Good luck Charlie...
- 3 May 2012 22:20170256Contrary to your personal imaginations, Chris, the decision does not depend on you, as you are not the competent minister or secretary.
What case have you made on my blog, prey??? Are you dreaming something up, or have you imagined DPPT has taken over my blog or too??
You will find, Chris, that an official complaint is going out against DPPT.Chanters, Drums and Drones Potty Time http://youtu.be/99fMqpjnXYA
Rule Britannia!
Kent First http://youtu.be/04F3mAP3fV4 Keep banging on http://youtu.be/qYCU_SKmkGQ - 3 May 2012 22:46170258
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour - 4 May 2012 01:131702651% Chris!Chanters, Drums and Drones Potty Time http://youtu.be/99fMqpjnXYA
Rule Britannia!
Kent First http://youtu.be/04F3mAP3fV4 Keep banging on http://youtu.be/qYCU_SKmkGQ - 4 May 2012 02:41170269Chris, further to your post 40, I have never suggested that a council "run" the port.
The Port's managers would be professional people, even the DHB staff as they are now, or do you think that I would suggest you, a councillor, "run" the Port, which is precisely what you are trying to do.
Incidentally, I found a piece from an article, published today, on Politics.co.:
"The government's moving into the implementation phase of a huge part of its programme," says Liam Scott-Smith of the New Local Government Network. Local government is one of the biggest muscles of the coalition's 'delivery arm'. It relies on councils to push through its changes, from the generic 'big society' to more detailed policy. "
So there you go, Charlie Elphicke has taken a complete blind turn with his attempt to set up a private governance of a Port structure. The Government's new policy was aiming at Councils carrying out tasks of local Government, which would include appointing competent managers of a port.
As you can clearly see from the above text, you have not understood Government policy with your private trust thing, where a local MP wants to run a Port, together with a few local councillors, while excluding a competent local council from appointing COMPETENT managers.
You will find out, that the idea of a private trust running the Port of Dover, with no idea whatsoever of port management, does not fit in with Government policy, as local Government should be appointing competent staff.Chanters, Drums and Drones Potty Time http://youtu.be/99fMqpjnXYA
Rule Britannia!
Kent First http://youtu.be/04F3mAP3fV4 Keep banging on http://youtu.be/qYCU_SKmkGQ - 4 May 2012 02:54170270People like you and Barry W are renowned for turning people's words around, suggesting, when I mention local Government (which means councils) seeing to local administration, that I said "councillors would be running factories", or "the port".
Councils are local Government, and would be appointing competent people to carry out the required work. NOT the councillors themselves. But of-course you and Barry KNOW this, but try to twist intelligent and obvious words around to make a mockery!
But then again, BarrW has openly said that he is against all forms of government, and wants everything run by private boards. The only thing is, his views on this are TOTALLY contrary to the Government's policies, which, when advocating a change from massive central authority to local authority, refers to local Government, ie councils, who would in turn see to appointing competent professional people where required.
DPPT has NOTHING whatsoever to do with this! And has NO competence whatsoever in port management! Nor is DPPT anything to do with local Government, even though they claim to "represent Dover's Community". Well they do not!Chanters, Drums and Drones Potty Time http://youtu.be/99fMqpjnXYA
Rule Britannia!
Kent First http://youtu.be/04F3mAP3fV4 Keep banging on http://youtu.be/qYCU_SKmkGQ - 4 May 2012 04:59170271LOL Alexander.
You are very confused to say the least..... - 4 May 2012 08:03170280Alex, I would never try and twist "intelligent" words.
From post No. 37
"are that the port should pass from the current board to either the Dover Town Council or the Dover District Council."Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour - 4 May 2012 12:52170320Let's get back to the topic rather than be sidetracked byDHB/DPPT.
When are the results of the 1922 Committee?
Watty - 4 May 2012 12:56170321Comments re DPPT's lack of competence in business ownership/management, port governance, ownership and operations are entirely wrong, see other threads where postings show such comments to be rather silly and publicly available information on DPPT and its board membership which futher demonstrate just how groundless such assertions are.
The consultation over the future of the port cannot be overthrown or subverted by any individual (not even an MP) or group outside the DHB, fears expressed in regard to DPPT being in a position to do so are just .
