The post you are reporting:
Philip Blond rings a bell, Neil, that must be the person I referred to. I'll check it out later on the Web. If it's him, he certainly made interesting observations on Localism not coming to anything.
GaryC, Icelandic banks have nothing to do with my representation and don't come into the equation.
Keith, you keep going on about Local Government running the Port, nothing to do either with my representation. I proposed the Port be a local asset run by qualified people, whose appointment would be approved by Government, either central or local, or both. If it became a local asset, it would be best if there were a clause stating it can never be sold off.
It's important this transfer to the local Community comes about free of charge, which is also a fundamental part of my representation. It's better than what Charlie offered the Government, which was that the Port should be sold so as to get £200 million, or something like that, into the Treasury.
Baffles me how this detail seems to go over everyone's head!
Surely my proposal is the one that is in the interests of the Port and the local Community, as it asks for a debt-free Port that CANNOT be sold!
DPPT and DHB are both proposing a sale of the Port with resulting debt in the hundreds of millions of pounds, and then claim they can still regenerate Dover, and even Deal, and....
