Jump to content

DoI not fit for purpose


joebean
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, cissolt said:

Stu, how much money was received in car tax or whatever they are calling it? And how much was received on fuel?  Can we have a breakdown on what was spent where?  The active travel brigade seem to think that road maintenance is paid by their tax rather than road tax or fuel tax

Sure thing.

VED income for the last 3 years - £40m (approx revenue figures - you can find the precise amounts in Hansard)
Fuel duty for last 3 years               £86m (ditto)

Roads maintenance spend (3 yrs) £14m
Capital road schemes                     £14m

Oh, and that doesn't include the VAT on fuel, which will be many, many millions.

When I was a schoolboy we were told that RFL HAD to be spent on roads, but that was the UK. Previous DoI Ministers told me on the radio here years ago that ALL of the VED (and more) was spent on roads. That has obviously changed. Obviously we can't prioritise potholes over healthcare, and the pot is only so big, but I firmly believe the motorist is getting a very poor deal.

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

25 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

Sure thing.

VED income for the last 3 years - £40m (approx revenue figures - you can find the precise amounts in Hansard)
Fuel duty for last 3 years               £86m (ditto)

Roads maintenance spend (3 yrs) £14m
Capital road schemes                     £14m

Oh, and that doesn't include the VAT on fuel, which will be many, many millions.

When I was a schoolboy we were told that RFL HAD to be spent on roads, but that was the UK. Previous DoI Ministers told me on the radio here years ago that ALL of the VED (and more) was spent on roads. That has obviously changed. Obviously we can't prioritise potholes over healthcare, and the pot is only so big, but I firmly believe the motorist is getting a very poor deal.

A few years back, David Cretney as DOI Minister instigated a big rise in VED with the assurance that it was all (every penny was the expression) going to be spent on the roads.

ETA. Fuel duty has risen on "environmental grounds" etc.

How much has the extra taxation expense dissuaded people from purchasing Fuel?

And what has the take been spent on?

Two questions I think we all know the answers to already.

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

I think Stu's misunderstood the figures, which is understandable as Crookall clearly made a mistake with them.  His full answer was:

The income from Vehicle Excise Duty over the last three years is for 2021 £13,503,618; for 2019-20, £13,310,371; for 2018-19, £13,325,034. A total of £40,139,023.

The income from fuel duty over the last three years is – I will do it in the same order for the same years but just not give out the years: £25,497,743; £30,216,065; and £30,335,351. A total of £86,049,159.

Customs and excise record hydrocarbon oil duty receipts which includes all fuel duty receipts, not just those related to road vehicles; for instance, boats, domestic usage, agricultural and industrial. The duty received on road fuel is not recorded separately.

It should be noted that VAT is a shared tax under the Customs and Excise Agreement with the Isle of Man share being calculated in line with the Final Expenditure Revenue-Sharing Agreements, the FERSA.

VAT on hydrocarbon oil sales is not separately identified within the calculation as such, and annual revenue from VAT on hydrocarbon oils cannot be provided.

The annual spend on maintaining roads is as follows; 2021, £4,403,497; 2019-20, £5,451,674; and in 2018-19, £4,293,429. A total of £14,148,600.

In addition to the above there is an expenditure on road-related capital improvement schemes each year that are available in the Pink Book. Of this, the following capital money has been spent on overlaying, surface dressing, and micro-asphalting the road which can be classified as maintenance as well, although they are being funded through capital investment. For those three years as well, the total for those is £14,148,600.

So the capital amount that Stu quoted wasn't the full capital programme (the Prom alone will be a lot more) but only those things that were really maintenance, but they didn't want to admit were.  Probably due to some complicated fiddle.

However as you will have noticed the two 'maintenance' amounts are exactly equal, which seems very unlikely so either Crookall read it out wrong or someone fed him the wrong figures.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

However as you will have noticed the two 'maintenance' amounts are exactly equal, which seems very unlikely so either Crookall read it out wrong or someone fed him the wrong figures.

As we're talking about the DoI, my money's on Crookall being fed the wrong figures. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Stu. I heard the 40 million figure.  That puts to bed the assertion that non car motorcycle users are contributing towards road maintenance.

One of the shocking things about Tim's reply was that the Kirk Michael vanity bridge was not even put before Tynwald for approval.  That was quoted as 1.3 million.  Then we have the work going in towards Ramsey where land needs to be bought from property owners.  Another incredible waste of money from DOI

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

So on the currently available information we can surmise that the DOI has been spending millions of pounds of motoring taxpayers money on minority interest groups infrastructure without political debate or sanction, whilst at the same time largely neglecting the infrastructure of those paying the taxes? All under the premise that, "This is the future"?

One of the first things that needs to happen is that predecessors Baker, Harmer and possibly Gawne as well need to be brought back before Tynwald/PAC and asked how and why this situation was allowed to propagate under their watch.

