Trusts can be complicated but have failsafes and safety nets that do not exist in other organisations and are usually more rooted in the local community with local knowledge on the Board and lines of accountability.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
not a party political matter of course, most certainly an issue of spineless government.
all information and views have been aired, so many times now it has become a bore for most people.
there are 3 choices, why do they not make one?
no wonder the deficit gets ever wider, someone has to take the bull by the horns.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
yes and charlie has made it political
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 673- Registered: 16 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,388
Andrew, not aware of any public votes being held by DDC or DHB. There was a referendum by the Peoples Port held in a small part of Dover which was blitzed with misleading literature for weeks beforehand. The question specifically omitted any mention of the Trust Port option and was aimed purely at supporters of the Peoples Port proposal. The wording of the question ensured that anybody voting against the DHB proposal was automatically counted as supporting the Peoples Port proposal, there was no other option. Almost one hundred percent of people supporting the Peoples Port voted for the Peoples Port. Nobody else turned up because there was nothing for them to vote on.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Keith - do not misuse, misinterpret, misquote or misrepresent my views again. Something that you have a great tendency to do. Try expressing your own views instead without using me or anyone else as some kind of smoke screen or comfort blanket.
My main interest is breaking the deadlock over the development and regeneration of Dover. We have been going round and round in declining circles ever since the end of WW2.
We need something big and dramatic to transform our town or we will just keep on getting the same old, same old, as we have before.
Right now and for a long time past Dover has got nothing, not a bean, out of having the Port. DHB, despite their forced recent claims, do not care a toss about Dover. Most of those who work in the Port do not live in Dover and most of those do not spend their money in the town either. Once upon a time most people working in the Port at least lived in the town and Dover benefited from the jobs and what was spent in the town. Certainly you can bet that almost all the higher earners in the Port will not live and spend in the town.
If privatisation was the only way then yes I would go for it and, in that case, any benefit that accrued to Dover would depend in the manner of privatisation. In previous threads I have explained that there are many ways that could be done, some better than others. The reason for that is what I previously referred to, the Port in it current state is useless to the town.
Yes, there are problems with the full commercial privatisation, whatever method, but in my original judgement these were worthwhile to change the Ports status and relationship to the town.
Fortunately there is now a better way.
One that does not carry the problems I mentioned of the full commercial privatisation and one that will maximise benefits to the town, mutualisation with the People's Port.
This is not the same as privatisation and does not convey any kind of equity ownership to any of the financiers in the City. The model proposed by the PPT maximises benefit to the town and places equity ownership with local people in perpetuity, or at least in a far more certain and real manner than any other ownership model including state ownership.
Ed's rather simplistic correlation between privatisation and mutualisation is simply wrong. These are two very different beasts.
I apologise for repeating much that has been said before but it is clear that some people have either not taken any notice, ignore what they have been told, do not understand or are incapable of understanding. It can be any of these and they can make their own minds up which applies to them...
I suspect that this latest news may well be good news for the PPT but I want to find out more. The easiest thing for the government to do would be just to approve the DHB plan. A mutualisation of the Port would be more problematical in respect of EU law so it seems HMG may be treading carefully.
I will be interested in what Neil has to say about this.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
some brief comments before more answers come forward;
on the issue of DHB workers i dont have the info on where the workers may live and can onl presume barryw has this info?
with regard to those that do live in dover, i think they would shop in dover just as much as any other person who lives in dover
so wh#at that has to do with this privitisation i realy dont know.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i would suspect that neil as a go getter would be immensely frustrated by sitting around twiddling his thumbs waiting for a straightforward decision to be made.
not sure how european union law would come into the equation, milford haven was mutualised if my memory is correct.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
You merely have to catch up with modern employment trends Keith there is a lot of independent data around if you want to find it. The old days of people living near their place or work is long past and when people earn well they tend to move to out-of-town locations. Dover is no different. I am not only referring to DHB people either, but all Port related employment.
