Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
9 December 2009
07:3834623Guzz, they win because they are capitalising on the neglect by Labour of their electoral base, the white so called working class. They still only get around 3% of the vote nationally and are unlikley to advance much beyond that.
Dont mix up honesty or rather dishonesty with being unable to tell all or be completely open. One problem an opposition has, for instance, is the lack of access to all the detailed information available to a Government.
Howard, yes I am more right wing than Charlie. He is not that right wing at all. Atilla, well he was an old socialist softie really
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
9 December 2009
08:0734627They win Guzzler because the big two parties don't listen to the electorate, so they are almost forced to support minor parties like UKIP and BNP, who do listen.
Roger
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
9 December 2009
10:4434630right about that roger, the big two even the lib dems too, seem very distant from the people they represent.
in my view they always seem to be telling us what is good for us, rather than taking time listening.
barry
good one about atilla!!
Guest 693- Registered: 12 Nov 2009
- Posts: 1,266
9 December 2009
11:5334636One must ask oneself why the BNP and UKIP are gaining popularity in general.......could it be that the mainstream parties are failing to address the issues that these parties are tackling head on? I detect a serious attempt to drive these two parties underground or belittle them in the media, a course of action that will only serve to help them.
If I were Gordon Brown or David Cameron, I'd stop ridiculing them or trying to outlaw them and start addressing the issues they are winning votes over in a manner that is befitting a candidate that wishes to remain as Prime Minister or become the next one.
And, Tom's quite right - the first casualty in war is always the truth. Admit it, Barry, and it might just give your party a little more street credibility.
True friends stab you in the front.
Guest 684- Registered: 26 Feb 2009
- Posts: 635
9 December 2009
13:0734639I'm going to put on my tin hat here, and await the political brickbats...
From an independent point of view, isn't it just remotely possible that the privatisation of the port will be good for port and town in the long-run, namely the breaking up of the existing port quango that's never taken an iota of interest in the town of its birth?
Guest 644- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,214
9 December 2009
17:2534647Apologies for the very short notice, but I've heard that BBC News will be in the Park inn at 6pm this evening discussing the issue and asking locals for their opinions.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
10 December 2009
07:2534669And did you go there Phil ?
The last General Election was when Paul Watkins said that if the Conservatives are elected then the Port of Dover would be sold and the money from the sale would be kept in Dover.
If it is sold off now, then none of that money will be kept in Dover; perhaps it should have been supported last time round, at least we (Dover) would have benefitted.
Too late though of course.
We in Dover shouldn't have to pay for the Government's mistakes; but as in every scenario, there's no such thing as a sacred cow nowadays - everything is looked at.
Can you imagine how much it will cost to go over the Dartford crossing if or when that's privatised ?
Roger
Guest 673- Registered: 16 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,388
11 December 2009
03:2934742Yes indeed, I remember the Conservatives saying the Port of Dover would be sold and all the money kept in Dover. There was a supporting letter from Tim Yeo to that effect.
Five hundred million pounds (£500,000,000) is a lot of dosh. I suppose they would have had to send it down from London in a convoy of bullion trucks.
I wonder where they were going to put it all, it wouldn't fit under Paul Watkins bed and you can't trust the banks these days.
Was the intention to distribute it amongst the populace? I think the population of Dover and District is about 50,000 so that would be £10,000 for every man, woman and child. Were we all going to get individual cheques or would there have been stacks of banknotes delivered on the doorstep?
Or was the intention to spend it on great public works? Remodel the town with tree lined boulevards, criss-crossing cable cars, fountains, art galleries, museums, and the rest. Some statues of great Conservatives of our time would have been appropriate in the Market Square as a tribute to the people who made it all possible, and we could even have afforded to buy the Castle and make it into the local Conservative party headquarters with our benefactors able to gaze out benevolently over a grateful town basking in the glow of their largesse.
No more worries for poor old Roger about getting a lick of paint put on all the closed down shops. With all the money swilling around Dover, we would have had every posh shop in the country falling over themselves to come here. Not just any old shops either, great big shops cloaked in marble and granite, with sweeping staircases and glittering chandeliers. I'm thinking Harrods here, forget Asda.
Oh, what might have been. How could we have been so shortsighted. I certainly know who's going to get my vote next time.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
11 December 2009
06:1034743Ed - the idea was to ring fence the money and use it to improve the dock transport links, dualling the A2. Also a levy could then be imposed on each truck/car to feed into the Council, something that could not be done with a Trust Port.
Whatever you say this was better for Dover than Labour privatising it just to clear down their debt.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
11 December 2009
08:4734756Like your posting Ed. "if only" indeed.
The main point is that it WAS to be spent here - on many things, now it's not.
I've put a posting about this on another thread, so don't want to repeat it.
I'm a Conservative, I believe in private enterprise, but I am concerned about this sell off - if indeed it happens, but we shouldn't talk ourselves (and more importantly, others) into it.
Roger
Guest 673- Registered: 16 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,388
21 December 2009
04:4835370QUOTE: Ed - the idea was to ring fence the money and use it to improve the dock transport links, dualling the A2. Also a levy could then be imposed on each truck/car to feed into the Council, something that could not be done with a Trust Port. Whatever you say this was better for Dover than Labour privatising it just to clear down their debt. UNQUOTE
Barry:
(1) Did you really believe that any government would set aside £500,000,000 purely for the benefit of one small town?
(2) Why is it necessary for Dover to sell off its port to pay for its own roads when they are national trunk roads serving the whole country? Did anybody propose selling Birmingham to the Arabs to pay for the M6?
