howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
10 February 2010
23:0840239#1
the venue today hosted our gwyn and the prime minister playing with words(in my view)over the sell off our port.
the prime minister confirmed that no forced privatisation would ensue.
gwyn claimed that chas was making an issue out of nothing and out to grab votes.
chas is of the view that our bobby is determined to sell so that the "forced privatisation" thing is irrelevant, can see his point.
what does the team think?
11 February 2010
00:1240246#2
My brain hurts!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
11 February 2010
07:3540251#3
Brown is playing political word games using a smokescreen.
The Government announced its firesale and it cant have it both ways.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
11 February 2010
08:3440255#4
I think it's painfully obvious and agree with Barry, although I'd have to say it's a poor excuse for deception.
"No forced privatisation" is exactly what it is, but by no means does it equal "No privatisation".
I would also like to say that the Conservatives can't have it both ways either. I feel that Mr Elphicke is attempting to represent the interests of the people of Dover, and ultimately this could win him votes.
The interesting twist for for me is whether he would stand by this if elected, as we know the Conservatives love a bit of privatisation. So does he disagree with the privatisation (incongruent with the Parties History/philosophy) for the sake of representing the people of Dover. Or is he representing the interests of the town to win votes to further his own interests (congruent with the idea of 'enlightened self interest')
Either way he's not being straight with someone (I can't see it being the Party, as their intentions for him are quite clear)...surely a worry?
I always commend Barry for his definite line on Conservative policy, clear about their approach to privatisation. I'm not sure where Mr Elphicke is coming from on this one?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
11 February 2010
08:4540256#5
DT1 - I have had many discussions/debates with Charlie about this and while in favour of privatisation in general he is genuinely against the privatisation of DHB.
There is nothing contradictory about this after all even Mrs T was against the privatisation of the Royal Mail. Conservatives tend not to be dogmatic as you can see from history.
I also know that he has been trying to use his influence behind the scenes with Osborne and Cameron to scupper Labour's plans or at least get a better settlement or some kind of compromise. Whether he will succeed I do not know but one thing I do know, he has more influence with Osborne than Prosser has with Brown.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
11 February 2010
09:1640257#6
In favour of privatisation, but against privatisation? Surely that is contradictory.
Sounds like fence sitting. It reminds me of all those people who state that they are 'not religious' yet get married in a church, because the photos look nice.
The Conservatives may not be dogmatic to actions but this doctrine seems to be constant: 'I think this' as long as 'it suits me'. Of course this is the problem with the electoral representation we have; what is good just for an individual isn't always so for the whole! An approach far too prevalent in the House of Lords.
I do however respect the fact that Mr Elphicke has a huge amount of influence within his party, perhaps the reason he is here, to take a insecure Labour seat. (St Albans last time wasn't it?) I think he is a good guy and 'could' represent us well, but with the subtext of individualism, I find this hard to believe...I honestly hope I am wrong.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
11 February 2010
09:3640258#7
No DT1 not contradictory at all.
You certainly can be in favour of some privatisations and not others.
Look at it another way, would you consider it contradictory to be in favour of some nationalisations (British Rail maybe) and against others (BP perhaps)?
You may have extremes at each end of the spectrum as we have seen over many years in this country, but most people are not extreme or dogmatic. I am quite sure that a lot of people against the privatisation of DHB would not want, say BT, to to nationalised. Are they being contradictory?
Worth adding, enthusiastic as I am about privatisation even I would not privatise HM Armed Forces, th Police or HMRC..... on the other hand...
Guest 693- Registered: 12 Nov 2009
- Posts: 1,266
11 February 2010
12:2740276#8
No 'forced' privatisation means that Gordon Brown won't be forcing it through. In other words, he's all for it.
True friends stab you in the front.
11 February 2010
12:2840277#9
Indeed - there are some things that are begging for privatisation and some that are simply not for touching. It is a balance.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
11 February 2010
14:1640293#10
I agree with you Barry to an extent, but I am talking about the organisations and services that essential to the wellbeing of the society and those that exploit the fabric/resources of the space that society occupies. Interesting you mention BP, a partially nationalised organisation built on the concept of exploiting someone else's resources and getting the hump when those resources were nationalised by the very people that owned them. North Sea oil sold off to balance the books of a government; council houses built with public money and then sold to the public, with no replenishment; Tertiary services (such as BT/British Gas etc) constructed for the benefit of Britain with the ability to dig up roads and inconvenience for the greater good, sold off...the list goes on. And DHB, an entity that affects the town at a fundamental level and its privatisation only ensuring that any changes to infrastructure will primarily only service itself.
No I'm not saying that the state is (or has been) any good at running any of these things, in fact it's been pretty bad. However when people cite examples of excellence in other countries like 'clean streets' or excellent public transport, you can almost always guarantee that they are state run. Just because we have been so bad in the past (and I personally think this is down to us being the first to do many of these things and making mistakes) does not mean they are 'begging for privatisation'. I most cases they just need serious reform.
