Guest 673- Registered: 16 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,388
If KCC invested a large sum of Kentish reserves in the Port of Dover, would not any profits have to be spread across the whole of the Kentish population as they will all have contributed? Is this not the status quo and therefore how would it specifically benefit the people of Dover?
The district councils mentioned all complain of being as poor as church mice, what would their residents say if they were to be advised that huge sums were to be spent on buying part of a port when their councils are struggling even to keep the bogs open?
The DHB pension fund is in severe deficit and the ferry companies are presently taking action against DHB to try to reclaim money extracted from them for the purpose of repairing this deficit as a prelude to privatisation but taken on the pretext that it was to go towards the construction costs for Terminal 2. Does this sound like a pension fund in a position to invest heavily in the purchase of a port?
If any of the other pension funds mentioned were to invest in the port, would not their contributors expect to see any profits used to bolster pensions rather than paid to the people of Dover?
The reason given for establishing a People's Port, although it may sound like a harbour installation in Communist China or North Korea, is that the people of Dover would theoretically benefit from the profits. If all said profits were being paid to the pension funds who owned the port, where is the benefit to the people of Dover?
Is this to be a People's Port or a Pensioner's Port?
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,700
ed - so pensioners are not people?
Charlie has suggested that the 3 ferry companies might want to take a share; I think this is a good idea.
The peoples port principle he advocates is more to do with governance rather than supplying funds - clearly our local council and the 36,000 residents of the town do not have huge sums of money burning a hole in our collective pockets - where local representatives will hold the majority on the trust board. He also suggests, as have others here, that there should be some form of community trust fund created to filter a proportion of profits to be used for local projects etc.
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 673- Registered: 16 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,388
Ross - Yes, pensioners are people. However, they are the wrong people. They are not the people of the People's Port. They are senior citizens who can be drawing their pensions anywhere from the Costa Brava to the suburbs of Melbourne. They will expect the contributions they have made to their pension funds to be used to support them in their retirement and not to be siphoned off to enrich the denizens of Dover.
The raison d'etre for the People's Port proposal is to extract sums from the Port of Dover to pass to all the inhabitants of the Town of Dover, from the mewling infant to the check-out girl to the middle manager to the retired seadog.
It is indeed a good idea that the ferry companies take a share in the proposed new structure. They are the foundation of the ports prosperity and are notoriously ill-served by the current lamentable harbour board. There are, however, two minor drawbacks to this proposal. One is that they are all foreign-owned and that this contradicts the stated aspiration to retain the port in British ownership. The other is that they don't have any money.
Large sums have been taken off them by the harbour board to put towards privatisation and they have been promised even higher charges in the years to come.
P&O is committed to building two new superferries at huge expense and is owned by Dubai which is sinking in the sands of suffocating debt.
Norfolkline has just been taken over by the Danish company DFDS who are required to find immense sums to fund the purchase from their Danish compatriots Maersk who are themselves suffering grievously from the global recession, with boxboats laid up the world over.
SeaFrance is in meltdown and has applied to the Paris Commercial Court for judicial protection.
LD Lines are a newcomer and still establishing themselves.
The parent companies of SeaFrance and LD Lines - SNCF and Louis Dreyfus respectively - might possibly be interested but French ownership would send Daily Mail readers into uncontrolled fits of rampant xenophobia.
You state that the People's Port principle is more to do with governance than supplying funds but go on to say that a community trust fund will be created to filter a proportion of the profits, i.e. supply funds.
This is the crux of the matter. The reason for wanting to have a say in the governance of the Port is so that some of the port's income can be diverted to be spent on the Town instead of being used exclusively for maintenance and expansion of the Port.
Whether this is sustainable, given that astronomic interest payments will also need to be extracted to send to the new owners, is another matter.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
Why does there have to be a terminal 2?
The cruise side has 2 berths with eastern arm options for the odd day that more than two boats are in. The Ferries are running along nicely and coping with numbers. The DHB has shed most of its workforce and is, as it always has, making money. The only problem is that not enough of that surplus money goes to Dover, it gets wasted year after year.
When I asked this question before, I was told that the then Government reneged on promises to channel money via Port into Dover. So why doesn't this Government solve that problem? Then there would be no reason to sell the Port.
Its Dover that needs improving, not the port.
"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 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
This plan would never never work.I was asked by our MP only today at the D.D.C office "Why are you not backing my plan for saving the port?" and he also said "I was told you have pack in "
Well it is a no to the first part and a------to the second part.
.
Gary well said mate come and join up with myself and UKIP.
YOUR TOWN NEEDS YOU.
Guest 673- Registered: 16 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,388
Gary, I think Terminal 2 is a sideshow now. DHB drew up the plans for it when freight was experiencing an exponential increase and they forecast that the Eastern Docks would run out of capacity in years to come. That prospect has receded into the distant future with the global recession. Ever larger ferries have also helped to postpone the necessity as the main constraint cited was the number of vessels able to access the swinging area off the ends of the berths in the Eastern Docks in any given time.
The cruise side is not relevant as it was unaltered by the T2 proposals and the three berths on the Admiralty Pier are more than sufficient.
Privatisation is a separate issue. DHB originally said they would fund T2 from their own resources. They then said it had got more expensive and they needed funds from external sources. The government told them they could not raise external funds as a Trust Port. The government than changed the rules and invited Trust Ports to submit plans for privatisation, which would enable the Port of Dover to source external funds for the T2 project.
DHB then pressed ahead with plans for privatisation. It dispensed with a considerable part of its workforce and forced the shipping companies to make their own arrangements against their wishes. It increased the berthing fees to create a £60m first installment to put towards T2. It then said that, instead of using it for T2 as promised, it was going to use half of this money to pay off the pension deficit and the other half to tart up the port, both investments being to make the port more attractive to prospective purchasers.
DHB then came out with the bombshell that there would be no requirement for any new owner to proceed with the plans for T2, despite having extracted these sums from the port users on that basis. They then said that they were going to put up berthing fees for years to come in order to proceed with T2 whatever happened.
The whole thing has therefore come full circle, from privatisation being needed for port expansion to privatisation being a goal in itself. The last government appeared to be in favour of privatisation, with the prospective Conservative MP for Dover declaring himself adamantly against at, and the prospective Conservative government saying that they had not made up their mind and would carry out a review if they came to power.
Now that we have a Conservative LibDem alliance government, I am not aware of the results of any review as yet and the new MP appears to have changed his tune and come up with his own plan for the privatisation that he declared himself adamantly opposed to. It would appear that privatisation is a foregone conclusion and that it is only the manner in which it will be carried out that is in question. BarryW referred to a fire sale of the port by the Labour government and it would seem likely that the new government will proceed along the same lines, probably citing the desperate state of the nations finances as a result of the previous incumbents.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
The fact is ED - the status quo will not be an option. Owbnership would remain in British hands under Charlie's proposal, owned by the local trust. Where the money is raised from will not change the ownership.
The Port must develop and cannot stagnate, that would be disasterous and with the public finances the way they are that is what would happen if private money is not injected.
Vic - you are so defeatist in saying it wont work.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
BarryW,
There you go again confusing facts, with your opinions.
You have no proof that ownership will stay British, you have no proof where the money will come from and no proof, only opinions that it is needed at all.
The only Fact is, that when I asked Charlie if he was going to continue Gwyn's fight against selling off our Port, he replied "yes"
"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 673- Registered: 16 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,388
On the contrary, Barry. There may be other inferior options but the status quo is the only formula under which the port can, without question, continue to develop and not stagnate. I think you will agree that there can be no more beneficial financial arrangement for any organisation than one which enables them to operate their business for an owner which charges them nothing for the privilege, and allows them to reinvest all the profits they make in maintaining and expanding the business.
Any other formula can only result in less money being available to develop and not stagnate as it requires part or all of the profits to go to a third party instead of into maintenance and expansion. There is now absolutely no requirement for private finance whatsoever. DHB only said that it was required in order to finance T2 in a very short time span in order to cope for an explosion in truck numbers which has not come and is now many years in the future, if ever.