Individuals, who later came together to form the core group of the DPPT, all made individual submissions during the first consultation period. They recognised that a stronger case could be made for the core ideas and concepts if they were to jointly campaign, get the backing of key stakeholders, local councils and councillors at Town, District and County level, have the support of their MP, demonstrate fundability, long term sustainability, significant and widespread apolitical/cross party support, etc. and so incorporated as a formal organisation to do so. DPPT has since made submissions to government as a body corporate and a stakeholder in the Port as defined in law during the second consultation period over the future of Dover, during the consultation over government policy with regard to Trust Ports nationally and during calls for evidence with regard to what is now the Public Bodies Act.
Since the change to government policy and the introduction of new criteria for consideration by government when the disposal of a Trust Port (voluntarily or compulsory) is put forward, the Secretary of State invited all stakeholders and interested parties in the case of Dover to write to the DfT with a view to having meetings with Civil Servants in order to explore and investigate all the alternatives for the future of the Port of Dover. This invitation was extended in a written statement to Parliament which was also published in the local and national press as well as in various maritime and port related daily, weekly and monthly publications. Only 8 stakeholders/interested parties responded to the invitation. Notable by their absence from the list of respondents was one forumite who keeps on about how involved they are in the consultation process, how much they want their individual views to be taken account of in the process and in the final outcome and how the consultation and decision process has somehow been subverted by one of the port's stakeholders.
The subject of the future of the Port of Dover is a long hard slog, meaningful consultation is a long hard process. The Port of Dover consultation has become meaningful because the final outcome of the process will be significantly different from the initial input by DHB. Because this consultation is a meaningful one, it has had several major phases and is still on-going, each phase, each invitation for input needs to be looked for, researched and partaken of if alternative proposals presented in one phase are to continue to be seriously considered through the next several phases and still be in play when the time for the final decision eventually comes and the Decision Minister makes their announcement. DDC, DTC, KCC, Port Users, UKMPG, Union representatives, DHB and DPPT all recognise that the process is still on-going and all have paperwork and letter trails to and from the relevant government departments of some length and detail as a result.
One little suggestion here is that this thread is returned to its original subject matter, which was, I believe, Barry W wishing Charlie luck in his attempt to be voted by the Parliamentary Conservative Party to some internal Party position of influence. Just as I would for anyone that I have more than a passing acquaintance with, I wish Charlie well and hope that he achieves the position to which he aspires. - 4 May 2012 12:58170322Hear Hear Paul....sorry, I was busy writing and didn't see your post until I'd posted my little essay.
- 4 May 2012 13:04170326is that a yes or a no neil in post 49?
- 4 May 2012 13:15170333Was Charlie successful? Haven't a clue.......party politics, not my bag.
- 4 May 2012 13:37170337Neil, in your post 49, the paragraph:
"Since the change to government policy and the introduction of new criteria..."
seems to be proof that Charlie Elphicke did in fact interfere with the original public consultation process and brought it to an end.
He is in fact part of the Government and made no secret of his campaign to interfere in high places to subvert and destroy a public consultation. These are the grounds on which I am complaining against him, and will do so in the appropriate offices, including any legal action.Chanters, Drums and Drones Potty Time http://youtu.be/99fMqpjnXYA
Rule Britannia!
Kent First http://youtu.be/04F3mAP3fV4 Keep banging on http://youtu.be/qYCU_SKmkGQ - 4 May 2012 13:42170339Never mind Alex.....do enjoy.
Does anyone know when this internal C.P. vote that our MP is standing in will be taking place? - 4 May 2012 13:55170340No Neil. It has not happened yet and I am not certain when it is.
You never let us down Alexander with your failure to understand what is happening and what you are told. - 4 May 2012 13:58170341Alexander, Charlie is our MP, he is not part of the government. It might be useful for you if you found out the difference before you go any further.
- 4 May 2012 14:07170343Very true Ray. Backbench MPs are not members of the government.
- 4 May 2012 14:38170346It is the splitting of the finest hair that makes an MP of the Governing Party less than a Government 'member'. How may any Government hope to Govern without winning votes in the HoCs?Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
- 4 May 2012 14:41170347It is far from hair splitting it is fact. It is the difference between the legislature and the executive.
- 4 May 2012 19:10170375Of-course a Tory MP is a member of the Government!
A Government majority is defined by the number of seats it has in Parliament, in the present case Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.Chanters, Drums and Drones Potty Time http://youtu.be/99fMqpjnXYA
Rule Britannia!
Kent First http://youtu.be/04F3mAP3fV4 Keep banging on http://youtu.be/qYCU_SKmkGQ