I suspect if that’s the case they’ll frame it as under ‘duress’ to avoid the supposed bankruptcy the cabal claim will result if they rescind. It won’t look got for Reform if they do pass it, and it also signs that blank cheque they’ve been taking about.
Perhaps so, much like the last vote in November where Guy Aston accepted the agreement to enter into a ‘soft market test’ once the licences were in place. This will, if true, be no different.
They’re certainly trying to think of some strategy that’s for sure. Still a bit up in the air from what I’ve read.
www.yorkshirepost.co.uk
We must not forget that whilst there are no local elections in Doncaster tomorrow, there are in other parts of South Yorkshire. Reform can quite easily be swayed by that given the support from places like Rotherham.Reform need to think what they're doing here. The wheels are already coming off this inane project and the public can see it. Jones told everyone the airport would be reopened already (Spring 2026!) - now it's 2028, and from what I can gather about the state of the site and the "progress" of the Airspace Change Proposal, the new date is a total fantasy and pure propaganda. They've got a runway and a carpark, as far as I can make out.
The project is already dead in the water, and finding themselves on the wrong side of history on this could finish Reform in the region. There's no demand, the lease agreement means commercial viability is mathematically impossible, and it looks like they haven't got anywhere near enough money anyway. I hope voters don't think this £57m is the end of it...
As I said earlier, someone needs to challenge the assumption that most Doncastrians are so emotionally invested in the airport that they'd punish anyone who told the truth about it. I don't think they would. The communist grifters and sundry lunatics who comment on the mechanic's Facebook page probably would, but a.) they're a small fraction of the electorate, and b.) they won't vote Reform anyway.
Stop accepting Jones's premise that everyone in Doncaster wants to reopen the airport no matter how much it costs and no matter what the consequences, and that it is an absolutely guaranteed economic miracle. In fact, it will almost certainly fail, again, for the same reasons it did last time, and the consequences for Doncaster's finances are dire. Failure is inevitable. The only question is how much more money they're going to waste before pulling the plug.
Edit: this just published:
Doncaster Sheffield Airport: 'No legal basis' response issued to Reform
Part of a Reform motion set to determine the future of Doncaster Sheffield Airport next week has “no legal basis”, officers have said.
If Reform are going to let them get away with marking their own homework in this manner, after Grant Thornton, the council's own external auditors, gave a "red" rating last week, then they should disband and do something else. This is a sh1tshow. The Red rating signals "concerns about ‘significant weaknesses in arrangements – in regards to both the governance arrangements for FlyDoncaster and the broader financial case for the airport reopening project."
Put plainly, Jones's team know this is a disaster, and they're making sure they are in a position to cover it up so that they can all carry on with their grift.
Yes I agree. They know this is a disaster, they're just carrying on for purely self-interested reasons.
If what @Egyptian King has heard is correct then it looks like Reform will perform another U-turn and vote in favour of the loan with compromises. They will do so dragging their feet (and making that clear) so as to distance themselves from the inevitable fallout down the line.
Yes, exactly. My understanding is that the gainshare funding won't be released until the 20% revenue skim is gone, and that the gainshare funding is needed to service the £57m startup loan. As far as I know, Peel won't budge on that point, and that's the central commercial issue. On top of that, the council's own auditors have just red flagged the governance and the business case, such as it is. So, is it even legal to spend the money under these circumstances? As I understand it they have no means of servicing a loan that the auditor clearly thinks they shouldn't spend anyway, even if they did have some means of paying it off!
I agree, but the problem with Grant Thornton flagging these issues is that the council are well within their legal right to ‘consider’ them in public meetings and on official documents but carry on anyway. It would only come to a head if this results in a public enquiry (which I think will happen sooner or later) or if Grant Thornton, the opposition councillors or even the public decide to launch a judicial review. Grant Thornton can, if they so wish, issue an Advisory Notice or Public Interest Report. If they are still flagging this as red and the loan proceeds then they may feel it necessary to intervene.
If it's perfectly legal for them to carry on anyway, then this is an even bigger sh!tshow than I realised. It's clearly a financial suicide mission and Reform and the press appear to be letting them get away with it.
Isn’t the CDC S151 officer on the board of FlyDoncaster or have I gotten mixed up with someone else? EDIT - no she is not. Because this loan will ultimately be their responsibility I suspect. The Gainshare pot is allocated to SYMCA to spend as they so wish (in line with Treasury Green Book rules) and so it’s Gareth Sutton who will oversee that side of it. However the loan is approved currently we’re told, so they can get that to open the airport whether Gainshare is released or not. Chadwick has tried to pretend that it doesn’t apply to the tax payer if Doncaster but I fail to see how that’s the case, if Gainshare remains deadlocked then the loan will be secured against the councils general fund. So services will be impacted to guarantee it!
Doesn't the Section 151 Officer have a statutory duty to ensure the council's financial arrangements are lawful and prudent? Even if the lawful test is passed, I'm not sure how she could argue it's prudent!
www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk
Yes they are guided by the Treasury Green Book which seems to flag up issues for the business case and BCR. There is also guidance to avoid the sunk cost fallacy regardless of how much has already been invested.Doesn't the Section 151 Officer have a statutory duty to ensure the council's financial arrangements are lawful and prudent? Even if the lawful test is passed, I'm not sure how she could argue it's prudent!
This really doesn't look good, regardless of the legality. All the evidence is damning. The project is financially unviable. The auditors have rated the financial case red. The lease renegotiation has stalled on the central commercial point, i.e., the 20% turnover skim. The governance has been flagged as inadequate by external audit. The chief executive has used personal solicitors to threaten elected councillors who have the temerity to demand scrutiny. The conflict-of-interest motion was dismissed by the conflicted parties themselves! The November vote was, by the council's own admission, taken on incomplete information. Each of these is bad on its own, but together they surely constitute an overwhelming case for binning the project.
They're obviously hell bent on just grifting away until they actually run out of money.
Edit: speaking of Section 151 Officers...
Top official at neighbouring council reveals 'key risk' concern over DSA reopening
Reopening Doncaster Sheffield Airport using public funds has long-attracted scrutiny.
They will continue ahead though, especially when stupidly the government at a national level has empowered them.
Perhaps time to remind people of this classic.
I'm not sure where the money's going to come from though...
Subscribe to help support your favourite forum and in return we'll remove all our advertisements. Your contribution will help to pay for things like site maintenance, domain name renewals and annual server charges.
