Jump to content

Taxpayers to dig for £20M for Liverpool Dock


Non-Believer
 Share

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, joebean said:

There is so much nonsense in this paragraph it is difficult to know where to start. And then, to polish the turd even further we get the “due to Brexit” comment. That really had me spluttering in my coffee this morning. Keep it up, I love a bit of comedy, first thing. 

You may not like his paragraph, but sadly it's technically correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn’t have the opportunity of listening to the debate yesterday so await the publication of Hansard with interest. The pros and cons of a Liverpool dock might be a part of the debate but that is, largely academic now. We are in an “it is what it is” situation, having already committed around £40 million to this debacle. The final bill will, undoubtedly, be in excess of the sum agreed yesterday and, I think, Tim Crookall’s answer to the question about a possible further escalation, with its long pauses and “I hope not” remarks indicates that he considers it unfortunate but likely. 
The most important part of the debate surely must be the further investigation into this affair. The terms of reference for the investigation will be extremely important and will determine the course and results of it.
 

The investigation must start at the beginning and ask why Liverpool was the only option considered and then why that particular site. It must cover questions of due diligence; the contract negotiation and scrutiny; the appointment of contractors; the involvement of politicians; the actions of DoI management; contract management; project management; reporting and decisions made at each stage of the key milestones. That is not an exhaustive list.

 It is highly likely that this investigation will turn up many issues within DoI but it’s not all about DoI but the wider environment where these issues are allowed to happen repeatedly and to the extent they apparently do. Weakness, sheer incompetence and a deliberate covering of poor performance  extend beyond the Department and into the senior echelons of the CS and political levels. My concern is that a PAC investigation is unlikely to delve into these wider issues, where the roots of these failings lie.

There are calls for accountability, but there must be a clear definition of what “accountability” actually means. For a meaningful change in the culture of Government to occur, accountability must extend beyond naming and finger-wagging and include removal from office and loss of financial benefits. Accountability also means the consideration of prosecution where actions appear to go beyond mere incompetence and towards the deliberate. Given that the promenade “project” appeared to start without even a proper project plan I suspect that this particular episode is just another example of complacent and incompetent mismanagement at all levels but a thorough investigation needs to consider everything. It’s beyond a PAC enquiry in my opinion. 

  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is utterly bonkers is that the same project management team who have been at the helm while the project has been so badly fucked up are still at the helm. The proviso for approving the extra funding should have been resignations of any DOI senior management involved with this scheme and appointing suitably qualified independent management. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, joebean said:

 

The investigation must start at the beginning and ask why Liverpool was the only option considered and then why that particular site. It must cover questions of due diligence; the contract negotiation and scrutiny; the appointment of contractors; the involvement of politicians; the actions of DoI management; contract management; project management; reporting and decisions made at each stage of the key milestones. That is not an exhaustive list.

 

I may be wrong but I think that the main reason was that it was going to cost us very little, at the time!

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

there are a few issues here which unfortunatley  did not come forth in the debate  yesterday , 

How much input has the steam packet had into the design and operation , ?

I understand that instead of opting for a tidal platform that is accessed by a ramp ,and tried and tested in the  River  Mersey for many years  which exists now  , the new platform will by Hydraulically operated , and suspended by  a series of tensioning cables ,and at a significantly  higher cost ,and risk of technical breakdown ,

I hear Ms Reynolds was leading the negotiations ,if this is correct where is her Marine Engineering experience 

Was  a full specification of the facility presented to Tynwald members before the debate  so at least they had knowledge  of what the department could expect for their money ? together with estimate of future operating costs 

I admire John Wannenburgh approach , he is new yet  but he is obviously frustrated  at the  total miss management of this scheme , where we will eventually find those responsible for this mess have been allowed to sail off into the sunset   with their pockets bulging ,

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Zarley said:

But this isn't the only massive fuck up in their portfolio, is it. The senior heads are ultimately responsible for all of them and yes, they should roll.