It sickens me to think about such things as the private sector feeding our children in schools, turning a profit on something that is a necessity to those that are without direct representation. Or hospitals breeding 'superbugs' because the level of cleaning has declined due to a profit margin devised by someone in an office, not the standards of a professional nurse (for instance). The port of Dover occupies a 'space' valuable purely by its location, a space that is run by DHB for the Government, who we are told to believe, work for us. As far as we should be concerned, by this reasoning, it is ours. On top of this it actually affects the very fabric of the town where we live, the day to day lives of Dovorians. If it is to be sold off it has to benefit us and not just in the short term.
Barry, you made references some time ago about conditions, ensuring the deal is right for us. Much in the same way council houses where sold off with no compensation, DHB will be exactly the same and this is what outrages me. Governments both red and blue are failing to represent us. I sincerely hope Mr Elphicke is championing our true position, but fear that once an MP he may just toe the party line.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
11 February 2010
14:2740299#11
makes you wonder what a private company would do to the promanade and beach.
would they be able to charge us for the use of?
Guest 690- Registered: 10 Oct 2009
- Posts: 4,150
11 February 2010
14:3040300#12
Can someone please tell me, what the DHB would best be remembered for if it disappeared tomorrow? Till I came on the forum, I was just a Joe public.
Tell them that I came, and no one answered.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
11 February 2010
15:3340308#13
So DT1 - would you nationalise Tesco or Sainsbury, what about famers, is not the food they sell/produce not essentiall for our well being?
Where would you stop - nationalise the drug companies perhaps?
This really is a nonsense. Back in the 1970's the nationalised industries were an utter disgrace, costly inefficient producing goods that no-one wanted.
You mention BT - formerly part of the Post Office. Remember the waiting lists for a phone, what about the choice of phones, the extra you had to pay for a trimphone....they were hopeless and out telecoms were in the dark ages compared to places like the USA. It is only privatisation and getting rid of old restrictive practises, like limitations on what equipment you could plug into a landline that has led to the choice we have now.
True public ownership is achieved through the sale of shares to individuals, their pension funds and other mutual funds.
Had a look at the top 10 holdings in my ISA portfolio, all held by my range of Unit Trust and OIEC funds in a worldwide portfolio:
BP
SBERBANK
LUKOIL
Vodaphone
AstraZeneca
Royal Dutch Shell
OJSC OC ROSNEFT
Petrolio Brazilio
Imperial Tobacco
GlazoSmithKline
Truly we do have a global economy and I have a stake in the success of that.... A for more relevant and personal stake than I would have in any inefficient and wasteful nationalised industry. The whole point is that such a 'stake' is open and easy for anybody to obtain.
Guest 693- Registered: 12 Nov 2009
- Posts: 1,266
11 February 2010
15:4140309#14
Barry
Having just lost three days business on my fax & postage meter line because BT had restricted my service through 'non-payment' of an account paid monthly by direct debit, let me assure you that BT are still the hopeless, uncaring bunch of cretins they were pre-Busby. These days, though, you pay more for the (alleged) service and have to spend hours trying to get through telephone menus in order to try to speak to a human being. Don't cite BT as the great capitalist example we should all be following, FGS!!!
True friends stab you in the front.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
11 February 2010
16:0440311#15
Ahhhh but Andy, you can quit BT as I have. I get a great service from my phone supplier.... It was not just a matter or privatisation it was the whole market liberalisation that came with it that has so improved things.
Guest 693- Registered: 12 Nov 2009
- Posts: 1,266
11 February 2010
16:5340319#16
I have Barry! I still have to rent the line from them though
I'm tied in with an excellent contract with AOL who give me internet and free phone calls (to a landline!) for £14.99 a month.
If only BT didn't have the monopoly on lines.........
True friends stab you in the front.
Guest 690- Registered: 10 Oct 2009
- Posts: 4,150
11 February 2010
16:5540320#17
I`ve been with NTL/Virgin for a few years now, no probs.
Tell them that I came, and no one answered.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
11 February 2010
17:3640329#18
I stopped paying BT rent ages ago on both office and domestic lines Andy, saved a bit of dosh too.
11 February 2010
20:4440363#19
I'd rather pay BT (British) than AOL (American) any day of the week. Also, a trip to their research centre in Suffolk would open a lot of eyes to just how much they invest in the future of telecomms, for Britain and British jobs. Why our stupid pooliticians feel they need to make special arrangements for the Baby Bells of the U.S. is beyond me. Don't they know the smallest Baby Bell is gigantic compared to BT?
No, sorry folks, BT all the way for me, broadband, telephones, mobiles and networks. Buy British and be proud of it.