Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Alexander, calm down, dear. And Barry, you really should not try to make Alexander look idiotic. There is no need for it.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 703- Registered: 30 Jul 2010
- Posts: 2,096
Oh well Howard, you tried!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
waste of time wasn't it ray, people looking in will not be impressed at some of the personal attacks.
threads have had to be closed before over the same thing.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
I think we need to move back to everyone has a view.
whilst i do not support much of what Alexander states, and realy do wonder if he's in the real world sometimes, never the less he has a view, which im happy to watch and respond to, without any personal attacks.
As frustrating as this may be, open speech is hopefully something we all agree with
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Yes, Keefy, we all agree with open speech, including the right to lampoon the views of those who are not 'mainstream'.
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
who decides whats mainstream
thats just your view peter lol
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Paul s;
Like i said it's a view
not one i share but never the less a view.
iwe have seen the same with the peoples port who say they have doverorians support (is that qualified/)?
i think not, but never the less, also a view
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Paul S, I don't object to debate on differing views, but some comments today have been of very low taste.
In response to your post 90, there is a difference.
DPPT have been claiming to represent the Community of Dover, and at times to represent the wider Community of Dover District.
This means that the examples you give in post 90 are not compatible. That you may have a private mortgage, or businesses may have loans, is one thing, but if DPPT claims to be a public body, representing the community, be it town or district, then this is something entirely different.
In this case, we would be talking of a massive local public debt, for the simple reason that DPPT states that it is the community of Dover with regards to the Port and with regards to town and district regeneration. This was also what they wrote on the parish pole sheet which I refused to put in the ballot box, as I openly disputed there and then that DPPT are the local community.
We're talking big here, and surely the local community cannot be compared with a private mortgage that one person has, or a loan that a business has.
While I don't know, or can't remember, what loan DPPT intends to take out, it seems to be somewhere in the hundreds of millions, while claiming to represent the local Community. Hence my comparison, that a town (community) of 30,000 people with such a massive public debt (DPPT = public body and "the community"), would be as if Britain, with about 60 million people, suddenly got a debt of hundreds of billions of pounds.
Then I noted that DPPT, as well as having to repay this money with the interest from sole Port incomes, also claims they will regenerate Dover and even the whole District while they're about it.
I simply dispute that any of this is even remotely feasible.
Guest 705- Registered: 23 Sep 2010
- Posts: 661
Now wait a minute Alex, UK is hundreds of billions in debt-I understood for year ending 2012 it is predicted to be 1.039 trillion that's over a thousand billion-and we're all still walking about alot!
Uh oh! - is that Sonny and Cher I hear?-I got you babe
Never give up...
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Yes Richard, and the Public Debt was £850 billion 2 years ago, so it's gone up by over 150 billion in such a short time.
And that is notwithstanding the Bank of England has printed a few hundred billion pounds since May 2010, else it would have been much worse! The Treasury can count on corporate and income tax, on fuel tax and VAT, and on road tax and various other taxes. Yet, the Treasury is not able to get out of the Debt, but only increases it.
DPPT would have no chance to print money or collect taxes, but would be responsible for the DHB pension pot.
So the only revenue would be that coming from the ferry companies, plus from the smaller businesses operating within the Port. Then there are the many maintenance works that need paying for in Eastern Docks, not even to mention the construction of T2 at Western Docks.
Then the regeneration of the District to pay for!
How, Richard?
In particular considering that Neil has ruled out Port tolls as the obvious solution for local regeneration.
Then let's not even look at what would happen if there were an oil crisis, and the Port stopped functioning for a while, through lack of rail facilities.
Has the DPPT plan really been tested, Richard?
My representation is realistic, it has tested everything from carbon emission laws and the need for a rail link for freight for a future T2, to possible future inconvenience deriving from oil-dependent road transport; from constant road pollution in the town owing to Pot traffic to realistic local regeneration; from vitally needed local projects (such as a tunnel under Townwall Street) to the creation of employment through a local Port Toll revenue creating economic regeneration.
It requires that the Port must not be in debt. The Government must NOT sell the Port, but transfer it free of cost to the local Community. This has been my view since February 2010 - first representation - and has never changed.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Alexander, I'm sorry, but you are stating as fact things which are simply incorrect.
