Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
whilst i dont wish to speak for neil or anyone else
im sure any of the managers with expertese would be kept on
be silly to do otherwise
but certainly iv not seen anywhere that anyone has said they would go
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
To my understanding, Keith, a people's port would choose its own managers, but again, it would need be clarified, as obviously I don't want to make wrong statements.
Guest 697- Registered: 13 Apr 2010
- Posts: 622
Interesting points, Neil. As I said, I am reserving judgement on the proposals but just wish that this whole issue had not degenerated into the jingoistic debate that we've seen played out in the media and on this forum. The fact is much of the UK's transport infrastructure is in private hands and has seen considerable investment. Look at Gatwick Airport, for example. It has attracted investors from across the world and is completing a major refurbishment, and adding new airlines and routes. P&O has also done very well under foreign ownership. There is no doubt that the Port of Dover is at an important crossroads, but turning this into a debate about foreign ownership, and the White Cliffs of Dover is hardly doing it justice.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
maybe neil will comment soon
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
kevin
it was charlie that spouted the stuff about the white cliffs being sold off to nasty foreigners.
the national trust repeatedly asked him to withdraw the comments that were clearly aimed at grabbing tabloid headlines.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
I have said before, but it obviously bears repeating, DHB managers and staff are a good bunch and there is no earthly reason why DPPT would seek to get rid of them. Under the DPPT plan, all contractual and legal obligations to DHB officers, managers and staff will be observed, but should the Executive decide, having failed to sell the port to private equity, that they do not wish to transfer to DPPT and work in an accountable fashion for their community, DPPT will not be fighting to retain their services.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
there you go alexander
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 697- Registered: 13 Apr 2010
- Posts: 622
Indeed, Howard. But the DPPT website also refers to "Keeping the nation's gateway forever England".
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Told you so, Keith!
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Kevin, I think that you'll find that none of my postings or public utterances on this subject have been the remotest bit jingoistic.
I always refer to remote private equity interests and nothing else. I firmly believe that the port ownership model prevalent across the greater part of the rest of the world has delivered and continues to deliver far better returns to their port communities and to the respective nations than the private equity ownership model for ports prevalent here in the UK. Because of the various pieces of port legislation, the nature of the legislative framework that governs audit and accounting of public debt and public borrowing in the UK, it soon became apparent that simply adopting the ownership and governance model that seems to work best across the rest of the world would not be possible and so the DPPT ownership and governance model is an adaption that delivers the same effect. It is an undeniable fact that much of our infrastructure is in the hands of remote private equity (whether British or Foreign really doesn't matter), that is not a very good argument for selling even more of it, especially at a time when the drawbacks inherent in having sold so much of our infrastructure are becoming ever more apparent to government both local and national and there is an increasing amount of pressure on governments due to the concentration of wealth and equity into the hands of a very few and increasingly wealthy people.
Communitising ownership, cooperative ownership and the mutual model of ownership and governance of major assets and corporations provides a greater degree of accountability in the executives, a more widespread and democratic stake in the strategic direction and development of those corporations and a greater sense of ownership for the greatest number of people. Corporations so owned/governed have a track record of solid growth and investment, of a greater sense of corporate responsibility, tend to be better investors in people and are generally well known for their social responsibility.
I beleieve that the Port of Dover will prosper along with the town and district most when managed by experts and owned by its community and stakeholders.
Howard, having a list of all title deeds held by DHB and registered with the land registry here beside me, it is clear from the deeds and drawings that DHB does in fact own a part of the white cliffs straddling the Eastern Arm. Charlie appealing to an influential demographic through stating something that was true without being too specific.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
True, our website says that Kevin....because it will be true. If DPPT is successful, the Gateway to England, or the Continent (depending which way you're heading) will be forever owned by its community, by definition they'll be English. Would it be better to say "Keeping the nation's gateway in perpetual ownership by its local community"?
Guest 697- Registered: 13 Apr 2010
- Posts: 622
Agreed, Neil. I have not heard such comments from you but there is no denying that some high profile members of the DPPT have attemtped to turn this into some sort of referendum on foreign ownership. I do believe that the strapline on your website sets the tone and somewhat detracts from the clearly thought out arguments that you share with the forum.
I would be interested to see actual example of ports where you feel "communitising ownership" has worked. ABP is a private company and has made substantial investments in ports such as Southampton, generating new jobs, and in the process benefiting the local community.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
No examples in the UK Kevin. Overseas, plenty. Providing jobs is considered to be among the least of the contributions that ports with the best port-town, port-city relationships make. We can look at Shenzhen in Southern China, Valencia, Gothenburg, Helsinki, Zeebrugge, Hamburg, Antwerp, Zhangjiagang, Port Kelang, various ports in New Zealand, Norfolk (Virginia), Portland, New York and New Jersey, Montreal, Vancouver and many many more overseas ports owned/governed by their local communities (mostly through local and regional governement bodies) that deliver training programmes, building programmes, sponsor bursaries, have founded universities, developed innovative logistics solutions through sponsorship and patronage, pay for regional language education, provide parks and leisure facilities, promoting local and regional tourism, redeveloping derelict sights and returning economic activity to abandonded/under utilised areas, etc and on and on.
These days the port authority/owner/governing body, needs to be so much more than a landlord, job provider or port infrastructure developer. The modern port authority chief needs to be an economic strategist and full partner with community and local government in developing the area holistically. The port operation is the engine for growth. Private Equity ownership and governance most frequently overlooks the role of the port within the whole, concentrating instead on growth in monetary returns for the shareholders and considering community as 'job done' because of the jobs provided directly and indirectly by port operations activity. When the community become the shareholders and the distractions inherent in providing an average 8-9% return on PE investment and possible take-over/resale to another PE company are eliminated as a result, governance and strategic planning take on a much broader view and a more distant planning horizon leading to greater stability and better decision making, especially when a degree of entrepeneurial flair is retained within the organisation and commercial discipline is maintained through the effective use of regularly re-evaluated and updated key performance indicators.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
I believe that ABP is now owned by a consortium of German banks and investment houses. Not that it matters.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Neil of-course is right in opposing private ownership of the Port, including all the facts regards to equity: profit-making for the owners and eventual share-holders, and the possibility of a run-down Port being later re-sold to another operator.
In fact, in my representation, I spelled out the risk of Dover Port going bankrupt if privatisation goes ahead, as a private owner would milk the revenues to their own advantage, at least to get their initial investment back, and then to reap a profit.
But, in my view, community ownership means the existing administrative councils, one or more of them. So a transfer free of cost of the Port to local community (council) would avoid any form of debt situation, excluding the need for City investors.
The Board present administration of DHB, as far as I am concerned, can remain in place.
Executives would be chosen/confirmed by local Government or Central Government, or even by both of these, but not by an independent body as is DPPT.
As for investment, this could come, as by me envisaged from the start, through a rail link, as well as through port/road tolls.
Any rail company interested in freight transport could indeed invest in a future T2.
Adding to this, because carbon laws require innovative strategy for transport, the Government is investing big-time money in transport of freight by rail. Therefore, it is very much possible that the State could invest considerable sums into a T2 based on a rail link for freight.
By googling the following: Rail freight's role in the green economic future, you'll find some very good information on the advantages of freight by rail transport, and also some info on Government funds for rail freight expansion.
At present, it is only myself lobbying the Department for Transport for a rail link to Dover.
No sign of DPPT there!
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
The last line should read: a rail link to Dover Port.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
From the above link, I have pasted the following.
It is worth a read!
"So why should the Government fund these four projects at a combined cost of £350 million? In a nutshell, because rail freight offers a crucial low carbon, energyefficient safer alternative to road and can deliver huge returns for every pound invested in it.
The Freight Transport Association have used government figures to show that road congestion is now costing the UK around £24 billion a year. Rail acts as a freight bypass with each freight train of consumer goods able to remove 60 HGVs from our roads.
Meanwhile a single aggregates train can replace a staggering 160 HGVs. Added to that, rail freight creates 70 per cent less carbon dioxide than the equivalent road journey, with a gallon of diesel carrying a tonne of freight 246 miles by rail as opposed to 88 miles by road."
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
For over two years now, I have been campaigning for a rail link connection to a future T2, starting with representations to the Department for Transport.
It is time that the readers interested in this prospect do not let the occasion pass, or slip away, to give support.
Should there be a new consultation process, and you feel my proposal is worthy, then go for it!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
looks like another shot in the war for control of the port but the ferry companies won't mind.
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/east_kent_mercury/news/2012/september/27/port_tariffs_frozen.aspxGuest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
I think you'll find that there's more to that story than meets the eye Howard. Also Ferry companies may not be quite as pleased as you might think. There's no real change in DHB approach to tariffs or in the way that they 'negotiate' increases (I parenthasise negotiate because there's not much negotiation involved). One significant reason for the delay in announcing the 2013 increases that is not mentioned is that DHB are looking at bringing catch-up maintenance (stuff that should have been done on an ongoing basis over the last 10 years and has not been done) to outer harbour walls and other, now dilapidated, port infrastructure costs onto next year's tariff. So if the current execs at DHB are still in place come July 2013, the tariff increase is highly likely to be significantly larger than it has been in recent years and that is a worry for the ferry operators.