Capt W E Johns Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 I'd also like too see government support for Mark Graces' idea of a bond scheme for development of first time buyers homes http://www.isleofman...x?article=36988 Yes an estate agent trying to use debt paid for by public money to make buying houses more likely, who'd have guessed it! I was thinking more in terms of building houses for people who need them at this time; there is no bank finance available for house building right now Mr Grace is perfectly right to try & assert some leadership or at least new ideas to get a moribund economy back on its feet I think it is possible that Mr Grace could afford not to collect a few commissions on some low cost housing; I think the government would make the sale & has an ingenious method of making a profit on it's investment in the long term Mr Grace and his ilk are the precise problem with the housing Market on this Island. Houses would be affordable if the Market was left to fall without government intervention and developer manipulation. As a person he is an astute and likeable individual, but the way the housing Market here has been raped by agent and developer alike has caused nothing but harm to the long term stability of the Manx property Market. Without the manipulation of the Market first time buyers would be paying £100k for a new build house with the banks money, not £180k with money scrounged from the bank and the taxpayer. We cant afford to ignore reality and give people money to buy things at terms that commercial lenders are not prepared to underwrite. If a bank won't look at lending you money on a house - it's either not worth it or they don't think you earn enough to cover it. If that is the case why should government step in and assist you to afford something that you either can't afford or that the banks believe is overpriced relative to it's actual value. Er, so we could develop/build some affordable housing which the banks won't currently finance Er, if the banks are not prepared to fund a purchase why the hell should we be? That is my whole point. If a bank can't see money in a particular scenario why should IOMG fund it just to put commission in an estate agents pocket? Banks exist to look for return on capital and profit. If housing was affordable people would buy it. As they are not buying it what is wrong? Oh yes, it's too expensive but we should use taxpayers money to make it affordable even though it isnt as that generates commission for estate agents and profits for developers. I think it is possible that Mr Grace could afford not to collect a few commissions on some low cost housing; I think the government would make the sale & has an ingenious method of making a profit on it's investment in the long term Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt W E Johns Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 Island wide fast, clean transport would use use surplus energy for our massive power station, take dangerous traffic off the roads [lets be honest, half our drivers are useless], give a major boost to retail in all major towns, as well as providing a development project when the Island really needs one That doesn't really answer the points raised so far though, does it? How much dangerous traffic it would actually take from the roads, and hence whether it would be worth it is precisely what's being called into question here. As for the rest, those aren't really points: 'give a major boost to retail in all major towns' is simply conjecture until you back it up with something more substantial (and it's dependent entirely upon what the likely uptake is), and 'providing a development project when the Island really needs one' is facile construction industry lobbying. Does the Island really need one, or do the building firms? The two are not one and the same and that question is part of a much bigger issue: that being the government's continued subsidy to the contruction firms and developers and whether we should really be perpetuating it rather than weaning them off public money which we can barely afford to spend keeping them afloat on the Island. Mr Robertshaw is the right person to progress such a project I hope for Gods' sake we get real real political leadership in the next House Chris makes the right noises and is a decent backbencher, but, and I honestly don't mean offence here, he's significantly weaker when it comes to proposing things himself and ideas. If his record on here is anything to go by, my personal impression is that he simply doesn't think things through or to nearly enough depth. He's got a knack with bold statements and appealing slogans, but his arguments are usually quite poor and he sometimes seems to have difficulty following other people's arguments, which to me doesn't speak highly about his ability to reason or how serious a player he is. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad he got in given the competition in Douglas East, and I think he should probably stay, but to me he's very much a politician first and a political thinker second and is much better situated on the backbenches than he would be in a top role. Stop dissing my bro' - he is very much a thinker first Are you a government economist ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Robertshaw Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 Island wide fast, clean transport would use use surplus energy for our massive power station, take dangerous traffic off the roads [lets be honest, half our drivers are useless], give a major boost to retail in all major towns, as well as providing a development project when the Island really needs one That doesn't really answer the points raised so far though, does it? How much dangerous traffic it would actually take from the roads, and hence whether it would be worth it is precisely what's being called into question here. As for the rest, those aren't really points: 'give a major boost to retail in all major towns' is simply conjecture until you back it up with something more substantial (and it's dependent entirely upon what the