Jump to content

Taxpayers to dig for £20M for Liverpool Dock


Non-Believer
 Share

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Gladys said:

That is a good question.  They are aligned certainly - value for money, quality, functionality and so on.  But not the same in relation to the contract.

The DOI has the contractual position and rights and obligations under it.  They in turn owe the people of the IOM (not just taxpayers) via Tynwald a duty to discharge their functions properly,  spend the money correctly, be accountable,  etc. 

Just because it is an IOMG funded contract doesn't give a member of IOM Joe Public a direct right to approach the contractor for info, sue them etc. 

I'm not totally sure that's exactly correct. If the DOI is a department of IOMG then isn't the Client (The Employer) then the IOMG. The responsibility is resting with the DOI as they have been given the task but contractually wouldn't IOMG have the rights of the 'Employer' under the terms of the contract.

I am guessing here and maybe someone can help us out. Is the DOI a separate legal entity (like the post office) or is it just a department as the title would lead you to believe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

I'm not totally sure that's exactly correct. If the DOI is a department of IOMG then isn't the Client (The Employer) then the IOMG. The responsibility is resting with the DOI as they have been given the task but contractually wouldn't IOMG have the rights of the 'Employer' under the terms of the contract.

I am guessing here and maybe someone can help us out. Is the DOI a separate legal entity (like the post office) or is it just a department as the title would lead you to believe?

For the purposes of the argument,  the distinction and finer details of the constitutional status of DOI as a Govt department does not alter whether the interests of DOI and the Manx general public are the same and can be conflated. 

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

46 minutes ago, Gladys said:

For the purposes of the argument,  the distinction and finer details of the constitutional status of DOI as a Govt department does not alter whether the interests of DOI and the Manx general public are the same and can be conflated. 

Well on the surface you are correct and maybe I am being pedantic, but the way I see it is: If the contract was with the DOI then the commercial/confidentiality terms are with the DOI. If the contract is with the IOMG then that is a much wider set of people. 

How does one define the IOMG as an entity

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

Well on the surface you are correct and maybe I am being pedantic, but the way I see it is: If the contract was with the DOI then the commercial/confidentiality terms are with the DOI. If the contract is with the IOMG then that is a much wider set of people. 

How does one define the IOMG as an entity

Yes, but IOMG is not every Tom Dick and Harry on the island, that is the point.  Just because the contract is entered into by a government department, does not mean that every IOM resident is a party to it, regardless of the constitutional definition of the contracting party. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Yes, but IOMG is not every Tom Dick and Harry on the island, that is the point.  Just because the contract is entered into by a government department, does not mean that every IOM resident is a party to it, regardless of the constitutional definition of the contracting party. 

That's correct. However the subtle difference in my mind is that if the contract IS with the IOMG then basically they have just asked some geezer from the DOI to manage it. So we keep blaming the DOI but really its the government who is accountable. The DOI is merely responsible for executing the task.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

That's correct. However the subtle difference in my mind is that if the contract IS with the IOMG then basically they have just asked some geezer from the DOI to manage it. So we keep blaming the DOI but really its the government who is accountable. The DOI is merely responsible for executing the task.

You are veering off into a different argument.  But isn't it the position that DOI is responsible for discharging certain of IOMG's functions and responsibilities?  Nobody is saying IOMG is not accountable for this but that the lead responsibility is with the DOI.  Do you really think that DOI has no responsibility to perform its functions with due skill and care and that what happened is IOMG chose the wrong geezer so responsibility lies in a wider amorphous thing without a single human taking the rap? 

That really is semantic hair-splitting of the highest order, worthy only of a Yes Minister bureaucrat. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

That's correct. However the subtle difference in my mind is that if the contract IS with the IOMG then basically they have just asked some geezer from the DOI to manage it. So we keep blaming the DOI but really its the government who is accountable. The DOI is merely responsible for executing the task.

The buck stops with the DOI Minister on behalf of IOMG, irrespective of which entity's name is on the contract. The clue is in the name, "Infrastructure". Unless you're saying no one is responsible?

In any case it's too late for subtleties/niceties.

If I didn't know any better I'd say your'e a former DOI Minister or Chief Exec of DOI 🤣

 

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

1 hour ago, Happier diner said:

Well on the surface you are correct and maybe I am being pedantic, but the way I see it is: If the contract was with the DOI then the commercial/confidentiality terms are with the DOI. If the contract is with the IOMG then that is a much wider set of people. 

How does one define the IOMG as an entity

 

images (14).jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

You are veering off into a different argument.  But isn't it the position that DOI is responsible for discharging certain of IOMG's functions and responsibilities?  Nobody is saying IOMG is not accountable for this but that the lead responsibility is with the DOI.  Do you really think that DOI has no responsibility to perform its functions with due skill and care and that what happened is IOMG chose the wrong geezer so responsibility lies in a wider amorphous thing without a single human taking the rap? 

That really is semantic hair-splitting of the highest order, worthy only of a Yes Minister bureaucrat. 

I'm not saying any of those things. I have never defended the government or the DOI on the Liverpool fiasco

I have only ever tried to help by explaining how these contracts work as there seemed to be some posts that just were not practicable because of the ways things work and the suggestions that some posters have made would not be able to be legally executed. 

I think you need to re read what I have said. In fact in my very last post I did say that the DOI have the responsibility. 

FOR THE LAST TIME I DO NOT WORK FOR IOMG OR THE DOI and never have 🥳

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

I'm not saying any of those things. I have never defended the government or the DOI on the Liverpool fiasco

I have only ever tried to help by explaining how these contracts work as there seemed to be some posts that just were not practicable because of the ways things work and the suggestions that some posters have made would not be able to be legally executed. 

I think you need to re read what I have said. In fact in my very last post I did say that the DOI have the responsibility. 

FOR THE LAST TIME I DO NOT WORK FOR IOMG OR THE DOI and never have 🥳

I haven't accused you of working for IOMG.🙂

I was just arguing with the semantic approach which seemed to "semanticise" responsibility and accountability away.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Gladys said:
Quote

Are the DoI's interests the same as the taxpayer's interests?

That is a good question.  They are aligned certainly - value for money, quality, functionality and so on.

 

You can't be serious. You cannot be serious ... well, you know the rest.
Taxpayers *spend* money and want best value. The DoI is nothing other than a group government employees who are *earning* money, and certainly have no interest in doing things cheap. In fact, over-complicating the job means more people and the possibility of promotion and therefore more income.

Not just this job, but Douglas prom. etc. and now Ramsey "flood prevention". The scheme proposed could be implemented by building a 6 inch high brick wall around the harbour, but instead the DoI proposes self-cleaning (!) plate glass, stainless steel and much granite - in order to give the residents "A sense of place". Where did the requirement for "A sense of place" come from? It certainly wasn't from me.

Perhaps I might suggest you take a trip to Specsavers and get yourself a new pair of Edna Everage glasses - this time without the rose-tinted lenses.

  • Haha 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...