Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
5 December 2010
22:4783389Ed, the only real advocates of privatisation are Dr. Goldfield and his colleagues at DHB. The Peoples Port proposal assumes that the Government has already decided to sell the port and we want to stop control of it passing offshore, and to ensure that in future some of the port revenues are used to benefit the town. If our intervention merely has the effect of making the Government change its mind about selling it, causing it to remain a trust port, then so be it, and we will consider that Job Done. However as long as the Ports Act 1991 remains on the statute book, the issue is likely to resurface regularly in the future.
I apologise if my light-hearted references to dinosaurs, Luddites and the Flat Earth Society have offended anyone, no such offence was intended. Your Masters of the Universe comment proves that you can give as good as you get and I wonder to whom you are referring? And of whom would you consider yourself a reincarnation?
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
5 December 2010
23:3083391Ed, Thanks for the feedback. Whilst this may have been covered before Vic has made it a particular point on this forum as part of his election bid. I think just dismissing it like you have is a bit of an insult, if UKIP have something new to bring to the table then I for one would like to know about it before I commit my vote on the 16th. To date in the DHB Annual Report 2009/10 the chairman stated that Dover had never recieved any tangible benefit from the Port. I'm sure that most people in Dover don't want to see that continue. Privatisation is a serious possibility and raising funding for the purchase and servicing the debt is no big deal in big business. The efficiencies that can be driven into the current port operations means that the port is a goldmine for the private sector. Why do you think that the DHB directors are pushing it. The last thing from UKIP was Lord Pearson saying that he would let the people of Dover have a referendum on privatisation of the port. That has got to be up there with the comments about being a reincarnation of Christopher Columbus.
Lets have UKIP's plan on the table so that voters can judge for themselves. As I said before I'm not a privatisation fan and to date the Peoples Port are the only ones that have done something more than just talk about it, they have a plan and they have made a submission to government. Just keeping the status quo of the port as it is just immature and unrealistic thinking (thats not an insult by the way). Ports around the country have already privatised because of the huge profit to be made through modern management and better asset utilisation and development. Dover is a cherry waitng to be picked.
PS the medieval charter you talk about - Is that the same excuse DHB constantly use for not investing in Dover Town?
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
5 December 2010
23:4683392is that a yes or no graham?
seriously that was a very interesting post, the issue is very emotive and complicated.
debate is very important at local level, 400 years of the charter cannot be dumped too easily.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
5 December 2010
23:5183394Apart from making representations to central government, neither town, district or county councils have the slightest influence on the fate of publicly owned assets like the port. The port is therefore something of a red herring in local elections, apart from being a useful device whereby candidates can profess their loyalty to Dover by supporting a 400-year old constitution which has outlived its usefulness, at least in its present form.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
6 December 2010
00:0783395Seems like it's a no for the UKIP vote, don't have anything to vote for.
Peoples Port is a yes, there is no alternative if Dover is to get anything from it. I have seen the way DHB work with their totally disingenuous Terminal 2 proposals and consultation process. Leaving the Port in their hands either as a Trust (continuing) or letting them take it through privatisation will bring nothing but angst and misery for Dover town and it's future. The Peoples Port (at the moment) is the only option that offers something to Dover. Some people might say that DHB are proposing a trust fund for the Town. HMM how long will that last, who in the Town would trust DHB (apart from their employees)?
I don't think it's about dumping 400yrs of charter (although the last 40yrs has seen no benefit to the town from the Ports ever increasing propsperity only a seperation of the beach from the town by a dual carraige way) I think it's got to be about salvaging what we can for the town before outsiders pick the port to the bones.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
6 December 2010
00:1783398Mr Morris ,Mr Garstin,I am reading what you have put and both you have very good points,there is not alot more i can add that I or UKIP have said time and time again,And yes we do want a local referendum on the sell of the port and others aswell,I was hoping that Mr Farage could have made it last Friday because he is alot better at puting what both UKIP and I am saying or said in the pass.What you must think to yourself is whan the Blues got in,one of the policys was "We will give the local Public the vote on issue,s in their own town,s and parishs or as we put it a local referendum.and at the very first time they could have done that in Dover they will not give it,and why is that?I can tell you they know if they done that that the public would vote by about 90% for no sell of the port in anyway. Mr Morris it does say in the charter,that any funds that are maded in the port can only be used in the port,sorry but that is what it does say, Now we have three plans on the table.
(1)Sell the port to the highest bidder,
(2) Go along with our MP and have what he callers the Public Port.
(3) Do nothing and let the port do its own potential development with it own funding like it has done from the end of war2.
So lets take them one by one,(1)The D.H.B. sell the port off to anyone, if we go along that road true the Town of Dover will get some of the money it makes,we have been told that would be beween £5 to 10£million, that sounds OK ,but what is the downside,(1)The port could be sold to a overseas buyer and that is about 85% cent/who would get it A big oversea buyer WHICH WOULD SEE OUR PORT OF DOVER LOST and after two world wars do we want to see it go that way,+the workforce coud also come from over the other side.That is just a outline of what could happen with plan one,and why are we leting it go for peanuts £400million, just to add to this one row of homes in london went for over £500million only last week,I have been told that the port is worth over£1to £2 billion not just £400million that is just giving it away,and some of the D,H.M. walk away with beween £100.000 to £900.000 each.
