Yibble

@piebaps I'm not sure if your misquoting me was accidental or deliberate, but would you be so good as to edit your post above to remove the misquote? Ta.

How disappointing. When I saw the thread title, I was expecting to find all the latest skeet on 'lamppost gate'. https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/commissioners-dealing-of-lamppost-gate-complaint-found-as-maladministration-688014

Well put. And if the bread is decent bread, I suspect the bread and lard option would be the significantly healthier option.

The harsh reality is that it will always be middle earners that get stung for extra tax. Governments struggle to extract substantial (in public revenue terms) amounts of tax from the rich because (1) there are relatively few of them and (2) their wealth tends to be mobile; so greedy governments risk reducing the tax take and harming the economy (which is what Allinson and Co seem to be risking). Governments can't extract substantial revenues from poor people because they haven't got any money. It's a lovely idea that public sector spending shortfalls should be picked up by someone a bit wealthier than you / me / us, but sadly it rarely works that way. The problem here is excessive spending / government / public sector, not a lack of taxation.

If anyone wants a decent chance of a seat in the Keys in the next parliament, they might do well to invite over some Lidl and/or Aldi directors for an all-expenses-paid TT week jolly and TV documentary opportunity.

Two-lane, you are so right there. To be clear, I'm not aiming my comments here at Stu, who I rather like, even if he is somewhat open to accusations of having 'gone native'. And (Stu) I appreciate your contributions and openness here. I think you're at the better end of the list of a 'bad bunch'. Anyway, disclaimers aside, Two-lane I really think you've hit the nail on the head there. When the next election comes, we'll see many (all?) MHKs saying 'I'm standing on a platform of cutting out waste, whilst protecting essential services. I've attended all the right meetings and I'm clearly on record as having said all the right things'. That counts for nowt. Only those incumbents who can show how they have actually cut public sector waste / costs / headcount / pension liabilities should be given a chance of re-election. Fine words are worthless. As you say Two-lane, do and achieve should be the test we apply. So far I have a list of zero MHKs who are close to meeting that test. Nominations / protests welcome.

In 2026, every single incumbent will tell us that they are committed to ending wasteful public sector expenditure whilst protecting essential public services. Any incumbent who can't show a clear track record of having actually done that and having cut out bloat over this parliamentary term should be pelted with ordure and removed from public office / payroll in perpetuity. Similar objectives and measures need to be set for any senior civil servants who hope to keep their jobs.

Whilst I'm not quite sure of the basis for those staff figures (I'm not disputing them, just unaware of the details), you raise a good question. One might also have reasonably expected that over a ten year period, we should have seen ongoing public sector productivity improvements, not least through technology enabled process improvement. However, prima facie, your figures suggest productivity has actually become worse rather than better. Well, unless I've missed major improvements in the quality of public services delivered 😉 . There is of course the normal chorus from those who are 'generously' suggesting ways in which the government could extract even more of other people's money to fund misrule. I think more reasonable people would instead baulk at spending more until we get answers as to why it seems taxpayers' money is being spent less-and-less effectively.

From a quick Google. Orkney (pop 22k, and not all of them on mainland Orkney) has a Lidl. The Isle of Wight (pop 140k) has two Aldis and two Lidls. Whilst I accept they are not perfectly comparable, that does suggest that modest population + need for a boat should not necessarily be an obstacle to one (or both?) of them operating here.

I don't particularly subscribe to the gender stereotyping in the post, but he's right about the behavioural effects of tax policy. Making it more expensive to put higher value economic activity in a jurisdiction is silly. Companies have a choice where they put their corporate functions. HNWIs have a reasonable degree of control where their assets will sit. Despite the apparent incompetence of our political class, this is something that they (or those who advise them) have always appeared to understand. If they send out a signal that they no longer do, they can expect to see their coffers dwindle even more quickly.

I think you will find it was Manannan's cloak. He's displeased by all these eggs coming from across the water. 😉

Yes, good summary of Douglas. However this is the airport thread. 😉

After playing along for a while, I like to (try to) engage the scammers in a conversation about whether their whole community is fundamentally dishonest and brought them up to be similarly dishonest, or if they're just individually dishonest and bringing shame on an otherwise decent community.

My understanding is that the survival rate for ditching in water close to an airport is actually surprisingly high. RNLI training is highly standardised and very specific to RNLI boats and equipment. It would be a big ask to expect volunteers also to train and stay current in processes and equipment specific to airport / aircraft rescue.

Presumable the pax / vehicle capacity ratios change very significantly at the times of year when the boats are crammed with bikes and bikers, with everything at premium fares?