Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#1
Front page of today's Dover Express...
It seems Charlie Elphicke has notched up another success in promoting The People's Port bid against DHB's plans.
It seems he has cut the feet away from under DHB so they will no longer have control of the privatisation process and instead it passes to the government. His amendment to the Public Bodies Bill has been accepted. Having obtained cross party support for this it looks promising to pass into law.
This could well be a big step in the right direction for Dover. Smart move Charlie and while things may have gone quiet for a while it seems the work has continued behind the scenes.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#2
i understand the select committee that charlie went to was labour dominated
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
#3
So what!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#4
baz makes the point his chum did his bit
as did the labour dominated committee
alls fair if we think things are hapopening
well done to both
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#5
Charlie has obtained cross party support and it is to his credit that he has done so.
I find it sad that somehow Keith is trying to make out it is the Labour Party to the rescue, it was no more them than it was the Conservative Party.
We have seen, in Charlie, an excellent example of how a constituency member can operate, lobbying, harrying, pestering, reasoning, using parliamentary procedures, gaining allies, building a consensus and even using an obscure and little used act from 1971 to fight for his constituency.
I cannot imagine GP having the energy, persistence and knowledge to manage what Charlie has achieved. If the People's Port wins then it will be down to Charlie and if not then we at least know that we now have someone representing us who is a dogged fighter on our behalf.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#6
strangely enough i was going to raise the issue today of the people's port.
the last we heard was that the government had asked for updaed bids, d.h.b. said that there one ticked all the boxes then nothing.
good to hear that charlie has been working to get cross party support on this one.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
#7
The only way the port will go if sold off will be the way of the DHB.
The only save way to save the Royal Port of Dover is for it to stay a port within the Royal Charter(updated) to the needs of the public of Dover.Never will it go under the flag of the P/Port which it would not be anyway,that is just a name.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#8
And the People's Port proposition is the only way to save the town from the port.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
#9
Rubbish Peter,that like the DHB way is a sell out and you know it,but your way will not work.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#10
Have your way Vic and the result will be years or decades more of decay for the town. The People's Port is all we have that may spark a recovery in Dover's fortunes. We cannot go on as we have any longer with the Port not doing anything for the Town.
Thankfully the goalposts, thanks to Charlie, are moving steadily in the direction of the People's Port.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
#11
You can not blame the decades of decay of the town on to the port just look at the councls over the last 30years, red and Blue and that will gell you.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#12
Not blaming the Port just making the point that the Port contributes little to the town. The PP means that would change and would provide an opportunity to spark the regeneration that has been so difficult to achieve in conventional ways.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
#13
Just had the following information through from Charlie Elphicke MP himself for inclusion on this thread.
Many thanks to Charlie
***********
Charlie said....
"The committee is not Labour dominated. It was a bill committee so membership is in line with party strengths and Government MPs are in the majority. As a bill committee for a Government bill, Government MPs are expected to vote with the Government - or else!
I moved an amendment for Dover Harbour Board to be included as a quango for reform to add to the toolbox at the Department of Transport and send a clear message about what the people of Dover want. I persuaded Labour, Plaid, a Lib Dem and a fellow Conservative to support me. This meant the vote was won by 11-8.
For those interested my speech can be found here:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2010-11/Public_Bodies_Bill/07-0_2011-10-11a.4.0?s=speaker%3A24777#g4.24
This amendment was not approved of and was opposed by Ministers. It amounts to a successful rebellion - the first Government defeat of this Parliament. I don't see it that way as my speech makes clear. People often wonder if MPs will put their own constituency first when it really comes to the crunch. I feel that I have answered this question decisively.
We are still far from out of the woods. The Government could take the amendment back out again at the next stage. Or they could still just sell off the port. My hope is that the point has been made stongly enough that it will make the Government machine think harder. It's still a long road for us all - do not underestimate the degree of inertia in Government! I am and will continue to do all I can to get to kind of future we all want to see.
Charlie"
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#14
Well done Charlie and thanks for that clarification.
The war is far from over yet but so far the major battles have generally fallen the way of the People's Port.
Keep up the good work.
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
#15
Can anyone tell me what a 'vanilla privatisation' is?
Regeneration for the seafront? I would like the town to be more clearly represented in here. though I appreciate the chicken and egg argument.
It would seem that, if the government want their social agenda to be taken seriously,
they could do a lot worse than get hold of this and push it through parliament.
Interesting times. Maybe, just maybe......................
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#16
wel done though chalie boy for managing to answer thayt question
i thought by flioating somethin like might get a reaction
wonder how we get charlie to answrer all the other unanswered questions.
but hey credit wheres its due on this one well done charlie so far.
now getting back to the peoples port and DHB
Thats a more difficult
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#17
Vanilla privatisation Mark is a simple sale to the highest bidder. What DHB want as its the best way to feather their own nests.
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
#18
Thanks.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#19
good post from charlie, pity that the entrenched party politics before and after clouded things.
the last two lines about "government inertia" are very telling.
they are missing the big trick here, there is little good news for the cobbled together people to crow about, here is a chance.
put simply they announce that the port has been saved by them and they have thwarted the evil intentions of the devious foreigners - the tabloids would love it.
maybe charlie could whisper in the shell like of dave and enlighten him.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#20
I am sure he will Howard, he will not miss a trick, quite obviously.
