howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
how do you think it will pan out keith, and will we all be still alive when a decision is reached?
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
To change the criteria yet again would be ridiculous; the particular criterion which Dr Goldfield's scheme fails to meet is the one requiring an enduring community involvement in the long term direction and strategic management of the port. The DHB scheme proposes the reverse: that the port's private owners should have an involvement in the strategic direction followed by the community trust but the town will have no input on port strategy.
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
peter;
you are of course an advocate for the p.p.
but honestly, as an unbiased onlooker, the peoples port is no more community based than the D.H.B.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
If you believe that Keith, you should re-read the DPPT's constitution.
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
I find it difficult enough to sleep at the mo peter
maybe it will help lol
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
If DHB thought that they were actually going to win out on this, they would already have posted their final proposal and we would be having the statutory consultation period on it now.
Just over 1% of the local population have purchased a share so far, more each day and week...this is for a project that, as yet, is still working towards success and currently owns no assets.
How many people (as a percentage of the population) are fully paid up members of say English Heritage (which owns rather a lot and promises rather more in direct benefits than the DPPT does)? Well they have 750,000 members nationwide - that's 0.01% of the general population, or the National Trust (which owns even more and has considerable direct individual benefits associated with membership) with 3.8million paid up members nationally, which is about 6% of the general population (assuming general population to be close on 65m).
1% of the general population of an area being fully paid up members of an organisation that is still to successfully complete its main objective is a pretty good indication of a much wider support base many of whom still 'waits to see' the outcome (I have several thousands of emails of support from across the District and more than 1500 from further afield, so I am well aware that many people support what we are doing without feeling able, for whatever reason, at this point to put a tenner in for a paid up share). No one is laughing, nothing has backfired. Prior to opening the membership to all, just 12 members were sufficient to organise a campaign that saw the people of Dover influence a major change to Government policy and a change to legislation on the subjects of Trust ports and DHB. Now that there are more than a thousand members, those are just the pioneers, and growing, what this movement says carries even more weight. Has anything that some other person has come up with garnered the paid up support of more than 1 person (deliberately keeping names out of it)?
Bending the rules will not, in fact make the Government's life easier. If DHB fail to meet the criteria satisfactorily and incorporate those elements that the stakeholders have clearly said are essential, then their proposal will fail. If the government decide that DHB should continue to be allowed still more extra time to try, then any revised and elaborated proposal from them will be subject to a further 42 day consultation period and we can all examine it and make further representations prior to the decision minister announcing on the subject.
We all want and need a decision, but it is of such vital importance to us in Dover and also to our nation that it is the right decision, one that keeps this port (which has monopolistic tendencies) accountable to its stakeholders whilst allowing it to access funds as and when required for growth and development.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
we have to hope one of the 2 groups
and the cobbled together govt get there act together soon
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
kieth,there are two hopes neil hope and bob hope.but let us leave it there.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
thats not the first thread you leave it to hope brian
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
kieth,hope comes in many forms.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
There was indeed a meeting of the Port Consultative Committee yesterday (Thursday) and privatisation was number 5 on the agenda. This is the section of my report to council that deals with it. In case some don't know, BG stands for Bob Goldfield.
Privatisation update - BG mentioned that the press and "some" local politicians had been complaining about the delays in a decision in the process and pointed out that the submission had been with the minister for two and a half years. For the first of many times during this presentation BG said that this showed that, "it's not our fault".
A lot of the delays, BG said, are because of the changes in criteria required. In response DHB have prepared an 'enhanced' submission but were waiting for the result of the section 31 challenge on tariffs, put in by the ferry operators. They had no idea when this would be but estimate that it could possibly in the spring of 2013 (or probably in the autumn of that year).
When asked who makes the decision on what happens to the port if privatisation is approved (and BG stressed that DHB's was the only submission being considered by the government) BG said that it would be up to DHB. Expanding on this BG said that all applications would be considered as long as they conformed to the agreed criteria decided on by the government. This did not mean that DHB would not consider 'non-conformist' proposals, just that their initial application would need to show adherence to the established criteria.
