Cambon

not be surprised! How on earth do they think the Steampacket could be "placed" in public ownership? (Unless the owners wanted it to be taken off their hands)

 

Bit hard to nationalise when the Island is neither a nation nor a state and its Governnent has no independent legal existence. It would need legislation and that would require pre-clearing of Royal Assent.

 

Portugal might have something to say and the idea of a British sub-jurisdiction "nationalising" an Australian controlled asset would cause trouble in Canberra. (And look bad for an Island that sells itself on the "Freedom to Flourish" principle) So no Royal Assent then?

 

Isn't the "Ben" Isle of Man flag/registry which is seen as a British sub-registry? I bet quite a few shipowners would be really encouraged to register if the Island threatened Socialist solutions!

 

Companies are also "legal persons" having rights to their property and possessions under the First Protocol to the Human Rights Act/Convention.

 

If you love the MEA, IRIS, Summerland, Noble's, the Isle of Man Post, you are gonna love the "Steampacket of the People". Still, I doubt it is a serious attempt. Is there an election due some time?

It is already in public ownership as Macquarie is a publicly traded company, whose shares can be purchased by any person or legal entity. If the IOMG became the majority shareholder then ....... Job's a goodun.

Personally, I don't think having the ferry company as a government controlled company is a good idea. However, I think having it controlled locally would be of great benefit to the Island.

Within your comment there is an issue that keeps coming into my mind. Freight wise there is zero doubt that the IOMSPC market is the Island and its businesses. When it comes to passengers MW stated in the past that his market was the 84,000 inhabitants of the IOM too. That, IMO, ignores the almost 70 million people living around the Island on the West and East rocks.

Exactly! SP would not run the two non-freight carrying fast craft over the spring/summer periods if they were not profitable.

I came back from Birkenhead 21 November with a big vehicle and the 'Ben' was busy enough with private cars etc and a good crowd of passengers. So much so that they had to appeal for passengers to make room for others to sit down. They could well have been hard-pressed to accommodate last minute freight.

And this about sums it up for me. Full boat - Huge number of passengers. Same the last two times I travelled (last month). No spare room for cargo.

This whole issue is dummy spitting / sabre rattling. Woodward worried for his position when he has to explain why the 30% PA profit is down to 20% PA - still double the averge profit for this type of company.

Just listened to an interview on MR stating that the SP could legally reduce sailings by 50% under the user agreement, which will only result to job loses and increased fare o the public as the % of the cheaper rate tickets will be taken up.

So jobs leave SP and go to Mezzeron. SP still sabre rattling?

Or maybe you want to have a go you are not prepared to accept anything he says.

 

It is very difficult to accept based on the fact that at only 40% capacity, and after paying over the odds for a sister company's cast off fast craft, he is still making 30% profit.

You have lost two freight customers. Get over it. Treat the ones you still have with the best possible service, and try and win your lost customers (and some new ones) back. But most importantly, stop threatening people!

no but like the Mannanin it became much too expensive to service (many bits had to be made specially), as Paris proved it was a fire risk waiting to happen and nearly all landings at Heathrow were technical emergencies as it seldom had enough fuel to make a second attempt or go on to another airport - in fact on a couple of occasions so little fuel left that it couldn't taxi and in one case nose dropped causing damage - I had a friend involved with servicing who stated he would never ever fly on it. The Virgin bid was just another bit of Branson's mischief making

Err, kind of. If it had not been for the fact that airbus industries wanted the space for development of parts for the A380, it would still be flying today. Also, Bransons bid failed as the french would not release the moulds, casts etc. for spares. Rolls Royce were happy to keep the engines going. I think the truth is tha the french said -"if we cant have it, then nobody can have it!"

isn't there something in the UA about having to invest £x millions in the fleet, which means that they can't even charter the ships ?

 

hands tied behind their backs too

Yes, but no. It just means every few years MIOM buy a knackered second hand boat off another M entity at a vastly inflated price and pay M £1,000,000 to get it here. This total is then creamed off the profits which then are "only" 30% .

The whole thing is a con. As I said earlier, only one steam packet boat carries freight. The other two are passengers and cars only. If passengers were not profitable, they would not do them

 

The more people fly, the more competitive and viable flying will be. Freight meanwhile is already competitively looking after itself .

 

Would it be such a big deal if there was a service for vehicles and foot passengers which ran only some days ? Does it have to be every day just because it has been like that previously ?

 

Also - does an operator really need to actually own vessels ?