Roll right out the door, do not collect massive goodbye payments and huge pensions on the way out, just GO. If our politicians had any guts, these heads would have rolled a long time ago and we might not be in this mess now.

I don't disagree that heads should but Wannerburgh's sole contribution was simply to demand all senior heads should role without really any review or investigation. I prefer that they follow the evidence and then take appropriate action whereas Wannerburgh's approach simply be to sack a load of people so it makes us look good without checking if they are sacking the right people or whether any changes in structure are required etc as simply replacing with different individuals might not stop the same thing happening again if there are no controls in the system. The only thing worse than continually hearing that lessons will be learned from fuck ups is not bothering to try and learn anything. That is how Wannerburgh came across to me. i.e. as long as we sack a load so we look as if we have taken action then that is all that matters.  

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

Wannerburgh is a grandstander we have seen in three times now, no real solution to anything use wants to be noticed.   Moorehouse is a prize chump he wanted to wait and see….when it is costing about forty grand a week doing not a lot, still we knew that from the gull saga.   What is a cs if it refers to a civi servant….way off I was in business most of my working life although I would not mind a civil service pension and the thought of being protected from any bad judgements and not being held liable for any cock ups would have been a great incentive to join the civil service in hindsight.   There was no option but to carry on with the project and I think the realists of this world accept this.   This does not mean the situation is right and I hope no more money gets asked for.    I think the people in charge were acting beyond their capabilities and the costing was way out simple as that.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Omobono said:

I admire John Wannenburgh approach , he is new yet  but he is obviously frustrated  at the  total miss management of this scheme , where we will eventually find those responsible for this mess have been allowed to sail off into the sunset   with their pockets bulging ,

If you listen to the debate I think they were all pissed off with the scheme. The only real difference was there was some who wanted the scheme pulled in which you are effectively left with only sailing to Heysham, which I believe is also ultimately owned by Peel Holdings, and those who through very gritted teeth and a considerable amount of unhappiness wanted the scheme to be completed. I think a couple were living in la la land in that they thought they could walk away and find an alternative site for a lot less money or renegotiate a better price.

I found Wannerburgh's contribution to the debate to be the least impressive as it seemed basically simply to sack everybody at a senior level at a senior level in the DOI. That may be what will have to be done but first you investigate and then take action rather than taken action and then investigate which appeared to be what Wannenburgh proposed

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nonsense. John Wannenburgh suggested that those responsible for this mess be held to account, and I think we all agree on that. Trouble is, it will be incredibly difficult to prove anything - arses will have been exceptionally well covered to the point that the Nuremberg defence will probably suffice, or the people most responsible will have already departed before the fan is even switched on.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

Nonsense. John Wannenburgh suggested that those responsible for this mess be held to account, and I think we all agree on that. Trouble is, it will be incredibly difficult to prove anything - arses will have been exceptionally well covered to the point that the Nuremberg defence will probably suffice, or the people most responsible will have already departed before the fan is even switched on.

I listened back to Wannenburgh's contribution and that is not how it comes across to me. Most others came across as wanting the matter investigated and those responsible held to account. Wannenburgh came across to me as just basically wanting somebody to be tarred and feathered.

Most other contributions were far more thoughtful and erudite including yours which seemed to reflect the opinion of those who were in agreement that the scheme should continue which is that it is an effing mess, people must be held responsible but the continuing is the lesser of two evils.

In respect of arses being covered you will probably be right but I expect much of this will fall at the hands of the consultants and the question will be why was that party appointed. From what I have heard the party that was probably the wrong choice, hopefully that is a neutral way of putting it, so why they were appointed is probably the numb of the issue. From there is was a domino affect.

   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"We are where we are". Stated Eddie Lowey when the scale of the MEA debacle became apparent.

Parallels to be drawn? And look what that left us with.

Edited by Non-Believer
Typo
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
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...