1) DPPT has not claimed to be the actual community. It claims, and is perfectly correct in claiming, due to its widespread and diverse membership, that it is representative of the community. The whole point is that DPPT is not a public body, but is a private charity that is representative of the communities of Dover District and accountable to them. A public body would not be able to have full access to the capital markets in order to raise money to invest in the future of the port.
2) The Parish poll made no mention of DPPT, but DPPT supported the question posed 100%. Ownership by the community could mean a number of things, the parish poll was not specific, just one of which could be a body or charity that is representative of the community. Parliament will eventually decide how to square this so that the port can be free of public sector borrowing restrictions so that it can raise funds needed for major infrastructure developments in the future whilst remaining fully accountable to the community of which it is a member.
3) If Parliament decide that the DPPT is a body sufficiently representative of the community to be the beneficiary of a financial, or non-financial, transaction resulting in the transfer of the port to its ownership, then any debt raised will not be 'public' debt.
4) Your statements on the debt and what will be left over after serving it are totally incorrect. You have absolutely no idea about the rate incurred and so any independent spreadsheet that you have created for yourself is going to be incorrect, probably by a very significant margin, as it is clear you do not know very much about infrastructure debt orgination.
5) I do not believe that DPPT has made any undertakings that cannot be realised. I am a Christian, a Dovorian and a businessman, not a politician, and DPPT is supported by some very significant business people who have become members and also make sure that nothing has been promised that cannot be delivered.
6) The comparison to a mortgage is a simplification which has been used so that you might just stand a chance of understanding how monies lent will not lead to the lender calling the shots but will leave the community in charge.
7) You always ignore that Dover Town Council, Dover District Council, Kent County Council and The Nation will always have ex-oficio representation on the board. How you can possibly make many of the statements that you have made about no community representation and local government involvement with this information being clear and in the public domain is beyond belief and just shows that you really haven't taken in all the information that is available.
8) As I have said before on several occasions to you, the DPPT business plan has been built from publicly available information about the port and its revenues, P/L account, etc., information from its major stakeholders and customers and research into trade flows, changing market requirements, etc. has been checked by accountants, legal advisors, bankers and ports specialists and stress tested and the 'most pessimistic' scenario delivers £50m in immediate seed funding for regeneration with, annually, thereafter just short of £1m for the first 5 years with this amount rising thereafter. How high it might rise thereafter is subject to too many variables at this time. Also, as funding is subject to due diligence, some of the annual numbers are still subject to adjustment until due diligence has been completed.
9) Regeneration is always carried out in partnership with others, local authorities, private entrepeneurs, plcs, other charities, educational establishments and government, both national and pan-European. Seed funding attracts other funding from partner agencies. Seed funding grows and provides commercial returns when properly invested in a mixture of revenue and not for profit regeneration projects. The £50m provided for regeneration seed funding at the outset will not remain as small as £50m for long, it is an endowment that will generate a revenue stream for more regeneration projects, which in turn will generate revenue for more.
10) The Regeneration arm of the DPPT (currently with working name Regenco) is a separate company 100% owned by DPPT but with its own board and expert management. It starts with £50m as mentioned above and is tasked with delivering the regeneration agenda decided on by the community and growing/recycling the regeneration fund.
11) In short, the regeneration of Dover and the surrounding area is carried out largely independently of port revenues from an inital seed fund. The ongoing income from port revenue surplus, whilst not inconsequential, is not essential to the continued effectiveness of the regeneration vehicle.
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,706
Really you have not got a clue have you
simple maths should suffice to show that the proposed structured bond debt for the purchase of the port is perfectly reasonable and totally serviceable
Lets assume for a moment that the port clears a profit of £15m pa
Lets assume that the purchaser is better at running the port than the current management and manages to grow that profit by 3%pa
Let us also assume that the proposed commercial bond issue by the purchaser is split into 6 equal tranches repayable at 5,10,15, 20, 25 & 30 years with corresponding coupon rates of 1.5%, 2%, 2.5%, 3%, 3.5% & 4%
So what this then gives you is the following
a) total bond issue £400m
b) total profit over 30 years £714m
c) total debt repayable based on coupon rates shown £622m (£71.7m @5yrs, £80m @10yrs, £91.7m @15yrs. £106.7m@ 20yrs, £125m @25yrs & £146.7 @30yrs)
d) net profit over the period £91m after debt servicing
As the meerkats say "SIMPLES"
For clarity this is addressed to Alexander - unfortunately in the 10 minutes it took me to do the maths and type it up numerous other posters had added to the thread
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
seems like ross and paul do not have the common decency to name who they are referring to, maybe time to call a halt to this thread before we lose quality members again?