likely uptake is), and 'providing a development project when the Island really needs one' is facile construction industry lobbying. Does the Island really need one, or do the building firms? The two are not one and the same and that question is part of a much bigger issue: that being the government's continued subsidy to the contruction firms and developers and whether we should really be perpetuating it rather than weaning them off public money which we can barely afford to spend keeping them afloat on the Island. Mr Robertshaw is the right person to progress such a project I hope for Gods' sake we get real real political leadership in the next House Chris makes the right noises and is a decent backbencher, but, and I honestly don't mean offence here, he's significantly weaker when it comes to proposing things himself and ideas. If his record on here is anything to go by, my personal impression is that he simply doesn't think things through or to nearly enough depth. He's got a knack with bold statements and appealing slogans, but his arguments are usually quite poor and he sometimes seems to have difficulty following other people's arguments, which to me doesn't speak highly about his ability to reason or how serious a player he is. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad he got in given the competition in Douglas East, and I think he should probably stay, but to me he's very much a politician first and a political thinker second and is much better situated on the backbenches than he would be in a top role. You are entiled to your opinion of me but how about answering the question. Given the circumstances described would you link the tram track and the MER during the course of works or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 It was inevitable that when this subject was raised it would be a little like kicking a hornets nest and that has proved to be the case. There have been a number of strong statements here and assumptions jumped too so if I have not said it clearly enough then I will say it again. The promenade is being renvotated with the opportunity taken to reposition the tram track to one side. Given that that is the case then when the track is relaid and repositioned it would be ridiculous not to take the opportunity to link it to the MER track at the north end of the promenade during the routine course of works. Not to do so at this stage would be irresponsible and I stand by that absolutely. This widens the options available to us in the future and that is as it should be. I touched on what 'might be' and the current difficulties we face simply in order to suggest why this 'future proofing' should be done. Is there anyone here seriously suggesting that this simple link should not be made in the process of relaying the tram track on the promenade? I'm led to believe that the prom may undergo many changes. Some of the concerns is supporting the falling prom wall that Amadeus took photos of recently and reclaiming land from the sea would not only support the wall, but leave options of resituating the rails on the road, to the new reclaimed land. The prom has on many occasions in various threads, come under attack due to the poor state and condition and the movement of the track from the road would probably be welcomed by many. I did like the idea of the choo-choo train as shown earlier as there wouldn't be the need of tracks or someone to clean up the horse manure afterwards, but unless this was an electric powered vehicle, then the cost of petrol would be a disadvantage. gtg, hubs is stuck watching football and looks desperate for a drink...lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 I think it is possible that Mr Grace could afford not to collect a few commissions on some low cost housing That negates the fact that if a commercial bank thinks it's a bad deal we as taxpayers should stump up for it does it? Why should we help people to buy overpriced houses when if enough of them stayed out of the Market for long enough prices would fall to a level they could afford without out help. Your just another person wanting to create a state system that rewards the private sector for doing nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Do the Navan Walk Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 Island wide fast, clean transport would use use surplus energy for our massive power station, take dangerous traffic off the roads [lets be honest, half our drivers are useless], give a major boost to retail in all major towns, as well as providing a development project when the Island really needs one That doesn't really answer the points raised so far though, does it? How much dangerous traffic it would actually take from the roads, and hence whether it would be worth it is precisely what's being called into question here. As for the rest, those aren't really points: 'give a major boost to retail in all major towns' is simply conjecture until you back it up with something more substantial (and it's dependent entirely upon what the likely uptake is), and 'providing a development project when the Island really needs one' is facile construction industry lobbying. Does the Island really need one, or do the building firms? The two are not one and the same and that question is part of a much bigger issue: that being the government's continued subsidy to the contruction firms and developers and whether we should really be perpetuating it rather than weaning them off public money which we can barely afford to spend keeping them afloat on the Island. Mr Robertshaw is the right person to progress such a project I hope for Gods' sake we get real real political leadership in the next House Chris makes the right noises and is a decent backbencher, but, and I honestly don't mean offence here, he's significantly weaker when it comes to proposing things himself and ideas. If his record on here is anything to go by, my personal impression is that he simply doesn't think things through or to nearly enough depth. He's got a knack with bold statements and appealing slogans, but his arguments are usually quite poor and he sometimes seems to have difficulty following other people's arguments, which to me doesn't speak highly about his ability to reason or how serious a player he is. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad he got in given the competition in Douglas East, and I think he should probably stay, but to me he's very much a politician first and a political thinker second and is much better situated on the backbenches than he would be in a top role. You are entiled to your opinion of me but how about answering the question. Given the circumstances described would you link the tram track and the MER during the course of works or not? Well Beings of Guttery Gable No - No Link - and No relaying of track. Muckle's Gate whispers for now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt W E Johns Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 I think it is possible that Mr Grace could afford not to collect a few commissions on some low cost housing That negates the fact that if a commercial bank thinks it's a bad deal we as taxpayers should stump up for it does it? Why should we help people to buy overpriced houses when if enough of them stayed out of the Market for long enough prices would fall to a level they could afford without out help. Your just another person wanting to create a state system that rewards the private sector for doing nothing. Not me good fellow, the Manx state has done enough damage already. I'm campaigning for us to join the EC in our own right so that someone can keep a finger on these b*****s (sorry bro') and maybe get us a bit of that there EC Development Finance that all them other countries are getting ps. This is another part of my agenda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 I think it is possible that Mr Grace could afford not to collect a few commissions on some low cost housing That negates the fact that if a commercial bank thinks it's a bad deal we as taxpayers should stump up for it does it? Why should we help people to buy overpriced houses when if enough of them stayed out of the Market for long enough prices would fall to a level they could afford without out help. Your just another person wanting to create a state system that rewards the private sector for doing nothing. Not me good fellow, the Manx state has done enough damage already. I'm campaigning for us to join the EC in our own right so that someone can keep a finger on these b*****s (sorry bro') and maybe get us a bit of that there EC Development Finance that all them other countries are getting ps. This is another part of my agenda So your wind up attempt this afternoon failed when you realised that you ran out of argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Hedgehog Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 Is there anyone here seriously suggesting that this simple link should not be made in the process of relaying the tram track on the promenade? If it's that simple then the tracks can be linked if/when a new tram system ever comes into existence. Given that the bit that needs linking is on a part of the promenade that probably won't be rebuilt anyway and the works in that area are a good few years away (didn't I read that the first 3 years of the refurbishment is only going to run from the Sea Terminal to the Villa?) it isn't really worth consideration at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt W E Johns Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 I think it is possible that Mr Grace could afford not to collect a few commissions on some low cost housing That negates the fact that if a commercial bank thinks it's a bad deal we as taxpayers should stump up for it does it? Why should we help people to buy overpriced houses when if enough of them stayed out of the Market for long enough prices would fall to a level they could afford without out help. Your just another person wanting to create a state system that rewards the private sector for doing nothing. Not me good fellow, the Manx state has done enough damage already. I'm campaigning for us to join the EC in our own right so that someone can keep a finger on these b*****s (sorry bro') and maybe get us a bit of that there EC Development Finance that all them other countries are getting ps. This is another part of my agenda So your wind up attempt this afternoon failed when you realised that you ran out of argument? Sorry, I just don't think you are getting it. Are you Anne Craine? Have to go now as my Mum is calling me for my tea. Thank you for a pleasurable if somewhat baffling afternoon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shake me up Judy Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 This train is going in two directions, and I'm with Hboy on the housing argument. But we've been over that one many times before and the more interesting suggestion here is Chris's proposal for linking the tram track with the MER. This is a no-brainer to me considering we're ripping up the promenade anyway and we already have the track and rolling stock. I think we're all aware that the Island is up shit creek but I'm interested where some of you see us being in five or ten years time ? If and when we can get the economy rebalanced then at some point we're going to have to make at least some investment for the future. I don't completely write off the Island's potential to attract new businesses and visitors, and one of the ways we can do it is by making the most of our Victorian transport heritage, one of our USP's, instead of flushing it down the pan with everything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade Runner Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 If government pumped money into the economy now it would be a good idea, IF in the good times they had stepped back a bit, but they didn't, as the private sector was booming they weighed in too and overheated the economy. I know of friends in construction who tell me about having to get to the tarmac plant at 3am in the morning queue or you would not get tarmac that day - crazy overheated situation. If they had held