(3) I seem to remember you saying that the dualling of the A2 was near the top of the last Conservative government's agenda for road construction and would have happened had not they been sent off into the wilderness. Since building national road infrastructure has always been funded by central government, why would a future Conservative government renege on this commitment and flog off the Port of Dover to pay for it?
(4) What is the logic of selling the port to pay for the roads to it? Bit like selling your house to pay for a new driveway - to the house which you no longer own!
(5) Why does the DHB charter as a Trust Port have to be torn up to enable charging a levy on cars and trucks? Why can it not simply be amended? Why is it possible to revoke the charter altogether and sell the port off yet it is supposedly not possible simply to amend it?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
21 December 2009
08:4835381Ed - What I dont understand is why someone intelligent, as you are, is so stuck in the mud over the privatisation.
We dont really own nationalised or 'Trust' property, we would own it if we bought some shares and our pension funds did so. It is of no financial benefit to us that DHB is a Trust Port, Dover has had little benefit from the Port except a few jobs. I wonder how many people who work for DHB even live in Dover.
The ownership of the Port has no bearing on the salaries or employment law, there is no reason at all to think there will be any more jobs or better paid jobs if it was kept as a Trust Port.
You surely know that this scare story about foreigners buying is utter nonsense. There are many ways to privatise and the most likely, the one our MP should campaign for, is for the shares to be floated as a going concern with the employees, Port user companies and their employees and local people getting a chance to buy as a priority, with any remaining shares sold to institutions such as pension funds. Incidentally, shares in Dover Port would be particularly attractive to pension funds.
Indeed the commercial freedom of a privatised port may well usher in a new age of prosperity for Dover increasing local wealth and employment.
As for the 'old proposals' there is no reason why the money could not be ring fenced and incidentally there would probably then have been more money than £500mil. The transport infrastructure would have needed every penny and this proposal would have meant this could have been fast tracked and not needed to take a place in the que for capital projects. Without this capital gain the Dover transport links would have gone back into the pot and would be prioritised alongside other projects, being top when Labour dropped it would not have automatically meant slipping back into top place 8/9 years later as prioritise do change.
Your anology of the driveway is not at all relevant. Dover has an interest in the success of the Port whether private or trust, indeed the nation as a whole has an interest in the success of the port. I would argue that if people locally owned a chunk of the Port through shares they would have a much greater stake than now. The Port depends on good transport links.
I dont know the legal answer to amending the Trust, DHB at the time were totally against any move to impose levies (or privatise) and to therefore amend the Trust. Whether it could be done with opposition from DHB is the big question.
Guest 693- Registered: 12 Nov 2009
- Posts: 1,266
21 December 2009
12:0635393I can't answer for Ed, obviously, Barry - but I can tell you that I (who considers himself to be a reasonably intelligent individual) am equally stuck in the mud over the privatisation of the port. Not privatisation in general, you understand, but just this one-off over the selling off of the Port of Dover.
The reasons are many, but the two salient points uppermost in my mind are that - despite what you say - salaries and job levels will be affected by privatisation. For you to insist otherwise is clearly contrary to private employment management principles: you keep overheads, including salaries, to a minimum whilst trying to maximise profits. Nothing wrong in that in my eyes at all - I'm a small businessman myself and it embodies the guidelines I try to work to myself; however, the Port has all sorts of employment ramifications that come hand in hand with being in the travel sector. As an example I would cite the lessons that have to be learned from Eurostar this week, where public safety seems to have been compromised - usually the first thing to be cut when budgets become tight is cutting corners on safety training procedures - we must ensure that whoever bids for the port has stringent rules regarding this imposed. I'm very anti over-legislating; I'm sure you'll agree that this Government is as guilty as any of going way over the top on employment and industrial legislation in general, and I simply question whether putting the port in the hands of a private company simply for the sake a fast buck (as you yourself put it, Labour's 'fire sale') is in the best interests of either the port or the travelling public.
My second point, one that I feel more strongly about, is that the Port should not be for sale in the first place. Bob Goldfield was obviously appointed to oversee the transition from trust status to commercially run company, the facts are beginning to speak for themselves. To this end, the people of Dover have been openly lied to, misinformed and otherwise led up the garden path; all of which leads me to ask 'Why the need for subterfuge if all is well?'. For once, I have some sympathy with your strongly anti-Government views, but I'm also asking myself if this isn't privatisation without considering if it's the right thing to do.
Do we simply throw away 400 years of history because the country's skint - would it not be a case of jumping from the frying pan into the fire?
True friends stab you in the front.
21 December 2009
12:2335396I bet a "consultation" has either taken place or is planned. I love the multiple nature of the word "consultation...........................
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
21 December 2009
13:1135399Bob Goldfield is looking at one thing only and that is one big pay off for him,and then he will be away,I told him than face to face at a meeting some time ago,he just smiled and said that is not true Vic,well now you see it was .
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
21 December 2009
19:1935419i doubt whether mr goldfield would do such a thing vic, after all, that might make him unpopular in dover.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
21 December 2009
21:0835421howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
21 December 2009
22:5135428must not confuse the two people here.
as a point of clarification, one is an ego crazed megalomaniac that will stop at nothing to get power, the other is just a bloke in charge of the harbour board.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
22 December 2009
08:0235436Such Subtelty Howard - not like you; have you thought of the Diplomatic Corps ?
Roger
22 December 2009
08:0835437Love it!!