This is kind of getting to my thinking. The Snaefell is sat in Liverpool doing nothing, Manannin is buggering off soon and some slow boat is going to eb doing Birkenhead. So, the people want to go to Pier Head - use the Snaefell to take them.

Give the people what they want and more will travel, and probably be willing to pay a bit more for the opportunity.

 

OK on your own figurs you have overstated the number of passengers by 27% and the number of cars by 33%. Not a good place to start and your fares figures do not reflect that for 6 months of the year the currentl;y widely available discount fares for a car and 2 passengers return are under £150 against your £240. Then you have railsail tickets which are cheao, and other discounts. OK headline fares may be greater, much greater than you suggest but I think your average is way out. So your final figure is at least £11 million to high for passenger revenue because of your overstated passenger and car numbers and may be overstated because you have the average fare to high.

 

Remember the pessenger service requires on line booking facilities, checkin staff, a ferry shop to sell tickets, phone lines, security before you get on and staff to see you off on arrival plus up to 40 + more onboard staff, times three, per boat as certificated life boat men, radio operators, first aiders etc, cooks and stewards

 

The truth is there are very few pax only services left, that DFDS has stopped carrying passengers on its RoPax service Rosyth to Zeebrugge but upped its freight capacity to two ships, ie doubled it. Manx Line identified that the way to go was RoPax, that separate pax and loose or even lift on lift off was a dead end. Mezeron has just picked up cheap crews and ships and has very low overheads by comparison to SPCo. Brittany Ferries do long runs and charge a fortune to passengers. I frequently use Caen, St Malo and Santander, but they are over night and the boats are huge and carry lots of freight and the passengers have to eat, buy a cabin etc so there is a lot of value added. Not the same opportunities on a 2.5 or 3.75 hour crossing

Figures not overstated. Those given in previous post were for 9 months. I simply rounded them to a year, but reduced the foot passengers to compensate for extras in the summer. My fares are pretty accurate too. Keep in mind that for 13 weeks of the year, it is virtually impossible to get anywhere near a car and two for £240 return. In fact for 3-4 weeks they have to put on extra boats to allow for the mass influx of overcharged bikers. My figure is not £11 million too high, but actually quite conservative.

The Eurotunnel has had a massive impact on passengers travelling to Europe and that is why some companies are going freight only. We don't have a tunnel (or monorial) so will have to make do. Besides, as I said earlier, only the Ben carries freight. The others do not. If it did not pay they would not do it.

In the year to date at September 2010, 545,385 passengers and 150,273 vehicles had travelled through Douglas harbour. I can't see anyone passing up the opportunity to make a profit on that, be it 10, 20 or 30 %. (http://www.gov.im/li...harbourtr42.xml)

And this is where we see the truth start to come out. MW spits the dummy because of the freight situation. Only one of the three SPCo boats that have been running all summer carries freight. MW's rantings would therefore have you believe that passenger carrying is a loss leader. BOLLOCKS!!!

In reality, freight is quite a small part of their business. The basically ignored passengers are literally taken for a ride. Of those three boats that ran all summer, one is tied up in Liverpool (they must be doing well if they can afford to leave a boat idle), one is still limping on three engines (or is it?) The other is doing two half empty runs a day to Heysham. The liverpool run is about to go to Birkenhead again so Christmas shopping day trips and football days out are off the agenda (a certain loss of revenue).

The figures about equate to about 700K PAX a year and 200K vehicles. Lets just say conservatively that each passenger paid £20 for their ticket each way, and each car was £100. THese are not unrealistic figures, but woudl add up to £34,000,000 before credit card charges, on board spends, change fees, TT subsidy, etc. The company make s a fortune out of transporting passengers.

This is simply a call for a handout from the tax payer to stop his bosses asking questions!

 

To be fair, they probably make a bit of money back on the extras - 1st Class lounges, food etc. It probably helps fund the people who bring their own sandwiches.

 

If not there would not be any reason to do it.

A bit? Are you taking teh piss? Why do you think they don't open until 12 miles off IOM and 2 miles off UK? So they don't have to pay VAT and duty on alcohol sold. Yes, at £3.50 a pint, they are making about £2.50 profit!

 

That is true. but there is a lot of people who dont use the boats to get off the island, why should they pay for somebody to save.

Also if you sub the boats then u would have to sub the air as well as it would cause unfair trading

Err.....who paid for the £40,000,000 runway extension and £8,000,000 tower that is still not being used? Not forgetting the new lights and fence.

Could start up a brand new ferry service for that!

Please be specific. What is it about building that you believe causes climate change? And even with that belief, why can't those actions simply stop, be reduced or become more efficient? Why is the only solution population?

Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and makes up a fairly small percentage of the total of greenhouse gases in the atmoshpere.

Next time there is a flood somewhere, before you start crying "global warming", have a look around. Guaranteed a few miles up the river, some new outlet centre / tesco complex/ industrial estate or something will havfe been built on a flood plain, if the flooded estate itself is not built on the flood plain. However, explanations like this are not good for the global warming cause so rarely get airtime.

What a mess. Let me try to work out what you're saying:

 

You agree that man causes co2

Yes

and that co2 causes change in climate.

No.

You therefore think the only solution to climate change is to reduce the population?

Yes

Even though it's easily demonstrable that the amount of co2 per head varies massively?

that is irrelevant

Don't you think that's a little simplistic? Look at mankind's recent history, and how technology has change dover a very short amount of time. What do you think the average Europeans carbon footprint was in the year 1800?

What was the population of Europe back then? Where were all the tarmac roads, concrete jungles that absorb heat?

Do you really think it's inconceivable that our pace of technology with a focus on reducing co2 can make similar gains in the other direction?

Are you that jaded that the only solution is 'sod it'?

No. The only solution is to reduce the earth's population and stop building roads, estates, cities, massive shopping complexes, car park, industrial areas. As I have said before, and I am sure I will say again, CO2 is probably not helping the situation, but it is not the cause.

]

 

Both actions by man, and yet you're also arguing that this is a natural cycle that we have no control over. Make your mind up?

Actually, I said earlier that the change in sea levels (and climate for that matter) has been going on since the beginning of time. However, I am arguing that although you and all the "experts" are desparately trying to link global warming (now called climate change because it s actually cooling) to excessing output of CO2. It just so happens that all the data, all the graphs showing climate versus CO2 coincide with the increase in, and over population of the planet. Unless that is reduced the manmade effect on the climate will continue to change, regardless of CO2.

Like I said, we're not talking about millennial cycles here. They're not really of any relevance to this discussion. Yes, the carbon that is now being released into the atmosphere may once have been organic, but what matters to us as a thriving organism of the day is where that carbon is now what effect it has on our environment. Taking a simplistic example; drilling it and burning it is in our control, and it's creating the problem. How is highlighting the fact that this carbon may have been an animal millions of years ago in any way relevant to mankind today?

 

 

As to the population point, one person in Tanzania has the same footprint as 320 Americans. You cannot tell me that carbon output cannot be reduced by anything other than reducing the population in the face of those kind of figures.

From what I can see your graph and the above are the only other two points you have made since I engaged you in debate.

The graph also just happens to coincide with overpopulation of earth.

Drilling and burning carbon based fuels is not helping the situation, but the removal of rainforest and the covering of what was green area with asphalt and concrete alone is raising the temperature of the planet.

Your tanzania / american example is irrelevant.

Right, I still don't know what your point is. I don't think I've ever claimed that all environmental changes are due to carbon?

 

Are you claiming that the sea is rising simply because of the drying lakes? Landlocked water is a part of the rise, but solely responsible? Don't be silly.

 

Melting sea ice does raise the water level too.

Quick, run for the hills. We are doomed!!!

From the article:

......could add 2.6% more water to the ocean than the water displaced by the ice, or the equivalent of approximately 4 centimeters (1.57 inches) of sea-level rise.

A landlocked sea that's drying because of man made diversions? Inland lakes drying and creating water vapor? All parts of climate change and the feedback loop. Whats your point, unnless I'm missing it you appear to be demonstrating climate change?

Man made diversions - not carbon. Lakes drying up causing more greenhouse gases - not carbon. Water from drying lakes raising sea levels - not carbon. Cause of evaporating lakes? a more arid landscape as more and more green area is turned to concrete to house the masses - not carbon.

In my opinion, none of that is true.

Wow! Back to school for you then

Yes, the sea level is rising. Yes, scientists say that the northern ice cap in particular is melting. As a very large proportion of that is floating, it is already displacing it's weight by volume of water. So a bit like ice in a glass, as it melts the level stays the same.

On the other hand, the likes of the Aral sea (fourth latgest sea in the world) has halved in size since the 1960s. The massive man made lake that feeds the Hoover dam is drying us as the rivers that feed it dry up. Even the world's largest freshwater lake, Lake Superior is at it's lowest level in the best part of a century. All the great lakes are drying up. All that water has to go somewhere and my guessing is water vapour (the biggest greenhouse gas) and then the sea.