back on big capital spending projects like the hospital and the prison they might of been able to even out the boom and bust, as it happened they paid top dollar for these projects in a boom and now when there is no money willing to be risked in the private sector we will see lots of company's struggling. IMO this is the main problem with having shopkeepers and the like in charge, they cant see the bigger picture and look where we are now, far too big a civil service and rumors of tax hikes, on a tax haven FFS, to sort it out. Has getting your picture and name in the paper for being the Minister in charge of spending multiple millions on a given project been that important to the incumbents that they lost all sense of reality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeky boy Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 Although tourism is a small part of the economy it is the sector with possibly the biggest potential for growth Despite the government having to run on 40% less revenue they still operate a workforce and that workforce could be put to good use in enhancing the tourist sector The vintage railways are our second biggest attraction after the TT so I'm with Robertshaw on this one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 You are entiled to your opinion of me but how about answering the question. Given the circumstances described would you link the tram track and the MER during the course of works or not? This is precisely what I find most objectionable about your brand of politics: A load of people come up with fairly reasonable criticisms of something you support and, rather than actually answer those criticisms and go to the bother of defending your opinion in any serious manner, you merely attempt to put your critics on the wrong foot with some kind of rhetorical sleight of hand - in this case by ignoring all criticisms, ignoring that as an MHK you have a responsibility or even duty to defend your position, and reducing the matter to a fatuous question which boils down to 'well we have the opportunity to do it so why not' and prissily trying to make that the sole object of the debate. As political rhetoric it is a cheap and amateurish gambit which should be beneath a sixth form debating society, never mind yourself. As it is, Dave Hedgehogs already pretty much said what I was going to. I'd just add two things: Oppotunity is not the same as justification. One of the worst aspects of this previous government has been its tendency to equate the ability or opportunity to do something with a reason for doing it, with little consideration for how well the act in question would achieve its supposed aims. If we take it as a given that the MEA and the bus service are competing and losing money: why not concentrate on improving the buses instead? Buses are more versatile than trams, can offer a better coverage and are generally better suited to a dispersed population than other mass transit systems (Trams and other forms of locamotives in particular being better suited to large and densly populated urban centres), so why this emphasis on the MEA and trams, especially when as several people have pointed out it's not exactly axiomatic that it would help much with the congestion problem. Wouldn't it be a far better use of time and effort to try and reform the current inefficiencies and encourage people to use them instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopek Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 It was inevitable that when this subject was raised it would be a little like kicking a hornets nest and that has proved to be the case. There have been a number of strong statements here and assumptions jumped too so if I have not said it clearly enough then I will say it again. The promenade is being renvotated with the opportunity taken to reposition the tram track to one side. ..... it would be ridiculous not to take the opportunity to link it to the MER track at the north end of the promenade during the routine course of works. ..... I touched on what 'might be' and the current difficulties we face KOPEK... Did you? or do you just think that you did? Is there anyone here seriously suggesting that this simple link should not be made in the process of relaying the tram track on the promenade? Edited by Kopek. You can say it as many times as you like but if you do not clearly explain your 'Idea' for this future use then you will still be castigated on here for your lack of clarity, which is fast becoming your speciality. Are you seriously suggesting that in the near future we should be spending some 50 to 100 million on bringing the Trams through Douglas? It has been said above, that a 'simple link' can easily be decided upon when the case for the Tram extension has been made. You have not attempted to make this case. Would you also suggest that we dig a big hole in beach while the diggers are there, so that, should we decide to build a tunnel to England in the future, 'We will have made a start'? You need now to seriously make your case for what we will now always refer to as CRs hairbrained scheme. What do you see as the purpose of this extension? How much will it cost? Will it reduce congestion by a lot or very little? Will it create more traffic problems than the best scenario would solve? Will it bring in enough Tourist trips to make it financially viable? What if someone proposes a ecomony boosting scheme for Summerland including the MER depot? Does that mean the Trams terminating at Port Jack? Or would you knock back such a scheme? Would the heavyweight MER Trams require extra underpinning and surface strenthening to run on the Horse Tram tracks? Would this increase the cost of the Prom regenerating? Would this affect the integrity of the Sea wall? You see Chris, there is more to clarity than repeating yourself, 'Enigmatism does not equate to an explanation'. Just because you have spoken of points A and B, does not mean it is the job of the electorate to guess at what your unspoken point C is! Time for some explanations ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.