Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
My guess is that it has to do with reducing DHB's liability to the an ever-increasing pension pot.
Private firms contracted by DHB will not burden DHB's pension responsibilities.
The DHB pension pot was an important factor in the first round of representations in 2010.
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
And still remains so Alex. DDC has contended whatever the outcome the pension fund should be fully funded on transfer [if it proves necessary].
Watty
Guest 688- Registered: 16 Jul 2009
- Posts: 268
And will be,until those and the top of the chain decide to cash in their respective pensions,be that at home or abroad.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Instant full funding of the pension deficit would be a poison pill for any commercial deal. In practice the pensions regulator will be happy with a viable plan to work it off over time. Most final salary schemes have a deficit nowadays because 1. people are living longer so actuarial assumptions have changed adversely; 2. both gilt yields and equity returns have fallen and 3. Mr Brown's tax raids on pension fund assets have also reduced expected returns.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
Not interested in those specific employees John but past & retired ones that live in our community & those currently employed .
Watty
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
With you on that 100% Paul.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 688- Registered: 16 Jul 2009
- Posts: 268
Thank you for that Paul,I am duly comforted.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
sounds like a case of protecting their assets john.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Well interestng that barryw and paulw who campaigned for the privatisation of the port
are now indicating that the privatised DHB are wrong in the way they operate.
Still the govt dithers, and we see no light at the end of the tunnel, looking likely that the cobbled together limping govt are just as likely to give in to DHB.
Realy we need a speedy decision to move things forward
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Keith, many people have changed their view of how the port should be run by 1. what DHB are doing to prepare it for privatisation and 2. the realisation that there is a third way which is best for everyone involved.
The government is dithering because the DfT is civil-servant led; there is the usual clash between the political will and the civil service won't.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
If peter your saying barryw and paulw have changed there minds on the ports privatisation then thats a step forward
but the rest of your thread i agree with
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Howard, pretty sure that the decision has been made and that we are now waiting for the Govt to decide when the timing is right to announce what it is.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
the legal challenges will start then neil, i can't help but feel that an unpopular decision has been reached then the commons goes into recess in the hope that people will cool off.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Howard, can't help but disagree with your analysis. The DfT almost certainly wishes to avoid legal challenges, these are inevitable if the decision is for privatisation as proposed by DHB, so timing for the announcement is 100% irrelevant. Timing only becomes relevant if only one party is likely to challenge and if the reaction of that party can be mitigated via a change of leadership.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Neil, you write:
"Timing only becomes relevant if only one party is likely to challenge and if the reaction of that party can be mitigated via a change of leadership."
Suppose more than one party challenges a DHB privatisation decision?
DfT informed me that all entities that have presented a relevant representation are considered in the same way.
So any party here can challenge! It can be more than one.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Alexander - if the government does not approve the DHB privatisation (that is what the decision will be, yes (with or without caveats) or no to DHB) how many interested parties are likely to object to such a decision? - er, about one - unless of course you know of a whole bunch of consultees that REALLY want the port to be sold off to remote private equity interests.
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
Alex, you can only ask for a judical review on the processes & whether they have been followed in arriving at a decision, not the decision. If the processes have been fully followed and are sound the decision will stand. You can't challenge it with success because you don't like it.
Interesting appointment of George Jenkins as new Chairman. A man of wide experience at Medway Ports & a proven Chairman of many hospital Trusts.
Watty
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
As far as I am aware, pretty much every single interested party will want to challenge a decision in favour of DHB's sell off.
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
Neil on what basis?
Watty