Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JamboSpur

Sick Kids opening

Recommended Posts

Boof

@coconut doug - you cannot receive PMs. I've got one waiting for you if you are who I think you are...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Adam Murray

It's a shame these day's that every aspect of our lives seems to have a political slant to it.

Something like the sick kids opening being delayed, or the mis-fortune of young people with mental health issues, should not be problems that people should seek to try and gain political gain from, but unfortunately since the bitterness of the independence referendum, these are the times we now live in, with the added uncertainty of Brexit, this continuation of cheap shots and petty point scoring seems to have no end in sight.

One thing that people should all agree on, is that if politicians, from whatever side of the fence are willing to take the plaudits when things go right, then they need to take the flak when things go pear shaped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coconut doug
13 hours ago, frankblack said:

 

Here's another article by the BBC this time.  

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-49255341

 

Whatever way you look at it the Scottish Government have cost the tax payer a fortune for preventable mistakes.

 

No doubt you won't believe this article either because your beloved party cannot be wrong.

On 07/08/2019 at 15:47, jambos are go! said:

Yes. 

 

I see the cost has risen by Ninety Million quid as outlined in an Audit Scotland report published today along with assertions that penalty clauses

were not invoked when problems arose. You can read it if you can be bothered.

 

A cock up is probably an understatement .

 

Where can i read this report?        Have you read it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frankblack
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

Where can i read this report?        Have you read it?

 

I suspect you are having difficulty finding it with your head stuck in the sand.  Ball is in your court to disprove it, as two major news sources have quoted it.

 

Your reaction sounds very Celtic - always offended, never ashamed.  You can't keep denying something that is public news.

Edited by frankblack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frankblack
10 hours ago, Adam Murray said:

It's a shame these day's that every aspect of our lives seems to have a political slant to it.

Something like the sick kids opening being delayed, or the mis-fortune of young people with mental health issues, should not be problems that people should seek to try and gain political gain from, but unfortunately since the bitterness of the independence referendum, these are the times we now live in, with the added uncertainty of Brexit, this continuation of cheap shots and petty point scoring seems to have no end in sight.

One thing that people should all agree on, is that if politicians, from whatever side of the fence are willing to take the plaudits when things go right, then they need to take the flak when things go pear shaped.

 

While you are right that discussing the shambles at Sick Kids is disappointing, there are serious questions about mismanagement of public money and failure to trigger penalty clauses in contracts to cover the costs the public purse will have to foot.

 

An estimated £90m to fix this situation is shocking, and I don't know if that figure includes the money we are paying out for the unfit hospital that should be in use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coconut doug
11 hours ago, FWJ said:

 

You are asserting that the reason the costs spiraled was because the SNP had no skin in the game and were happy to watch money being thrown away as it might reflect badly on their political rivals. According to this article the contractors knew this was the case and exploited it to the full. The man in the article might have a very good reason for putting forward this view as he was involved however the project was managed by TIE and he was working for them and it was their responsibility to implement the contracts properly. TIE lost their disputes with the contractor in a process carried out by neutrals but somehow you think SNP gov are to blame. 

 

        The trouble with this argument is that it was the Labour leader (Alexander)who insisted on an arms length company to manage the project (TIE) as she did not trust the council to deliver the Trams and did not want the SG to have direct responsibility. It turns out she was correct as TIE were found to be incompetent and in some cases corrupt.

 

         When the project was wholly managed by TIE they had a crisis after losing their dispute with the contractor. They had massively overspent and considered options including abandonment, shortening the route and delaying completion. Had the SG not stepped in these were very real options 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frankblack
6 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

You are asserting that the reason the costs spiraled was because the SNP had no skin in the game and were happy to watch money being thrown away as it might reflect badly on their political rivals. According to this article the contractors knew this was the case and exploited it to the full. The man in the article might have a very good reason for putting forward this view as he was involved however the project was managed by TIE and he was working for them and it was their responsibility to implement the contracts properly. TIE lost their disputes with the contractor in a process carried out by neutrals but somehow you think SNP gov are to blame. 

