Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
For me as i'v said all along i hope the peoples port proposal does some good for Dover.
At this moment in time i remai unconvinced, but i do thank peter, barryw, neil and others for all the information they provided.
This is one of those situations where forumites have a difference of opinion, and thats fair enough.
I won't oppose the peoples port plan, nor will i at the moment be part of it
thats my p;resent position.
of course this has a long way to run.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i will be doing the same if it comes to fruition jan, just so that i can put my two pennorth in.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Neil, you seem to have no trust in the Government, by writing that no notice would be taken from public consultation anyway; this is a way of influencing people to go for Charlie's plan as the only solution.
I suppose it's ironic that Charlie happens to be an MP and part of the Government (as Tory MP), who until the General Election had campaigned in favour of Dover Port remaining a State asset.
I believe that Gov. will go ahead with the public consultation process, as the values of constitution and democracy are important, and that Charlie's attempts to interfere with this by telling people that the Government would not have listened anyway does not do him credit in his own party, which is part of the Coalition Government.
In fact to state that the Government would not have listened anyway does no credit to the Government's image, when the words come from an MP.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
alex
i am not trying to be pedantic but it is not charlie's port.
it is the brainchild of neil, now run by a committe and charlie is a figurehead as he is the most public figure.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
This is Kent gives the following interpretation of the peple's port idea, Howard:
"The idea is the brainchild of new Tory MP Charlie Elphicke."
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
then they are incorrect alex.
neil presented the idea originally to mr prosser when he was our honourable member, then an election was called leaving charlie as the new incumbent. neil then presented the idea to charlie who ran with it and gave it maximum publicity in the media and in the commons.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
MR prosser also started the ball rolling
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
don't think so keith, he was backing mr goldfield last time i heard him speak on the subject.
could be because the blues were backing it, such is party politics.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
The following is from the website of the People's Port:
"Referendum Meeting - 3 March, 6pm, Dover Town Hall (02 Mar 2011)
A public meeting at Dover Town Hall on Thursday 3 March (6pm) can vote to require a referendum on whether the port should be owned by the Dover community, or be sold off overseas"
The people's port committee has to all effect ruled out the public consultation process of the Government, and is constantly influencing people that there are only two options: either to accept the people's port trust or let the Port of Dover be sold overseas.
It would appear from this, and similar public statements of the p/p members, that DHB has made a privatisation proposal to the Government that envisages that the Port should be sold oversees. It also appears that, according to the opening introduction on the people's port website, Dover would be sold.
These presentations on the p/p website seem to be meant to influence people by giving wrong information, and therefore I consider it irresponsible of Dover Town Council to go ahead with a referendum that has been based on misleading information.
The National Trust has already asked Charlie to stop making comments to the effect that the White Cliffs of Dover would be sold, but the p/p website claims that Dover would be sold, and leads to make believe that the DHB plan is that our Port and Town would be sold overseas.
And as already stated, the p/p statements make believe that the public consultation has been ruled out by the Government.
DTC should read carefully what the p/p members are openly stating when calling for a referendum, as their versions are misleading and can easily be challeged, and have been challenged in the past, such as by the National Trust.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
First of all, it is not DTC asking the question nor calling for the referendum, it is electors of Dover. DTC is following its legal obligations to organise the referendum that has been called for by public vote.
Charlie's more colourful declarations aside, the proposal being considered by the government is DHB's privatisation request, nothing else. The People's Port have pushed for the referendum in order to send a clear message to those ministers considering DHB's request about the feelings of the people of Dover. A reading of the proposal to be put at the referendum makes it clear that a yes vote only rules out privatisation, it does not rule out public consultation on other options.
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
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Alexander is like a dog with a bone, the wrong bone. Pity he does not read and understand the facts he is told but just sticks to his pre-conceived prejudices.
Guest 684- Registered: 26 Feb 2009
- Posts: 635
So why no People's Port vote for the people/taxpayers of Deal, Sandwich and the surrounding villages and areas of 01304 country?
Loads of people from outside the valleys of Dover, but within the district, rely on the port and the town for employment. Why aren't their voices being heard?
01304 residents from outside Dover are expected to help stump up for the referendum, aren't we? And why won't the 'result' be binding? What's the point otherwise?
I presume this also means that Deal resident Charlie Elphicke is not eligible to vote?
Bit of a shambles, isn't it? By the way, as an expat Dovorian (Deal resident) I am very much in favour of the People's Port idea. Deal and Sandwich money could help fund a successful People's Port vote. However, those towns' residents might be less inclined to throw a few sheckles Dover's way now, should it (whatever it is) prove successful.
We're not again merely witnessing a cosy cabal at work, surely?
Cheers all,
Andy
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
andy
as far as i know nobody has asked for a referendum other than the stout burghers of dover town.
those same townspeople are footing the bill.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
If the people's port plan had been considered by the Government and then become part of public consultation through Government office, so that local people, local institutions (Councils etc,) and stakeholders-customers of the Port, could make comments and proposals on it to the designated Governmental office, then it would have been fair to go through a new process of consultation.
However, the Ministry for Transport would have had to first explain what became of the previous public consultation on the DHB privatisatiob plan.
Charlie's plan does not forsee any public consultation, and so the referendum is indeed a guise to make look democratic that which in reality is an attempt to exclude public participation in proposals and to present forgone conclusions, while wiping out that which was public consultation.
If this got through, it would be a precedent to an undemocratic society, where we go backwards and not forwards, and all within the phrase that "one couldn't have trusted the Government anyway".
Considering the costs involved for a referendum, and the ways in which the case for a referendum has been presented to the people on the P/p website, and subsequently by the local press which made public the case based on the p/p claims (please not the word claims!), DTC is going past a series of red lights!
I recommend that DTC read carefully what is being claimed on the P/p website, and the reasons it is giving for a referendum, as these do not correspond to reality.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
Alexander, please read my last post again. The referendum and its wording was NOT called for or decided upon by DTC. DTC were asked to enable the meeting by six members of the electorate, in this case representatives of the Peoples Port. At that meeting, as was their legal right, they presented their case to the electorate of Dover and a vote was taken on holding a referendum on the wording proposed. As ten people (and a very large number of others) voted in favour DTC are legally required to hold the referendum, which is for the electorate of Dover Town and has to be paid for by them.
The views of DTC, for or against, do not come in to it, this is a legal obligation and DTC are meeting it.
That said, the privatisation of the port is an issue of huge local importance and as only DHB's plan is currently being considered by the government it is democratically right that the people should have a say and try to get other options considered.
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
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Chris p
I would be more convinced had i not been at the town to hear a prominent person read out at the end the motion to go forward.
pre planned may be the word=]but m,ore importantly showed the support of the town council.
i dont have a prob of the town council support.
but a bit of honesty please, yes the town council has a legal obligation,
but it did not remain neutral.
so lets be upfront about it
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Bob is not just a town councillor and former mayor of Dover but also sits on the board of the Peoples Port Trust. Another conspiracy you have uncovered, Keith!

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
just highlighting the town council has formed a position
which i have no problem with
but chris is giving the indication they had not formed one
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
One councillor acting as a member of another body which he happens to represent has no bearing whatsoever on the position of the council which can only be defined by a vote or an executive decision of the mayor.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
I am sure that every councillor has formed an opinion Keith, but as there has not been a question raised at the council no vote has been taken and there is therefore no official position.
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