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, cissolt said:

The usual band wagon hoping mix of local councillors and middle class virtue signalers

And what makes you think (or made you think) that the  "mix of local councillors and middle class virtue signalers " whatever they are - don't pay road tax just like everyone else?

Do you think that  "mix of local councillors and middle class virtue signalers" don't have cars or something?

What bitter and twisted planet of misinformation do you live on? 

Do you think that the alternatives to driving into Douglas are adequate and safe?

I agree that spending money on bridges, that are no where near commuting routes, should not be considered 'active travel'. They, like the Heritage trail, are leisure facilities and should never be considered anything else.

However in terms of Active travel, IMO, we are miles behind the developed world and the lack of facilities on the Island is a joke and needs to be sorted.

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

2 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

So on the currently available information we can surmise that the DOI has been spending millions of pounds of motoring taxpayers money on minority interest groups infrastructure without political debate or sanction, whilst at the same time largely neglecting the infrastructure of those paying the taxes? All under the premise that, "This is the future"?

There should be an investigation into pro-cycling lobbying that took place during the Harmer and Baker eras of the DOI. 

There may be some very tangled webs! 

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

23 minutes ago, James Blonde said:

There should be an investigation into pro-cycling lobbying that took place during the Harmer and Baker eras of the DOI. 

There may be some very tangled webs! 

Two things occur to me in this, both obviously conjecture at this point.

Firstly is that they led it as policy as enthusiastic cyclists or secondly, that their enthusiasm for the activity was recognised by their CS who then played on it and offered it as sweetener for Lord only knows what, perhaps not interfering too much with the CS great designs for promenades, train sets and buses.

Either way, I draw similarities with the Sloc Rd previously just happening to need resurfacing with 4" deep tarmac up to Phil Gawne's drive because with what is now outing into the public domain via the new administration, how the hell Baker and Harmer before him could incessantly defend that Department without some sort of incentive takes some thinking about... 

Edited by Non-Believer
extra bit
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

 

One of the first things that needs to happen is that predecessors Baker, Harmer and possibly Gawne as well need to be brought back before Tynwald/PAC and asked how and why this situation was allowed to propagate under their watch.

the why is easy, government needed the money for other things that it isn't prepared/willing to increase income tax to cover. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, CallMeCurious said:

See they paid £75k (although Bill it was only £65k) to Beach Buddies or was it

https://www.gov.im/news/2018/may/04/beach-buddies-scheme-to-help-maintain-more-of-the-islands-footpaths/

No tender process as Nick Black signed the waiver and 3 years later we now have a footpath Tsar because of the atrocious state of the footpaths. Guess that is value for money then? Though to be fair on the scale of incompotence and wastefulness in the DoI it's only five figures.

Notice BB wasn't willing to disclose his salary as exective of the charity after moaning about how much it had cost to buy sit on mower etc. Maybe hold a fund raising event or two then? Isn't that what charities normally do? Not bad when you get free labour from volunteers and the community service by the sounds of it.

Sounds like a right scheme to me. Wonder how much I could get from a charity set up to re-paint road markings, uncover and clean road signs and fix potholes with a cheque from the DoI. Maybe call it  Save The Islands Highways Locally ~ STIHL. That'd be good for a sponsorship deal at least.

 

 

 

 

 

This all sounds a bit strange, either their volunteers or not & surely the prison service should be sorting out transportation & equipment for these tasks using community service & prisoners 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Derek Flint said:

Really interesting stuff. I think it shows how skint Government is.

I'm not sure the Govt is skint, Derek. I think there's plenty of money, the problem is its direction and unauthorised use. Where and how it's being spent. Some people have quite simply got into the habit of self-service and taking the piss. Regally.

In this instance, a largely unviable method of commuting for this part of the world has been carefully and very expensively conflated with a largely seasonal, minority interest leisure activity.

Edited by Non-Believer
extra bit
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, James Blonde said:

There should be an investigation into pro-cycling lobbying that took place during the Harmer and Baker eras of the DOI. 

I think you've got to realise that the "pro-cycling" thing is irrelevant.  There's not much evidence that they went to cyclist or surveyed potential cyclists to genuinely see what they wanted.  The reaction of cyclists to many of the DoI 'improvements' such as the Peel Road cycle lanes should tell you that.  It's the same situation with the horse trams.

The only purpose of these 'projects' is to inflate the self-importance, numbers and salaries of the DoI management and to give lucrative contracts to the right people in the construction industry.  So whether they are necessary or well-planned or whom they are supposed to be for is not important.  If cyclists are the supposed beneficiaries, it will only be because they can borrow some of the jargon from schemes in the UK.

It's important that people realise this situation, because the next lot of nonsense may be said to be benefiting something they approve of, but could turn out to be just as big a waste of money.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

DOI now found to have given Beach Buddies £75K without any formal tender process so that their volunteer wombles can look after the footpaths for them.

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=64515

You should be able to get the accounts of Beach Buddies from the AG's office.  They should show remuneration.  

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...