 

        The trouble with this argument is that it was the Labour leader (Alexander)who insisted on an arms length company to manage the project (TIE) as she did not trust the council to deliver the Trams and did not want the SG to have direct responsibility. It turns out she was correct as TIE were found to be incompetent and in some cases corrupt.

 

         When the project was wholly managed by TIE they had a crisis after losing their dispute with the contractor. They had massively overspent and considered options including abandonment, shortening the route and delaying completion. Had the SG not stepped in these were very real options 

 

You could argue however, that it was apparent that the project costs were clearly running out of control and the SG should have called it in early as they were providing the finance, IIRC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coconut doug
9 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

I suspect you are having difficulty finding it with your head stuck in the sand.  Ball is in your court to disprove it, as two major news sources have quoted it.

 

Your reaction sounds very Celtic - always offended, never ashamed.  You can't keep denying something that is public news.

I know it exists. It's just that i can't find it and your mate claims to have read it.

 

What you are doing is quoting or linking somebody else's interpretation of a report we cannot access. We don't have the detail and we don't know what the money was spent on and how that relates to the original contract.

 

I don't know whether their decision not to apply any penalty clauses (If that is indeed what happened) is a good one or not. I might have a better idea if i can see the Audit commission report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Winchester
1 minute ago, coconut doug said:

I know it exists. It's just that i can't find it and your mate claims to have read it.

 

What you are doing is quoting or linking somebody else's interpretation of a report we cannot access. We don't have the detail and we don't know what the money was spent on and how that relates to the original contract.

 

I don't know whether their decision not to apply any penalty clauses (If that is indeed what happened) is a good one or not. I might have a better idea if i can see the Audit commission report.

Did you think of trying the Audit Scotland website? I mean it's literally the top report on there... Can't help but feel you're being intentionally awkward.

 

Anyway, here's the direct link for you:

https://www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/uploads/docs/report/2019/aar_1819_nhs_lothian.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frankblack
1 minute ago, coconut doug said:

I know it exists. It's just that i can't find it and your mate claims to have read it.

 

What you are doing is quoting or linking somebody else's interpretation of a report we cannot access. We don't have the detail and we don't know what the money was spent on and how that relates to the original contract.

 

I don't know whether their decision not to apply any penalty clauses (If that is indeed what happened) is a good one or not. I might have a better idea if i can see the Audit commission report.

 

Surely if we are paying out monthly fees for a hospital that is not in use, we should have been triggering those penalty clauses, since why put penalty clauses in a capital contract like this if not to protect yourself from costs you will incurr post contract delivery date?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coconut doug
6 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

You could argue however, that it was apparent that the project costs were clearly running out of control and the SG should have called it in early as they were providing the finance, IIRC.

 

They wanted to stop it in the first place and they did jump in to save it. They just got their timing wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coconut doug
4 minutes ago, Dean Winchester said:

Did you think of trying the Audit Scotland website? I mean it's literally the top report on there... Can't help but feel you're being intentionally awkward.

 

Anyway, here's the direct link for you:

https://www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/uploads/docs/report/2019/aar_1819_nhs_lothian.pdf

 

Thanks, i looked for it yesterday but i couldn't find it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FWJ
9 hours ago, coconut doug said:

 

You are asserting that the reason the costs spiraled was because the SNP had no skin in the game and were happy to watch money being thrown away as it might reflect badly on their political rivals. According to this article the contractors knew this was the case and exploited it to the full. The man in the article might have a very good reason for putting forward this view as he was involved however the project was managed by TIE and he was working for them and it was their responsibility to implement the contracts properly. TIE lost their disputes with the contractor in a process carried out by neutrals but somehow you think SNP gov are to blame. 

