Caitriona Ruane - "an abuse of power"

[Minder]

[Minder]

Most of our ministers that have overseen the various fuckups would be down the road by now if they were in a normal government.

[JUst retired]

What is normal government?. Dail, Westminster, Stormont,White House.Italy ? All the same cheats. Anarchy rules OK.

[oakleafgael]

Hmmm... let's see now.

1. A new school built through PPP with millions of £s being paid to a private developer over and above the original investment for 15 or 20 yearsor

2. A new school build on some free land vacated by the Brits incorporating top class facilities which can be shared with other schools.

The judge thinks it's "not fair" that we don't build the gammar the fancy new school on the site they want! f**king p***k, who's money does he think he is spending here? If Loreto think it's "not fair" then let them ask the parents to stump up £15m plus the developers annual fee.

The new campus is also to be PFI.

If the minister had done her job properly instead of trying to blindly implement her party policy then there wouldnt have been a court case.

[isourboydownyet]

Ruane is the one single reason i will not be voting SF at the next election,she is single handily destroying our education system

[Maguire01]

Surely she's a massive liability to SF at this stage? The only reason she hasn't been pulled from the job is that it would be a clear admission of failure. But if SF get the same number of ministries next time, i'd expect O'Dowd to get the nod and for Ruane to be dropped.

[Ulick]

The new campus is also to be PFI.

Maybe so, but the plan to locate a number of schools on the same site with shared resources will still save £millions.

If the minister had done her job properly instead of trying to blindly implement her party policy then there wouldnt have been a court case.

Yer oul hole. She overturned a bad decision by a direct rule minister. That's what she was put there to do. I note the judge waited until the day after the Assembly was dissolved before announcing his decision, conveniently delaying any appeal.   

[Maguire01]

The new campus is also to be PFI.

Maybe so, but the plan to locate a number of schools on the same site with shared resources will still save £millions.

But you were just giving out about the "millions of £s being paid to a private developer over and above the original investment for 15 or 20 years". Is that no longer a problem now that you realise that Ruane plans to use the same procurement route?

[Ulick]

Maguire, I guessing you know no more that I about the differences in the detail between the two deals so we'll not go down that route. However it's a no-brainer that if you have to use PPP then it's better to minimise costs by developing a scheme like this which shares resources. Or do you support this school getting top of the range facilities which the other schools will be denied?

[Maguire01]

Maguire, I guessing you know no more that I about the differences in the detail between the two deals so we'll not go down that route. However it's a no-brainer that if you have to use PPP then it's better to minimise costs by developing a scheme like this which shares resources. Or do you support this school getting top of the range facilities which the other schools will be denied?

I don't have the details for both schemes, so I can't comment on that. I don't know if all of the other schools need to be rebuilt as well, or how much this one school will cost as opposed to its proportion of costs on the new site. The Lisnelly plans are for £100m; the Loreto plans are for £15m.

In theory, all the schools together is a nice idea. Although actual amalgamation of the schools would be better still. But that's another argument.

My point was that one of your two objections was the use of PPP... until you realised that Ruane's proposal was also using PPP.

[oakleafgael]

The new campus is also to be PFI.

Maybe so, but the plan to locate a number of schools on the same site with shared resources will still save £millions.

If the minister had done her job properly instead of trying to blindly implement her party policy then there wouldnt have been a court case.

Yer oul hole. She overturned a bad decision by a direct rule minister. That's what she was put there to do. I note the judge waited until the day after the Assembly was dissolved before announcing his decision, conveniently delaying any appeal.

Why was it a bad decision? The convent building is falling down round them and they put forward proposals for a new one and recieved approval. This was before the joint campus had recieved any sort of approval. Should they have just sat and waited in the hope that the new campus was going ahead?

Have you seen the buisness model to know that the new campus will save millions?

[Ulick]

My point was that one of your two objections was the use of PPP... until you realised that Ruane's proposal was also using PPP.

No I still object to the use of PPP but if it's going to be used I'd like to see us get the most out of it.

[Maguire01]

So Ulick, do you expect Ruane to be dropped when SF is handing out the departments post May election?

[Tony Baloney]

So Ulick, do you expect Ruane to be dropped when SF is handing out the departments post May election?

She is the worst minister of the last parliament and that's saying something with Poots, McCausland, McGimpsey etc on the hill.

[lawnseed]

Hmmm... let's see now.

1. A new school built through PPP with millions of £s being paid to a private developer over and above the original investment for 15 or 20 years

or

2. A new school build on some free land vacated by the Brits incorporating top class facilities which can be shared with other schools.

The judge thinks it's "not fair" that we don't build the gammar the fancy new school on the site they want! f**king p***k, who's money does he think he is spending here? If Loreto think it's "not fair" then let them ask the parents to stump up £15m plus the developers annual fee.

this post sums it up for me