Port of dover, no to privatisation
- 12 September 2012 15:36191066point taken paul but the problems impact on people from deal and surrounding area but not on deal itself.
i doubt that deal town council would have considered paying for a referendum under those conditions - 12 September 2012 15:36191067The DPPT idea requires the Port going into massive debt, Neil.
My point to the DfT is that the Port must not be put in a situation of debt, and so should be transferred free of any charge to the Local Community, ie the Council(s) (Local Government).Chanters, Drums and Drones Potty Time http://youtu.be/99fMqpjnXYA
Rule Britannia!
Kent First http://youtu.be/04F3mAP3fV4 Keep banging on http://youtu.be/qYCU_SKmkGQ - Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
12 September 2012 15:39191069i do despair somtimes on this thread. - 12 September 2012 15:47191070
don't despair Brian. All will be well so long as the port isn't sold off to private equity ownership or placed in the hands of politicians who've shown time and again that they can't be trusted not to sell it off if it becomes expedient to do so. - 12 September 2012 16:09191074Debt isn't a bad thing....Been nice knowing you :)
- 12 September 2012 16:42191076As long as it is serviceable, specially if it is associated with the purchase of an income bearing asset that can fund the debt.
- 12 September 2012 18:02191094Howard.
People from Deal have worked in and around the port for years, some businesses from Deal rely on the port itself and via passengers passing through the port.
Like it or not Dover and Deal are conjoined in many ways and many things that occur in Dover has an impact on Deal.
Are you saying that any monies coming via DPPT in the future will only be for problem areas in Dover? I thought the idea was to benefit all local communities?"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum" - 12 September 2012 18:11191096Neil, are you suggesting that a DPPT Port would be free of any form of Government supervision? If so, then your proposal is 100% unrealistic, sheer fantasy.
My proposal does not suggest the Port being exempt from Government supervision.
Whoever is nominated Port manager, must be approved by some form of Government (Central or Local).
I'm beginning to realise that you are proposing a Port management that is completely free of any Government approval and supeprvision.
And that any investments in the Town through DPPT (which would be extremely limited investments anyway) would also be free of any local Government approval.
All extremely unlikely, Neil!
I can't see this "thing" ever getting Government approval, Neil. DPPT's idea of management for a Port does not exist anywhere, it is unprecedented, and seems more like a form of Maoism.
Chanters, Drums and Drones Potty Time http://youtu.be/99fMqpjnXYA
Rule Britannia!
Kent First http://youtu.be/04F3mAP3fV4 Keep banging on http://youtu.be/qYCU_SKmkGQ - 12 September 2012 18:24191101Alexander, you are a very strange cove and come to the weirdest conclusions.
The community ownership and management model is tried and tested and exists successfully in other industries and fields of human endeavour.
Politicians have organised the private sale of so much already, including this attempt to sell the port of Dover, that I find it incredible that you suggest that it is a good idea to hand them direct ownership of our port, they will sell it when they deem it expedient to do so.
The short answer to your strange conclusions is - no Alexander. - 12 September 2012 18:29191102let's have a quick summary of the situation, peter thinks alex is a stalinist and alex thinks neil is a maoist.
hope i am not over simplifying things. - 12 September 2012 18:31191105This is all going like the Western Heights/CGI thread......Been nice knowing you :)
- 12 September 2012 18:42191112Gotta smile.
- Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
12 September 2012 19:20191129now in deep despair. - 12 September 2012 19:32191138Peter too!!!!!??
- 12 September 2012 20:03191151I got the phrase from Eric Pickles, who, in Parliament, responded to Charlie Elphicke saying that the DPPT proposal was Maoism.
I found it on the "They work for you" website.
Neil, the word "politician" doesn't come up anywhere in my representations.
The Port, in my proposals, would be a Community asset on the administrative territory of our local Councils, and as such could never be sold.
Perhaps you should also consider that Council officers are not politicians, and they are there to ensure that administrative procedures are correct.
If I understand it correctly, you are suggesting DPPT will nominate its own managers of the Port outside of any Government administrative control or supervision?
Perhaps a simple "yes" or "no" would be helpful here.
May I also ask, then, Neil, that which no-one to date has ever dared asking?:
Who would be the manager of the Port of Dover according to DPPT's plan?