In answer to a question from Roger Marples (representing the Royal Yacht Club) BG assured the meeting that there were no plans to outsource the marina.
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
So DHB have gone for enhanced submissions - like enhanced breasts, I guess, they will be dishonest and ultimately unattractive while appealing to the shallow.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
seems to me that is all down to extra time and penalties,
bob throwing himself down and parrying a shot from neil around the post.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Thanks for that Chris.
DHB are, as usual, being somewhat disingenuous in that the Section 31 enquiry result will determine what happens with the cash reserve and the starting point for the future tariff path, whereas the voluntary privatisation proposal under section 9 of the 1991 Ports Act is all about the process of privatising and the institutions that DHB hope to create as a result. The result of the Section 31 was not deemed by DHB to have any bearing on their privatisation plans when it started or even when it was in full swing. DHB told the Secretary of State, when asked and given a deadline to respond, that they would provide a revised voluntary proposal that would incorporate the new criteria and answer the concerns raised by all of their stakeholders. This DHB have not done. Instead they delay presenting their proposal using the excuse of section 31 and then blame the government for their own prevarication. The reason for the delay is that DHB failed to satisfy their stakeholders or the government with either their first offer or the changes that they made to it during the second consultation and then continued in their folly when revamping the community benefit during the consultation on the changing criteria. Since the end of that consultation and the promulgation of the new criteria, we have all been waiting for DHB to release a compliant proposal in cooperation with their stakeholders, whose interests they are supposed to serve. Their previous submission has been shown to be unacceptable and they have been asked for a new/revised/enhanced one. DHB have not produced it; the current delay is down to DHB.
Dr. Bob assured the workforce just a few years ago that they would not be outsourced and then less than twelve months later, outsourced most of them. Dr. Bob assured the remaining workforce that there would be no further redundancies or major changes in internal structure in the run up to privatisation and then, just months later, proceeded to make a further 8% of the workforce redundant and embark on a major restructure. Any assurances given to anyone should perhaps be viewed in light of DHB's track record.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
niel
what abouts chris p post tha bob reckons the DHB are the only body being considered at the momrent?
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Hi Keith, Bob being a bit too simplistic. However, it is true that the Government need to either be 'minded to approve' or 'not minded to approve' whatever proposal Bob and his team come forward with before we can move forwards on this matter. The Government has to deal with the DHB and their revised proposal directly under the terms of the 1991 Ports Act because the DHB is the independent statutory body responsible for the port, however, they also have to take into consideration the views, plans, and any alternative proposals of all of the port's stakeholders. Under the 1991 Act, MTP 2 and other associated legislation and policy DHB should be doing that, but they are not, so the government is doing so instead.
In summary, the DHB are not the only body who can/have put forward a proposal that has/is/will be considered by government, but they are the body who the government have to deal with/dispose of first.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Neil, you write:
"Has anything that some other person has come up with garnered the paid up support of more than 1 person (deliberately keeping names out of it)?"
I have never asked anyone to pay money in support of my representation and public campaign to defend the Port of Dover from privatisation and to generate revenues from the port.
I don't need to, having submitted all my phases of representation to the Department for Transport.
Apart from port-toll revenues, this also includes the proposal for a rail link.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
"In summary, the DHB are not the only body who can/have put forward a proposal that has/is/will be considered by government, but they are the body who the government have to deal with/dispose of first."
Quite true Neil.
Unless of course the Secretary of State uses the 'nuclear option' of invoking the Public Bodies Act, which gives ministers carte blanche to dispose of publicly owned enterprises as they see fit.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
In which case, Peter, if they dispose of DHB, who will administer the Port of Dover?
Like you, there are many of us waiting for a reply from the Department for Transport.
I have an all so vague feeling that the vast majority of the public in Dover and district are happy not to see the Port sold or made private, and hope that the "up for sale" request has drifted to the bottom of the chest "somewhere in London", forgotten, shunned....