It is geting late now the rest will come in the morning thank you.
6 December 2010
00:2783399Thanks I'll look forward to reading your plan in the morning
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
6 December 2010
00:3383401Yes we will be looking at plan two first and what our MP is saying,I am out firsthing in the morning with my leaflets
then a meeting at the DDC but I will post as soon as I get back in.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
6 December 2010
02:1983402Graham, UKIP as a Party is nationwide against the sale of Dover Port, not only at local Dover and Deal level. Hence, the whole UKIP Party is behind Dover to say no to the privatisation plans, including those of Mr. Elphicke who u-turned and broke his electoral promise.
But you might find that this topic has been thrashed out on the Forum to oblivion.
Out of all fairness I will state that Mr. Elphicke's proposal is one of many being taken into consideration by the Secretary for Transport, and is not the only alternative to DHB's privatisation proposal!
If Vic is standing as candidate for the by-election showing that he is dertermined to prevent the sale of Dover Port, and has the UKIP Party nationwide behind him on this issue, then Charlie's proposal of privatisation cannot be rammed down Vic's throat. If no other candidate for the by-elections is going to defend the Port from privatisation, then Vic has shown that he holds out to the last, and did not give in on this issue. It means, then, that there is no other candidate campaigning to protect our Port from privatisation, be it that of DHB or that of Charlie!
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
6 December 2010
09:3183410So far the objections come down to two main points, first that DHB do not invest in the town. This, as Vic says, is defended by DHB on the grounds that their charter forbids it however this excuse does not work as they have always had the option of applying for a 'Harbour Revision Order' to change those terms. They already do this everytime they want to change the traffic layout and Dr Bob resist on the basis that "his stakeholders would not like it", another nonsense as he also claims that the people of Dover are his stakeholders.
Secondly is the gut reaction about the port falling into foreign hands. On this there are two well known proposals. DHB want to sell off to the highest bidder, no matter who that may be and with the slight promise of a trust fund for the town with no way of guarenteeing that there would ever be more than a token payment towards it. On the other hand you have Charlie's proposal that would see the port structured in favour of the local population, with funding coming from the banks but under local control. Given that current priorities make some form of privitisation almost inevitable I know which I prefer, a positive idea rather than head-in-the-sand opposition.
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
6 December 2010
10:0283412Alexandra P I'm off for a walk before I come back for Vic's reply. Personally I don't give a rats bottom how many times you and the greater good on this forum have discussed this matter. I still see no action by any of you. You might have a line to the Secretary of State and the options he's considering for Dover but the rest of us don't. There are the 3 options that Vic has quoted and thats it as far as published plans go. All I've asked for is what is the UKIP plan for Dover port and how will that benefit Dover town over the status quo.
I'm not interested in opinion, I'm not interested in anythging other than the UKIP plan.
The only reason that I have quoted the Peoples Port is because it is the only other current viable option to the DHB Directors becoming very rich cats and leaving Dover Town in the lurch.
If there is no plan then tell me and I'll stop asking.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
6 December 2010
12:0883425a couple of things here.
1) where does the figure of 400 million quid come from, on the face of it the price seems to be a knock down one?
2) if the charter states that investement has to stay within the port, why do d.h.b. maintain the prince of wales and admiralty piers, the promenade, shelters and the beach? none of those are within the port complex.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
6 December 2010
12:1983426Yes they are port property Howard. So is the Churchill Hotel, de Bradlei Wharf, the yacht club, etc etc. Also the port zone up at Whitfield is all in the DHB property portfolio.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
6 December 2010
12:5183431thanks for info peter, with all that lot included 400 million sounds like a give away.
vic may be right about a billion being the starting point for the bidding.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
6 December 2010
13:2683433I am very sorry for making you all wait on this one,but at this very time I have so much going on that I am just not geting the time to sit at my PC,I AM just off out again with my leaflets but will post later on,but I now have my date for going back into the Hos/and that is the 4th Jan 2011 after that it will be some weeks before i get up and out again(OR will it
) If any of you would like to come over and help me with my leaflets just phone me on 07758710889,and I will even come and pick you up.Thank you.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
6 December 2010
16:0283443Graham, you'll have to content yourself with the fact that Charlie's port proposal is not the only viable option in alternative to DHB's privatisation plan.
As for UKIP, the party is against any form of Port privatisation, which does NOT exclude the possibility of a future ammendment to the Dover Harbour Board charter and a future revenue to the Town and Distict.
One doesn't need to go through privatisation in order to amend the charter.
UKIP is supporting the no to privatisation proposals and has not stated that Dover should not receive some direct Port revenue in the future.
Vic has made Dover Port a major issue of his election campaign, and has the very leader of UKIP openly supporting him on this issue.
My sister Alexandra sends her salute
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
6 December 2010
19:1483472Vic. doesn't purdah apply to you too, not just to elected representatives ?
Roger
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
6 December 2010
20:3183501i thought it only applied to sitting councillors, i may be wrong.
anyway what come under purdah?
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
6 December 2010
21:0483512It does not matter anyway I say what I want to say at anytime and anyplace .
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
6 December 2010
23:3983536I have been writing about my boxing days on the oldnewspaper site that I have left it to late to carry on with this one,but there is always a tomorrow.