Competition law, Howard - if not done properly any decision could be open to judicial review.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
which would work for other workers from other towns living in dover then???
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
In theory yes, Keith, but Dover is not yet seen as a desirable dormitory Town.
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
thought it was fact not theory
well then we have a problem dont we
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
Ed,
I wonder why no one has answered your #4 post
"Certainly won't be our MP as he campaigned on a platform of total opposition to privatisation then did a U-turn immediately on being elected and supported the Peoples Port privatisation plan. Was this the first government U-turn"?
Martin P,
many of us have been saying the same as your post #19
"The correct option is to remain a Trust Port, profits re invested in administering maintaining and improving the Port".
As far as I am concerned this is the best option and now that DDC have submitted options to change the trust rules then the old answer won't wash any more, which was always "trust rules can't change"
"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"
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Gary I answered Ed's #4 in my #6.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 673- Registered: 16 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,388
Howard:
Milford Haven is a Trust Port and both the Port Authority and Pembrokeshire County Council have told the government forcefully and repeatedly that they wish to remain that way. It is one of the UK's principal energy hubs and both the port and the local community have told the government in no uncertain terms that they consider retention of Trust Port status to be far and away the best way for them to proceed in the years ahead.
I would not be at all surprised if this is not influencing the Government in prevaricating over the sell off of the Port of Dover. The paltry £200 million they have been offered by the Peoples Port is less than two days interest on the National Debt and less than half the cost of just one of the Nimrods they chopped up recently.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
Peter.
No you did not; post #4 was about our MP telling people he would continue with Gwynn's good work, "his words not mine" then did a prompt u-turn, which was Ed's Question
"was this the first u-turn"?
"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"
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Well then, let me expand on my reply; it was not a u-turn because the Peoples Port proposal is not for privatisation but against it. I didn't see Gwyn mentioned in post #4; Neil discussed the DHB privatisation plans with Gwyn prior to the last general election at the same time as Charlie and I were talking about trying to stop it falling into foreign or commercial private hands. After the election we all got together and here we are today.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Keith your #23, nothing could be further from the truth. We have gone out of our way to make it non-political. We have a cross party consensus behind us including many prominent Labour and trades union figures. Oh and a few Tories as well.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 673- Registered: 16 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,388
I rather like Charlie and think he will do well for Dover but there is no gainsaying that he campaigned on the basis of being totally opposed to a sell-off of the port. Remember the inflammatory statements such as "Labour want to sell off our port," "Not on my watch," etc?
I never dreamed for a moment that he meant it and said so repeatedly at the time. The whole Conservative ethos for the last thirty years has been the privatisation of everything in sight and I seem to remember that Charlie was actually an advisor on privatisation to the shadow government.
Immediately upon being elected he came up with this plan to sell off the port. Call it mutualisation or whatever you like but it involves flogging off a nationally owned asset and using privately raised finance to purchase it. This is the complete opposite of what he promised the voters during his campaign. He is a very nice bloke but I would not want to buy a used car from him.
Here are some quotes from that bastion of reputable reporting, Dover Forum:
Charlie Elphicke, The Conservative Candidate for Dover and Deal said...
"Now it's official. Gordon Brown is selling off our port just as quick as he can. This is total betrayal of the solemn promise Labour made at the last election not to sell off the port. You just can't trust them. People often tell me the only thing to change in Dover in ten years is we're losing a hospital and now our port is being flogged off. I don't agree with Gordon Brown's sale of our port. It's wrong to sell off our borders."
Gwyn Prosser MP:
"On the other hand, everyone knows that in the event of a Conservative Government taking office they would relish the prospect of selling the port because that's what Tories do. And for the avoidance of doubt, at the last election their shadow transport minister travelled all the way to Dover and promised to privatise the port"
http://www.doverforum.com/comment/article.php?id=186Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
Todays DF front page confirms that privitisation of the port is seen as the 'approved' way forward.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
I often change my mind about something with new information, does it really matter who said what back then, today and the future is what is important.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------