Now a simple answer here, please, Neil.Chanters, Drums and Drones Potty Time http://youtu.be/99fMqpjnXYA
Rule Britannia!
Kent First http://youtu.be/04F3mAP3fV4 Keep banging on http://youtu.be/qYCU_SKmkGQ - 12 September 2012 20:48191162Alexander, last time I checked Councils were controlled by politicians and council officers acted as directed by their political masters and in accordance with policy decisions made by politicians.
Private equity will appoint its own managers outside the control or influence of government, that is totally acceptable to government. Why should it be unacceptable for a community interest company such as DPPT to do any differently?
The port's managers will either be its current managers, as current employees will be subject of TUPE regs, or will be appointed as the result of a standard advertisement and interview process as and when new managers and executives are required for the business. This is exactly the same way in which employees are generally selected for the positions that they hold.
The process for appointments to the Board are included in the Society's rules, as are the duties and responsibilities of board members.
Simple answer to your last Alexander is that I do not know. Once Tupe obligations have been fulfilled and if vacancies at the top become available, then there will be a transparent recruitment process in keeping with best practice and a new executive will be selected as a result of that process. - 12 September 2012 22:08191172the actual quotes from Hansard below which shows what Eric Pickles actually said and in what context he said it in full. Much better to seee and understand the actual exchange than to rely on a misrepresented misquote.
Charlie Elphicke:
This is a truly radical Bill from a truly radical Secretary of State. It brings closer to reality the dream of government for the people, by the people and of the people that shall not perish from this earth. In my constituency, people want to buy the port of Dover. People in other constituencies want to buy forests and other such community assets. Will the Secretary of State and the Government consider going faster, deeper and wider, so that we have a community right to buy from central Government as well as from local government?
Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 17 January 2011, c563)
Eric Pickles (Secretary of State, Communities and Local Government; Brentwood and Ongar, Conservative)
My hon. Friend tempts me to become a bit Maoist in these matters, but we will certainly consider what he says and look towards giving greater powers to local people.
The Bill will return the planning system to the people. Targets do not build homes, and regional plans do not get communities involved. Today, we have an adversarial, confrontational system, fomented on mistrust and a sense of powerlessness. It is simply not working. The Bill will therefore create genuine neighbourhood planning, by which the community will develop in ways that make sense for local people. Instead of instructions being handed down from on high, the Bill will offer incentives to invest in growth. Instead of unelected commissioners making national decisions on important national infrastructure, those choices will again be down to democratically elected Ministers in this House. - Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
12 September 2012 23:24191179Certainly because of the cobbled together govt not moving its arse the saga wil go on and on.
now, to get to the viewpoint at this time;
all those that don't want to see the port sold off should have opposed this some time ago.
the only scheme on the table at this time is whether or not DHB get's the opportunity to privatise our port.
We can hope the cobbled together govt makes a decision soon, but i'm still not convinced they may surprize us all and give the harbour board the go ahead.
If they don't we then have options for alternatives now we have the questionable peoples port, an option
but we also have alexander's unknown letter
of course as the contents are unknown it's certainly doesn't appear to be a serious option.ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS - 13 September 2012 00:48191194Keith!!!
In 2010, all the participants in the public consultation whose representations were accepted as relevant, received copies from the Department of Transport of all the relevant representations that had been made by every other participant.
This happened on various occasions, as the consultation process went on.
Thus, I received all the copies of relevant representations that were made, as too did many other participants in the public consultation on the Port of Dover. My representation was among those sent out from the DfT, as too was Vic's and, if he made one, Neil's.
The only thing was, the DfT did not put the name of the participant on these copies.
However, the content of each representation made in 2010 is known to all the other participants in the Public Consultation in 2010.
And DHB also received a copy of each representation that was made.
My 2012 representation is based on the same principles as the previous ones (3 in all) of 2010. It is NOT unknown, therefore.
Thank you very much!
Chanters, Drums and Drones Potty Time http://youtu.be/99fMqpjnXYA
Rule Britannia!
Kent First http://youtu.be/04F3mAP3fV4 Keep banging on http://youtu.be/qYCU_SKmkGQ - Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
13 September 2012 07:51191207well maybe alexander thats a small step forwardALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS