Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#121
GaryC I answered that way back and wont repeat it.
I see that the man you all much admire Bob Goldfield has come out against Charlie's plan. Never did seem much of an origional thinker, Goldfield. The only thing he was right about is that you cannot run a modern Port on the basis of a medievil charter.
If the attitudes expressed by some here prevailed with their 'can't do' theme, trying to pick holes focussed only on trying to find how sometghing wont succeeed, we would never have had human progress.
Columbus would never have disciovered the New World.
Churchill would have surrendered in 1940.
The Post Office would still be in charge of our telephone monopoly and we would have big black dial-up boxes.
Dover Council Planning Department would be proud of the 'cant do' attitude.
Me, I prefer the 'can do' attitude, where you see the problems and find way to deal with them, embracing new ideas and innovation. That is why I admire the American attitude to life rather than that which has so held back Dover over the years. We need Charlie's idea to work to Dover's benefit so instead of picking holes why not try to find the solutions to make it work in that way. More difficult that just critisising.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#122
I have read the above postings with interest and I am still undecided as to 'Charlies Plan' but one question I have is that if the Port is sold off to Investors and or townsfolk then surely these 'investors' will require some form of dividend and financial return?. This dividend will have to be found from the Ports operating profits therefore does this not actually reduce the amount of capital available for re-investment in the Port and Dover ?.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
#123
Dovers future Barry is in its pass.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#124
Vic
Maybe you can answer the above question as the self professed town oracle?
Also did you mean "Dovers future is in its past"?
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#125
Marek - if to a local Trust then that dividend or equivilent would be a driver to regeneration and thats the idea.
As for your rather simplistic view of finance, you are right only up to a point. Dividends are not the only and in some cases, main, driver for investment. Some investors in what are called growth funds focus not on dividend yield but capital and market growth. That said I would suspect that Dover Port would tend to attract income seekers, therefore dividends if privatised commercially. But that does not mean less money for Port development - commercial operations can use a number of ways to fund development from the markets with the incentive of increased profitability and future dividend growth. That is a mute point if Charlie's plan were to succeed because the local community would be the main benificiary.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
#126
I am very sorry lads but just off out to the Dover College be back later.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
#127
Sid, I don't let peoples politics influence me anymore, everyone is entitled to their opinions. It is more important to me, how people treat other people. We are all different but that does not make anyone better than anyone else. Common sense has left the table and greed has taken its place. There is good and bad in every walk of life but thankfully the bad is usually in the minority.
The simple reason why I will never vote Tory, is not my mining upbringing, it is because in the main, it pursues individualism in a very selfish way. I find this wrong and outdated. We are all equals and should work together for the good of everyone and if we are more fortunate than others then we should do what we can to help them that are less fortunate.
I am not a do gooder, they have singled handily ruined this country and I believe in bringing back capital punishment for animals' like the one who raped the 10 year old boy.
"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 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
#128
BarryW
I have re-read your posts and you have not answered my question. Why did Charlie run his campaign on "No Sale on My Watch" and not this alternative?
"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"
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#129
so bob goldfield reckons that charlies plan is unworkable,acording to an articale in the dover express today.
#130
This is a major event where there are no get-out clauses and it is therefore right for debate to take place, the nature of which will naturally be guarded until all the questions are answered.
I see no reason to sell the port of Dover to anyone. However, if development of the port and benefits to the town can be accrued by some method, possibly Charlie's, then it makes sense to consider it. But, it is only an option. Doing nothing is an option and/or changing the terms of the business operation is also an option. All need to be considered and discussed before a decision is made.
What surprises and pleases me is the positive responses from all concerned, even the 'doubters', who are asking legitimate questions.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#131
You have been answered Gary, fully even though you may not choose to understand it. Right back in post 11, the last paragraph.
Yes Brian - I did refer to that in post 121....
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#132
quite right sid 131 posts on here suggest that people are interested in charlies plans..
very important for local democracy that all views are aired on here, irrespective of whether they are in favour of the plan or prefer the status quo.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
#133
There is about 800 on the UKIP pages does that mean they all voted for UKIP,I do not think so.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#134
i think you are missing the point vic, it is very important that people let off steam here.
by all accounts dover people have strong views that charlie will take on board when he pushes through his proposals.
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,709
#135
Barry there is no need to be so condescending and taking that attitude does your arguments and Charlie's proposals a disservice.
It is perfectly reasonable for people to ask questions about the future of the port and the in particular the detail of the two proposals currently being espoused for its possible sale. This questioning is not a slight on you or Charlie, it is, in most cases, an honest desire to have enough information in a plain enough form to understand what is being proposed.
In order to understand what is on the table we need to have clarity around the following:
a) What are the current turnover, gross and net operating profits of the port and what are the medium term forecast for these?
b) What does the state honestly expect to raise from a sale?
(P.S. Vic this has nothing to do with what you think it is worth)
c) What level of return is likely to be acceptable to external investors for this type of infrastructure investment? and therefore how viable is any sale based on the DHB published accounts?
d) In terms of Charlie's proposal who does he believe will fund this purchase and in what proportions are these entities likely to participate?
e) In terms of Charlie's proposal, why does he believe that the local MP and a DDC council nominee are any more representative of the views of ordinary Dovorians than the members of the current DHB appointed by the DoT?
f) In terms of the constitution of Charlie's proposed Trust Board what safeguards does he envisage having in place to ensure that the local reps are not outvoted by the commercial interests to the detriment of the local community?
g In the DHB proposal how and when will the suggested windfall be remitted to the local community? and does this mean the DDC or what?
h) In Charlie's proposal, how will annual dividends for the local community be distributed? Who will be responsible for allocation? Will it be controlled by DDC or will there be a separate team vetting applications for funds and making awards?
"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 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#136
Ross -
One of the more vocal opponents to the scheme has admitted to have not even read Charlie's proposals, if that does not deserve condesension and indeed contempt, then I really do not know what does. That person is arguing against the principal of change, any change at all. Another other person is also demanding detail but, unlike you, has expressed no interest/support ''in principal' and reading his posts is also clearly opposed to any change, 'in principal' and has always been opposed to any form of privatisation of anything.
The details you demand are, of course, important - the financial ones in respect of raising the finance and proving to the authorities that the scheme is viable. The other items are detail that can be worked up and debated at a later stage in progressing concept in order to achieve in the best possible way Charlie's, and our, objectives. Charlie has said that he want a public vote and for that those matters will need to be aired. Many of these can be changed/adjusted after consultation and are not fixed.
Right now though that detail is not important. How many members of the public would apprectiate the financial details and understand them, very few. We have seen already how those who are opposed to any change, whatever form of change, are willing to disect figures - figures can be made to mean whatever you want as you well know.
Right now what is important is to get behind Charlie, to agree 'in principal', in the way many are opposing the scheme (any scheme) 'in principal'. He needs to get this on the table and to get it taken seriously he needs public support. Without public support he does not stand a chance in hell of getting the Minister to take it further - to delay the DHB scheme and give Charlie a chance. Yes there remains a lot to prove but the easy thing to do would be for the Minister just to sign up to DHB, he is trying to prevent that.
Principal first, then the detail.
#137
I understand the argument Barry, but I'm not sure I'm with ANY proposal to sell the port, whatever the reason. I am certain maintaining the status quo is still a realistic option provided there can be an amendment to the terms under which DHB operates. That shouldn'ty be difficult to acheive and keeps the port in UK Plc hands. At the end of the day, that is what I think most people want to see.
What we are fighting against is the rush to sell off DHB, initially Tory policy that cost PaulW the chance to be our MP, then picked up by Gwyn and possibly costing him his seat in HoP, and now we've got Charlie tackling it from a different direction with what appears to be a more acceptable form of power transfer.
Because Charlie is attacking this with a very fresh approach, it doesn't mean we must all rush to back him. That sounds more like a panic plan in case the Government rush into a sale of DHB, implying it is a foregone conclusion it will happen, and therefore was Tory policy all along.
If that were so, I'd feel betrayed and Charlie wouldn't see another vote of mine, if only because he represents the party committing the betrayal.
I'm not sure how this problem can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction, it probably can't be. However, the Government OWE it to the people of Dover, aka those most likley to be affected, to have a public enquiry into the options for privatisation of DHB, or amendment to Charter, BEFORE anything is agreed and signed.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#138
I am not sure the amended Charter is something that can work Sid. One problem for DHB is, of course, the PSBR - preventing borrowing on the markets and for good reasons too as we all know.
If Charlie can win a pause and put his idea to a public vote as he suggested then that is a big gain he will have won and that is the best bet of beating the DHB plan.
Personally, as you know, I am all in favour of privatisation but there are many forms it can take and I believe that the DHB scheme is taking the worse route but, even that, I believe might help break the log-jam preventing development of the town. I think it is worth the try but want a bigger 'gain' for Dover, Charlie is doing his best to get that with an alternative proposal and that deserves support.
#139
Well. FWIW. Here's Charlie's latest missive. It would appear that the DHB is on side?
Dear Constituent,
HELP ME MAKE THE GATEWAY TO ENGLAND, THE PEOPLE'S PORT
I am writing to you today in the hope that you will join with me to make Dover, the People's Port. I have tabled a detailed plan on the future of our port and my plan is that we, the people, should be allowed to buy the port. My aim is to put the future of our jobs and money in our community's hands.
People have been asking how we could find the money to pay for it. My answer is that it depends how we do it. First we could link up with a ports operator. The ports operator would take a concession to operate the port under the auspices of the community trust. The fee for the concession would, in effect, be the purchase price for the port. Second the community trust could itself raise cash to buy the port. It would issue Dovorian Bonds to the public and investors like pension funds. It would then engage a port operator to operate the port.
My plan is about more than just ensuring that the future of our port is safeguarded forever. There are other urgent priorities that people often raise with me. We have to get the port, ferry companies and community to work more effectively together. To take our local economy forward. Our community needs to see real benefit from the World class economic and transport facility that is on our doorstep. Dover needs to see real regeneration. We've been waiting 70 years. We've been waiting too long. It's time we saw some real action.
I know there are people who believe we can fight off the whole port privatisation thing. Deep down we all know that is not an option. If we do nothing, we will see our port flogged off by a nation financially on its knees. Acting now, together, is to grasp an opportunity that could transform our community.
We all know that the previous Government was so far advanced by the time of the election that the Minister's pen is even now hovering over the sale order. So I am delighted that the Harbour Board itself now tells us it supports this way forward. I look forward to them writing to the Transport Secretary accordingly. The prize for us all if we succeed is truly great - we would be able to tell our grandchildren how we changed Dover forever.
This is just the start of the discussion. I want us all to be involved. If the Minister is prepared to give our community the chance to own our port, an important step will be to put the proposal to a community vote. And I need your help on this, to tell me what you think and if you feel this would be a good idea, to let me know if you would be willing to help and make it happen.
To get in contact please do email me on
charlie.elphicke.mp@parliament.uk.
Best wishes,
Member of Parliament for Dover & Deal
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#140
i thought bobby goldsomething or other was against the plan?
incidentally i met our honourable member in castle street today, he clearly did not recognise me as he made no attempt to dive into a doorway. i did not keep him for long, he has enough on his plate, he mentioned the surprising amount of correspondence he has to wade through each day.
i think he timed his elevation to the commons badly, so many issues locally that people will be haranguing him on and little money to get anything done.
decided not to ask him whether he had read this thread, thought i would like live a little longer yet.