 

        The trouble with this argument is that it was the Labour leader (Alexander)who insisted on an arms length company to manage the project (TIE) as she did not trust the council to deliver the Trams and did not want the SG to have direct responsibility. It turns out she was correct as TIE were found to be incompetent and in some cases corrupt.

 

         When the project was wholly managed by TIE they had a crisis after losing their dispute with the contractor. They had massively overspent and considered options including abandonment, shortening the route and delaying completion. Had the SG not stepped in these were very real options 

I’m not asserting anything or saying anyone is to blame, I’m just posting an article.

 

Here’s another

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/traffic-and-travel/swinney-to-edinburgh-tram-inquiry-i-didn-t-want-government-to-get-blame-1-4669746/amp

 

What I’d like to know is why the Scottish Government pulled Transport Scotland off the trams project.  The article above seems to answer that, but unfortunately to me it sounds like petulance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jambos are go!
22 hours ago, coconut doug said:

 

Thanks, i looked for it yesterday but i couldn't find it. 

You have had plenty off time to look at he report. Don't seem to have much to say. Headed for the hills?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coconut doug
On ‎09‎/‎08‎/‎2019 at 07:19, FWJ said:

I’m not asserting anything or saying anyone is to blame, I’m just posting an article.

 

Here’s another

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/traffic-and-travel/swinney-to-edinburgh-tram-inquiry-i-didn-t-want-government-to-get-blame-1-4669746/amp

 

What I’d like to know is why the Scottish Government pulled Transport Scotland off the trams project.  The article above seems to answer that, but unfortunately to me it sounds like petulance.

 

 Given the ludicrous nature of the Tram project, the incompetent and corrupt individuals involved and the huge overspend and disruption it seems expedient rather than petulant for the SG to withdraw further and remove Transport Scotland. I would totally understand any petulance toward TIE and the opposition that voted for the Trams but would still argue that the SG acted responsibly and logically

  The biggest mistake of all was to approve the project in the first place. Why did all the non SNP parties support it when it offered virtually nothing in connectivity in the city and was such bad value for money? Could it be that they were involved in a cynical ploy to attract votes on the back of any investment regardless of its cost, viability and utility to the city?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coconut doug
On 09/08/2019 at 20:00, jambos are go! said:

You have had plenty off time to look at he report. Don't seem to have much to say. Headed for the hills?

 

Astonishment really doesn’t go far enough regarding your heading for the hills and Tartan Taliban comments. You are the guy who refused to answer two direct questions on this thread. I asked you what you thought the government should have done about Ferguson shipbuilders and Prestwick airport and I asked you whether you had read Audit Scotland’s report on the Sick Kids. Presumably you didn’t answer as you thought you might incriminate yourself. It’s something you have done a few times but I’m not aware of me having ignored any request for an answer or comment.

 

I still don’t know whether you have read the sick kids report or not despite inviting me to do so. The reason I want to know is that if you have read it then your interpretation of it runs contrary to its content. You have made some ridiculous comments which are not supported by the document.

 

You said “And agree that Holyrood would compensate them to the extent of over  a million pound a month if they cocked it up. Get real” I can’t find any reference to cock ups or similar phrasing in the document. I cannot find any reference either to payments of over a million pounds a month to compensate the contractors. What there is, is a one off payment of £11.6m which was for works carried out that were not originally contained within the specifications. Although this figure was disputed it was decided to pay it rather than suffer the delays and additional costs brought about by going legal. This decision was arrived at after extensive consultation with all interested parties and afterwards endorsed by the SG. Had you read the report on P31 you would know this. I doubt you could have got mixed up, the section on the Sick Kids is very short and very precise. If you haven’t read the report I suggest you do, it will clear up your misconceptions.