Ross Miller- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,706
Howard are you suggesting Paul and I are not quality?
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
This thread is now a lot shorter with all my non-quality postings removed.... the 'quality' posts speak for themselves...
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Furthermore, whilst the DfT could raise a toll for foreign registered vehicles using UK roads, all attempts by local government and individual port authorities to raise such a toll in this country have been ruled against in the courts. I don't rule it out, it has been ruled out as a practical short/medium term consideration by our courts and I've said this many times before.
From what I've seen and read of your representation so far, it is none of the things that you claim for it. It is your view and you hold it to be true - good for you. But your numbers have not been rigourously tested and just simply, so far, they do not appear to stack up. You appear to have insufficient facts at your disposal to be able to produce anything remotely acccurate when it comes to affordability and applicability of the proposals that you have put forward in your representation.
The DPPT business plan and our numbers have been tested independently of DPPT and they do stack up - you don't believe it, that's fine, that is what you believe, (the comment that was here was unworthy and a bit of a cheap shot based on an impression formed after reading posts elsewhere on the forum from May this year and posts on blogs that are similar, but not the same, to Alexander's elsewhere on the interweb. I have, accordingly redacted it). Just because you believe it, doesn't make it true and one should not go around stating personal beliefs as if they are fact.
Just as an example of your thinking, do you know how much a Town Wall street tunnel would cost? DPPT do. Do you know how the money to construct such a tunnel might be raised (you think you do, but the way in which you say it can be done? - well it can't be done that way)? DPPT have looked at it and have a pretty good idea how it could be achieved. Do you know how long it would take to deliver such a project? I doubt it, but I'll let you take a stab at it. DPPT have worked a timescale on it as well (and it isn't quick).
Another one: How many times have I told you that Intermodal connections are vital to all modern ports if they are to grow and flourish in the future? How many times have you been told that DPPT, if successful, will conduct a full review of the port masterplan and modify it so that it meets the trade and traffic requirements of the next 30 years and that such a review will include the need for intermodal connectivity. For goodness sake Alexander, despite being told how important intermodal connections are to the modern successful port and that they therefore have a place in DPPT's plans for the future of the port of Dover many, many times, you still trot out the same old rubbish time and time again about you being the only person in the world who has thought about or promoted an intermodal connection for the port of Dover.
Intermodality has been important in port design and development for a long time Alexander and I've been in the business of delivering port facilities and developing operations at ports for quite a while too, you didn't come up with the idea of rail connectivity for ports or for Dover, it is no more your idea than it would be my idea, if anyone could claim such an idea for themselves, it would be Brunel. Not you, me, or anyone else alive today.
Ross Miller- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,706
Neil some interesting points and questions - not sure you will get answers from Alexander though
With regard to putting Townwall Street into a tunnel a quick internet search shows that road tunnels cost between £140.000 & £240,000 per metre depending on ground conditions etc. giving a cost of somewhere in the region of £210m to £360m assuming a length of roughly 1.5km
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Awww Ross, spoilsport
Dunno how long Alexander wants to make the tunnel though. We have looked at minimum length to deliver an effective reconnection between Town and Seafront and tunnel combined with anciliary junction works and local road reconstruction for retail, restuarant and entertainment viability and sustainability should come to approx. £150m. I have to emphasise that this is the minimum requirement for delivery of an effective reconnection. Ideally the tunnel would be longer, but a longer tunnel section is just not deliverable (initial cost budget (for a road tunnel with no immediately discernable commercial ROI) would cause the whole to be abandoned as overly ambitious).
Even the minimum tunnel length required to provide an effective reconnection will be many years in the making, between initial detailed planning and final delivery. Just getting the right partners and finance together in the first place I know will be a major, and time consuming, project.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Neil, my blogs, of which there are two, do not mention anywhere King Arthur!
You are free to read my blogs, there is no mention - and there has never been any mention, of King Arthur in them.
My belief is that you are reverting to fantasy.
Is this how you now intend to present someone to the Public who does not agree at all with your proposals on the Port, by claiming to the Public that this person has written things about a legendary figure and claimed it to be fact???
