   I am totally for the project to go ahead because I believe Liverpool is the gateway to the UK from our point of view and with a 234 year lease we would be assuring a berth for our boats for the future .   There has been an amendment proposed by the public accounts committee who want to dissect every penny spent so far with a fine tooth comb which sounds commendable but will achieve nothing except tie up god knows how many civil servants on top wages so more expense.    The estimate for the project seems to have been well out considering they were dealing with sea walls and heaven knows what, add on brexit and Covid and it has just ran away altogether.   Daphne is on next after the lunch break so that could be interesting or not.    They will probably vote it through as really they have no option at this state of play but it will be a long and wearying session.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, cissolt said:

john wannenburgh calling for the heads of the DOI management.  Hear hear.

This !! The incompetance can't  continue and sadly , as peoples livehoods are involved , its a difficult decision but there needs to be a clear out of personnel in DOI . Cost us too much .  

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to know how much it's going to cost the taxpayer into the future and by what means the spend will be recouped.

ETA. This project is now scheduled for "completion" in mid-2023. If the new funding is granted now, who's to say that there won't be further requests between now and then?

PAC should be crawling all over this before the new funding is granted and there need to be guarantees made about the future progress and costs.

Edited by Non-Believer
extra bit
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

I'd like to know how much it's going to cost the taxpayer into the future and by what means the spend will be recouped.

ETA. This project is now scheduled for "completion" in mid-2023. If the new funding is granted now, who's to say that there won't be further requests between now and then?

PAC should be crawling all over this before the new funding is granted and there need to be guarantees made about the future progress and costs.

I agree we cannot carry on with an open chequebook, and I know loads won't agree, but I would vote walk away with as little outlay as possible and lick our wounds ! The fast craft needs replacing and again madness to get another vessel which can't operate late autumn to spring, and even then into a non freight port. Like many things Governments takeover of the SPCO is fast turning into a financial black hole, not into the revenue earning entity we bought it as !

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, asitis said:

I agree we cannot carry on with an open chequebook, and I know loads won't agree, but I would vote walk away with as little outlay as possible and lick our wounds ! The fast craft needs replacing and again madness to get another vessel which can't operate late autumn to spring, and even then into a non freight port. Like many things Governments takeover of the SPCO is fast turning into a financial black hole, not into the revenue earning entity we bought it as !

Alfs toy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, asitis said:

I agree we cannot carry on with an open chequebook, and I know loads won't agree, but I would vote walk away with as little outlay as possible and lick our wounds ! The fast craft needs replacing and again madness to get another vessel which can't operate late autumn to spring, and even then into a non freight port. Like many things Governments takeover of the SPCO is fast turning into a financial black hole, not into the revenue earning entity we bought it as !

1. We didn’t buy it as a revenue earning entity. We bought it as protection of vital sea links.

2. where is it a black hole? It was always known the purchase price would have to be paid out of the first six years revenue stream and that new tonnage would have to be purchased over the first ten years.

3. No decision has been made about what type of vessel will replace Mannanan. It doesn’t need replacing yet. The window was always 2026-30.

4. When new Manxman comes in service the management will want to see how it goes, they’ll ditch Arrow, and can experiment using Ben & Manxman. My prediction is Nanxman2 rather than Mannanan2.

5. They’ve ridden out the storm of covid and a huge drop in cars/passengers carried in last 20 months. Much better than most. And they’ve been a life line, just as intended.

6. I saw arrow alongside at Portsmouth today providing CI freight back up. I’m typing from BF MV Galicia. Just rounding Cap Finistere. Some interesting kit out and design features.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, asitis said:

Thanks John, in reference to your point at 1., if we didn't buy it as a revenue earning entity, then we overpaid for it many times. Part of the valuation was indeed the revenue the monopoly carried forward was worth !

That completely misunderstands the deal and how the price was calculated.

Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...