 

In any case given the nature of projects like this £11.6m seems a small sum as demonstrated by these.   https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-02/john-holland-perth-childrens-hospital-compo-claim/9109950 and https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/cost-of-new-national-childrens-hospital-now-soars-to-1-7bn-37720604.html In the context of these financial disasters our own difficulties seem tiny and demonstrate how well we have managed these big construction contracts http://www.constructionenquirer.com/2017/08/30/queensferry-crossing-opens-245m-below-budget/  Returning to you original point that the SG were compensating companies for “cock ups” I still can’t find anything to support this view, can you? Jake offered you an accurate explanation for the payments but you dismissed it asking him to “substantiate” his point. Its easy to do that just read the report.

 

 You also said “I see the cost has risen by Ninety Million quid as outlined in an Audit Scotland report published today” I wonder where you saw that about, there was no mention of that figure in the report and of course they didn’t mention “penalty clauses” either. I wonder how you got the notion that the cost had risen anyway. There is no mention of that either.

 

   It seems to me you are the victim of propaganda. You have been reading the press where such figures have been bandied about and where the BBC have told us, based on nothing of any credibility, that the whole hospital may have to be pulled down. Had you read the Audit commission report as you claimed you could not have arrived at these ludicrous conclusions. Not only have you taken the sensationalised and inaccurate press reports but you have added on a little of your own spin to produce something not in any way representative of reality. I think you have been radicalised by the newspapers.

 

    It’s really surprising that people find themselves compelled to believe and disseminate what they read in the Sun, Scotsman, Mail etc. Surely everybody knows that you cannot believe anything you read in the papers. I assume you know this too or you wouldn’t have pretended that the rubbish you posted was in the Audit Commission report. What is really concerning though is that you felt the need to post it along with the accompanying insults. You must think Indy supporters and me in particular are unable to distinguish truth from lies. You should apologise for insulting our intelligence in this way.

 

       What concerns me even more is why you would want to misrepresent reality in this way, I can only assume from your actions that you are have a very hostile predisposition to the notion that Scots can govern themselves to the extent that you would indulge in falsifying information, name calling, dog whistling and god knows what else to further your agenda.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jambos are go!

The Lightning on Wednesday night took out my Broadband for 3 days. I will catch up on this thread soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Winchester
6 hours ago, coconut doug said:

 You also said “I see the cost has risen by Ninety Million quid as outlined in an Audit Scotland report published today” I wonder where you saw that about, there was no mention of that figure in the report and of course they didn’t mention “penalty clauses” either. I wonder how you got the notion that the cost had risen anyway. There is no mention of that either.

 

   It seems to me you are the victim of propaganda. You have been reading the press where such figures have been bandied about and where the BBC have told us, based on nothing of any credibility, that the whole hospital may have to be pulled down. Had you read the Audit commission report as you claimed you could not have arrived at these ludicrous conclusions. Not only have you taken the sensationalised and inaccurate press reports but you have added on a little of your own spin to produce something not in any way representative of reality. I think you have been radicalised by the newspapers.

 

    It’s really surprising that people find themselves compelled to believe and disseminate what they read in the Sun, Scotsman, Mail etc. Surely everybody knows that you cannot believe anything you read in the papers. I assume you know this too or you wouldn’t have pretended that the rubbish you posted was in the Audit Commission report. What is really concerning though is that you felt the need to post it along with the accompanying insults. You must think Indy supporters and me in particular are unable to distinguish truth from lies. You should apologise for insulting our intelligence in this way.

 

       What concerns me even more is why you would want to misrepresent reality in this way, I can only assume from your actions that you are have a very hostile predisposition to the notion that Scots can govern themselves to the extent that you would indulge in falsifying information, name calling, dog whistling and god knows what else to further your agenda.

 

 

 

You didn't read it very well.

 

"This payment is in addition to the £150m construction cost as at Financial Close and £80m of enabling and equipment works outwith the agreement with IHSL."

 

The £90 million is the £80 million enabling and equipment works plus the £11.6 million. The articles haven't misrepresented anything. You're the one that seems to be misrepresenting reality.