I've written about King Ethelbert and Queen Bertha, the King and Queen of Kent who founded the English Church with centre at Canterbury, and about Saint Aidan from the Isle of Iona who established the English Northumbrian Church at York, so that readers can understand why Canterbury and York are the two main dioceses of England.
I've written about the Celtic Saints Ninian and Kentigern who were fundamental in founding the Scottish Church.
And about Jesus, St. Peter and Mark the first Evangelist, who I state is the Successor of Saint Peter, that is, Mark the Evangelist, not the popes.
But King Arthur??? Neil! Perhaps you can refer to where in my blogs there is a mention of King Arthur, attributed to a time and person to boot, so we can all believe you, eh?
This just about sums up all your maths on the Port and local regeneration, and I'll keep to my figures and facts as in my representations, rather than to myths and legends.
No matter how you may try, Neil, you cannot undo my representations, the first of which is dated before DPPT existed, and if you can't accept my rail link proposal to Western Docks which I've made to the DfT, then that is plainly and simply too bad.
Now you're picking on my Townwall St, tunnel proposal to the DfT too! Sigh! Do you consider yourself omnipotent? Do you think that Public Consultation in Dover is open only to you? Is this some form of "better people's" democracy?
You further write "The Parish poll made no mention of DPPT, but DPPT supported the question posed 100%. Ownership by the community could mean a number of things, the parish poll was not specific".
Well I never! This is new to me! (Is it just me?) That Parish pole has been used and presented by DPPT as their claim to legitimacy over the Community and the Port.
Neil, this is becoming an Arthurian rebus, a riddle, are you now rewriting history too?
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Alexander, my apologies, I may be mistaken about your final position on King Arthur. I was remembering your argumentation on another thread on this very forum where you used the Arthurian Legend as a support of your argument against development, this was back in May and left me with an abiding impression. I also traced the blogs concerned and the general subject themes whilst being similar to yours (Celtic half legend, Disputed History on the early Church in England, early Saxon Kings) are not the same subject matter that you list above and the name they are signed with is different on each occasion and isn't your name.
As for fact or fantasy on the numbers, DPPT's have been externally tested and scrutinised and hold up under that scrutiny.
I do not wish to, nor have I made any attempt to undo your representations. Merely tried to show that statements that you have made in regard to DPPT as 'fact' are factually incorrect.
Rail. read what I wrote. It isn't just your suggestion, I was very clear and detailed about rail and have been many times. The only person who could ever have claimed that rail connection to a port was his original idea was Brunel, not you or I (however, at least I know how much it would cost, how the connection could be achieved and what percentage of freight is likely to move on it).
TownWall Tunnel: again, not specifically your idea and not mine either (Townwall tunnel has been suggested by many people on many occasions over the last 40 years, so stop pretending it is all your idea alone), just pointing out that you've made suggestions that are uncosted, untimetabled and unfinanced, where items such as a tunnel under Townwall street, have been properly investigated and properly costed by DPPT as part of a long term potential regeneration strategy which has been developed in consultation with other stakeholders.
No History rewrite. Read the DPPT Website which has said since the result was announced 'communitisation, A People's Port'.
FACT: The DPPT was not mentioned in the question, community ownership was what the question asked and what Dover voted for, a people's port.
DPPT campaigned hard for a 'Yes' vote on the parish poll and we have'nt used the result in the way that you suggest. Yes, the vote result legitimises a full fledged campaign for a people's port. Yes, the result has been seen to support the DPPT view that the Port of Dover should be communitised and become a People's Port. I, personally, have always been very precise in saying that Dover voted for a people's port, communitisation of the port, not privatisation. DPPT has and does maintain that it is representative of that community and therefore a transfer of ownership, howsoever achieved, to the DPPT would be appropriate given the appetite and expressed will of Dovorians for community ownership. I have also said and written publicly on many occasions and on all threads where I have written about the port that I believe that the DPPT solution is the best proposition for the port and the town, never that I believe it is the only alternative. Parliament will decide the final outcome.
The Consultation was on whether or not stakeholders agreed that the DHB enhanced revised proposals met the government's criteria on the the privatisation of Trust Ports. Representations that did not address the DHB proposals directly in relation to the criteria may not have delivered the message that the writer intended.