The recession has meant that T2, or any other developments, can now be funded in stages over many years and there is a more than ample stream of income from the port users to enable that. This is the way in which the Eastern Docks were funded, incrementally over the years, and they are arguably a much bigger development than T2 with double the number of berths.
Port development is unquestionably ensured by retention of the status quo. The only reason to change it is in order to sell it off and milk the cash cow which development via the status quo has created. It is ingenuous to suppose otherwise.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Barry wrong again I am trying to keep our port a royal one as it has always been,it should not be sold off to anyone.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
barry
you are guilty of the most heinous crime, using cliches from the last government.
started with david blunkett in 2000 "doing nothing is not an option", then repeated endlessly for 10 years.
the only redeeming feature id that you have swapped "the status quo"(sorry vic) for doing nothing.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Ross Miller- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,700
The change nothing option is a non starter given the current state of relations between the current harbour board exec and the ferry operators. In addition the only proposal the current harbour board exec have come up with is a straight forward trade sale to the highest bidder, with little or no caveats regarding the local community, jobs etc. both of which are likely to disappear in the negotiations surrounding a straight forward sale.
The option of keeping it as is, but changing the board and the charter (as I understand Vic's proposal) is also a non starter as any borrowing by the board to invest in the port will count as state debt and given the recent budget, how likely is this to be countenanced by HMG.
The only other option on the table is Charlie's proposal, which whilst it is still a sale, it is at least the best compromise from an ownership/governance perspective. I am no supporter of Charlie or his government, but I am prepared to give his proposal a chance.
Why wont you doubters?
Where are your fully articulated proposals?
Have you engaged all the key stakeholders and got them onside as he has?
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Ross, What I said at the meeting was that the DHB could do the redevelop with their own funding it would just take longer to do,the DHB ageed with what I was saying there is no need for any borrowing at all.But again I said this at the same meeting this is all about some members walking away with a big payout from the takeover and good bye to Dover .
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Vic - they cannot dp that, it is not practical.
Gary - if you actually read Charlie's idea is yes it would guarantee not only British ownership but local ownership.
It would be so much easier to just dig your heels in and say no to new ideas, raising objections and offering nothing constructive and realistic and those saying no to this are taking this same old attitude that has been so damaging to Dover for decades. That is the kind of thinking that threatens to leave Dover a run down bombsite for decades more.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Barry what does Dp mean? I was at the meeting but did not see you there anyway they said that they could do it but would take longer.And the Chairman also said that he would not get any payout himself but some of the others would his words not mine.
As I pointed out to them all from the 1950 there has been alot of redevelop within the port and I have worked on most of them as a welder over the years,this redevelopment can be done easy in the same manner funding is geting bigger each year At this very time in front of me I am looking at the DHB plan for the next Generation +ferry terminal 2 which I might add the shiping companys have already paid up front some 62million pounds .Also in front of me I have DHB Corporate structure for the port of Dover they are all 2010 this years and I have also the same for last year and the year before that, and just looking at all this I can see how much more cash is going into DHB each year and it is on the up in a big way.that is what I am working off Barry, what are you working off ? because what ever it is ,they are wrong and I am right.Please go on to tell us all why it would not work with what I am saying and please do not forget that DHB said my plan could work just take longer,but I AM SAYING IT WOULD NOT.
Ross, the voice of reason and sanity in a sea of confusion to poor old Joe public, aka ME!
I am not averse to Charlie's idea either, but, I can't help thinking DHB could do this from their own funds over a longer period of time. The more I think about that the more convinced I am there needs to be achange of leadership in that organisation allied to a distinctive change to the Royal Charter to make it clear that the town and Government are also to benefit from the profits, when there are some.
Vic, if you've got the numbers can you advise what the Reserves are for the years that you have sight of please?
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
At last Sid we are on the same side I will look it up and post it all later on.
Vic, I am only on the side of sense and the betterment for Dover. This subject has to be politics free if we can make it so.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i go along with ross and blue barry on this one, charlie is the only one that has an alternative to us being totally stuffed.
we have to back his efforts