But Slim, sea levels have been changing ever since the dawn of time. Off Jersey there is an area called the petrified forest, which during an exceptionally low tide you can see. This is from when that whole area (including the channel Islands) was dry land. In other parts of the world lakes and seashore have dried up. A whole re-balancing act of nature.

I am not saying that adding carbon from fossil fuel is not adding to the already unstoppable problem (called nature). I am just tired of the scaremongering and industry that has grown up around it.

Carbon is carbon. There is a finite amount of carbon on earth. All the carbon that is now oil, coal, gas, was once living organisms. It was all above the surface. As Albert Tatlock continually bangs on about, the only way to reduce the amount of carbon used is to reduce the number of people. As the population of earth continues to grow, so will the atmospheric carbon problem. It really is as simple as that.

January 2010 is the warmest January since satellite observations began - a lot warmer.

Ah good, I'll get the suncream and shades out then, and wait for the summer.

I salute your optimism Cambon however there really isn't a large enough population to justify multiple utility, or transport providers, as a whole the island has the population of a small city. The island has a population of around 40k less than, for example Preston, yet Preston is only supplied by one energy company (at least it was 2 years back when I was living there)

 

My main confusion with the current upswell in Nationalism is the timing. The Nationalists are wanting the island to have more freedom and less influence, control, and dependance from the UK government, so why are they suddenly more vocal at a time that this is already happening? Why are they starting to shout (and by shout I mean pin bed sheets to fences and paint crap on the road) now, why not 2 years ago when dependance at least was much higher?

 

The other question is how wide spread is the nationalist sentiment? are the current "protests" the actions of a small band of board kids with little understanding of how independence would effect us? I think the current methods being used would support this idea.

There are literally tonnes of boats that cross the Irish Sea on a daily basis for a fraction the cost of the Steam Packet. If the linkspan was deregulated, don't you think some of these companies would want to pick up some of the very large, lucrative trade monopolised by the Steampacket? I mean, all they need to do is stop here for an hour or two on the way to Belfast or Dublin!

The IOM is small in population compared to UK towns, but it is much richer. There is actually a market for shops other than Lidl and Poundstretcher. A lot of companies know this but cannot get in because of red tape. It took years to get McDonalds, and fairly soon after KFC was here. It is all very closely controlled. Remove those controls and it could be amazing. Look at Jersey. They have a thriving high street, much more than us and they are much more independant than us.

I think any movement is very small. A few sabre rattlers at best. I don't think anything will come of it but that does not mean we should not be looking at all possibilities.

I think the Island is in a very precarious sweet spot at the minute. I agree that full independence would probably never work as we would as we would lose all connection with the EU, and while it is possible to apply for micro state status that would take a period of time and may never be granted.

 

However full amalgamation in to the UK would be just as devastating to our economy. With out the ability to set our own tax rates there would be no advantage in companies being based here, in fact being based here would be a major disadvantage to the majority of companies, over heads are higher here than in the UK, gas, electric telecoms, everything. On top of that the higher salary requirements of any staff based here.

 

For companies trading in real goods, manufacturing for example, they would have the added disadvantage of high transport costs to and from the island as they do now.

 

Then if we look at the general population of the island, both "come overs" and "locals", they would be paying UK income tax and council tax both of which are significantly higher than here. But they will still be paying similar prices to now for all goods and services, just because we are part of the UK doesn't mean we will get UK service providers, in all likelihood we will keep the MEA, Manx Gas, Manx Telecom ect. as there would be little reason for UK utility companies to set up over here for the reasons outlined above. There would also still be the Steam Packet to deal with, but they will have less income due to the reduction in freight services, as such prices will have to rise or they will run a severally restricted service, most likely a combination of the two.

 

So the way I see it the Government need to be very careful not to rock the boat too much. Any change in our situation will be devastating to the island and it residents.

Independence does not necessarily mean cutting ties with the rest of the world, only the UK. There is no reason why IOM could not maintain good relations with Europe, USA, etc. It could actually work out very well for IOM. However, i don't think the IOM has enough governing experience to carry it off.

Also, I think your ideas about full amalgamation are wrong. It is more likely that transport links would improve. Things like the MEA and steampacket monopoly would go, and freight would be subsidised as per northern ireland. More UK chains would come here because there would not be the red tape (back handers etc.) required to open up. The red tape and backhanders are the route of the monopolies here.

"the Danes had long planned to offset an eventual 100,000 tons of carbon, setting aside nearly a million Euros"

Carbon offset? What a load of cock!

"Scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. "

Well i for one am shocked. I mean, how stupid can one be? I never knew east anglia had a university!