 

The articles state this quite clearly as well:

 

"A new Audit Scotland report shows that £80m has been spent on "enabling and equipment works" at the site - beyond the deal with consortium IHSL.

A further £11.6m was given to IHSL to end a contract dispute over construction standards at the hospital."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coconut doug
43 minutes ago, Dean Winchester said:

 

You didn't read it very well.

 

"This payment is in addition to the £150m construction cost as at Financial Close and £80m of enabling and equipment works outwith the agreement with IHSL."

 

The £90 million is the £80 million enabling and equipment works plus the £11.6 million. The articles haven't misrepresented anything. You're the one that seems to be misrepresenting reality.

 

The articles state this quite clearly as well:

 

"A new Audit Scotland report shows that £80m has been spent on "enabling and equipment works" at the site - beyond the deal with consortium IHSL.

A further £11.6m was given to IHSL to end a contract dispute over construction standards at the hospital."

 

 

 

I didn't bother quoting the Audit commission on the £80million and where the money was going as i was primarily concerned with the posters incorrect assertion that there had been an £90million pound overspend. That is clearly the impression the media wished to convey and if you look at the links, and in particular the headlines i fail to see how you could come to any other conclusion. Many people only read the headline and many others not much more so it is easy to shape public opinion in this way. people react to headlines and that is why i wanted to know if the poster took his info from the report or the papers.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-49255341

https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/new-edinburgh-sick-kids-hospital-16710724

https://www.scotsman.com/health/delayed-edinburgh-sick-kids-hospital-will-cost-an-extra-90-million-1-4978036

 

As far as i understand it the £80million for enabling and equipment works has always been part of the projected cost and so cannot be classed as extra by any normal definition of the term.

 

I would also take issue with your interpretation of the report. I cant find some of the extracts you enclosed in quotation marks. I have copied and pasted the relevant piece below.

 

Towards the end of the build stage, a £11.6m payment was agreed from NHS Lothian to IHSL to facilitate resolution of a number of issues but primarily the “Three Key Outstanding Technical Matters”. Broadly, these three matters relate to a drainage solution, heater batteries, and void fire detectors. This payment is in addition to the £150m construction cost as at Financial Close and £80m of enabling and equipment works outwith the agreement with IHSL.

 

I don't know why you think i didn't read it very well, you're not telling me anything i didn't know.  We only seem to disagree as to whether the £80 million is an extra cost and whether it is being portrayed as such in the media. I say its not an extra cost and that the headlines and some of the text in the media portray it as an extra cost. What do you say?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Adam Murray

Not fully operational for another year, at an extra cost of £16 000 000 for repair work, on top of the 1.400 00 in monthly repayments to the private consortium which built the facility.

 

Human error they say 🤔

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-49664390?fbclid=IwAR0xk9WxKfaqHmVrp2-s4um5GpiQw0MVPjPTkK7G0FuxPCBwWFqxgGsJdAc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pans Jambo
8 minutes ago, Adam Murray said:

Not fully operational for another year, at an extra cost of £16 000 000 for repair work, on top of the 1.400 00 in monthly repayments to the private consortium which built the facility.

 

Human error they say 🤔

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-49664390?fbclid=IwAR0xk9WxKfaqHmVrp2-s4um5GpiQw0MVPjPTkK7G0FuxPCBwWFqxgGsJdAc

Levein oot!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dannie Boy

There will be a paper trail of checks and sign off’s. I’m sure the NHS and Scottish Government will gladly hand over the evidence in keeping with their recent demands for Parliamentary scrutiny.What’s good for the goose etc.  

 

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/health/edinburgh-s-new-sick-kids-hospital-won-t-open-till-autumn-2020-1-5002334

Edited by Dannie Boy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dannie Boy

Another failure that’s costing us dear unless they sue the culprits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tokyowalnut
On 11/09/2019 at 17:02, Pans Jambo said:

Levein oot!

Someone forgot to order the beds!

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Sign in to follow this  



×
×
  • Create New...