pongo

Gerrymandering is when an electoral boundary or national border is drawn so as to secure and maintain a political and electoral majority for one particular faction or interest group - normally based on ethnicity, social class, religion etc .. I do have google ... So in what sense is it gerrymandering ? And is what sense are you holding yourself up as Mr Pedantic tonight? I am not being pedantic. I am asking a straight question. I am trying to understand what you mean by gerrymandering in this context. If you read further into the Wiki article you consulted (you only cut and pasted the first para in your post). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering It goes on to say that one of the aims of gerrymandering is to maximize the effect of supporters' votes and to minimize the effect of opponents' votes - ie, in this situation to gain votes or support for the SPC as contracted to votes or support for Tesco's. That, my friend, points out the fact that you are being pedantic based on limited information. I spelled it wrong as well. Would you like to pick me up on that too. I know what the word means without looking at wikipedia thanks. (We did Irish history at school) Gerrymandering is certainly about trying to win votes for an idea or point of view - but trying to win support for an idea or point of view is not necessarily gerrymandering. Not unless it involves artificially drawing a border or electoral boundary. In what sense do you believe that this is gerrymandering ?

Gerrymandering is when an electoral boundary or national border is drawn so as to secure and maintain a political and electoral majority for one particular faction or interest group - normally based on ethnicity, social class, religion etc .. I do have google ... So in what sense is it gerrymandering ? And is what sense are you holding yourself up as Mr Pedantic tonight? I am not being pedantic. I am asking a straight question. I am trying to understand what you mean by gerrymandering in this context.

Gerrymandering is when an electoral boundary or national border is drawn so as to secure and maintain a political and electoral majority for one particular faction or interest group - normally based on ethnicity, social class, religion etc .. I do have google ... So in what sense is it gerrymandering ?

Gerrymandering is when an electoral boundary or national border is drawn so as to secure and maintain a political and electoral majority for one particular faction or interest group - normally based on ethnicity, social class, religion etc ..

This is a red herring. One could equally say that UK registered vessels are not subject to the same regulations as IOM registered vessels. With respect to crewing for example. AFAIK one of the benefits of the IOM registry is the flexible approach it allows ship owners to employ officers holding non UK certificates - whilst still flying the 'Red Ensign'. It is quite ironic the RMT backing this campaign given that they have previously opposed Isle of Man flagging. Eg linky. Estonia is part of the EU. Estonian vessels are subject to the same IMO regulation as IOM registered vessels. Estonian vessels would not be able to dock in the IOM if they were not operating under regulations acceptable to UK ports authorities.

Has that got anything to do with the question of whether or not passenger and vehicle services should be subsidised by containerised freight costs ? Or for that matter with the question of whether or not the entire SPCo model is possibly skewed by borrowing and profit taking ? Or for that matter with the question of whether or not the UA is basically the right way to go - as others in shipping have been asking for years ? Gazza already mentioned that cost was a factor for his business. His will not be the only business affected by freight costs who might welcome competition.

Because this is not the Soviet Union. Nah. That was an idiotic answer, on second thoughts.

Yes. But minus the need to service a massive debt from profits. Mezeron are not the only people who have been looking at competing on the freight side - and there is now a precedence for freight competition. Another monopolist would always face the potential of competition.

Defending the useless agreement and opposing free enterprise could, just as likely, turn out to be an unpopular stance which would speak of political stasis and support for vested interests. Not that the election makes much difference because the same continuity govt will be returned no matter what policy decisions are taken.

If Mr Robertshaw's article is accurate (and you made similar observations too) then it is intervention which has ultimately resulted in higher fares (the debt etc) . And as John Wright has said - the island does not need fast ferries. How do you feel if it ends up with a similar or improved service from a company with less debt to service out of its profits? There seems to be room to rationalise the services currently on offer along the lines of more appropriate and reliable fleet and service to one port in the UK and one in Ireland. Would that be a bad thing? If there were no Australian SPCo and no UA - one or more of the other Irish Sea ferry services would surely want to pick up any genuinely viable passenger and vehicle traffic. Maybe less expensive. The best outcome is a basic service with very little slack - ie only servicing demand. Granted that might mean there not being a full passenger and vehicle service everyday.

Agreed. It's as if road haulage were expected to fund coach travel.

Good link. I am sure that the PAG would be happy for it to be quoted here:

Are you going to interview anyone from the counter side of the argument ? So far only the govt/UA/McQuarrie side seems to represented. Is it just that the other sides are unavailable ? Equally - what about saying - "you know well actually is this really anything like Manx Line vs IOMSPCo 30 years ago ?" and then noting all some of the very obvious significant differences. Like the fact that in those days there was no UA. Like the fact that in those days the passenger side was more significant and there was still some tourism. Like the fact that in those days there was very very much less container traffic. (In those days crates of fruit and veg used to still be brought onto the boats by porters). Lots of people have been arguing for a long time that the UA was not a sustainable model. What about exploring that ? What about exploring the question of whether it really makes sense for freight to subsidise passenger services ?

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 ?

And why should it ? Any vessel which meets international port authority and other regulatory standards in general should be allowed to operate. There should be a free market. The IOM is supposed to be all about freedom and opportunity.

No we aren't. These things are never all or nothing. Everyone on all sides understands what the issues are. Döhle are only one of several groups who have been looking at the UA for ages. More likely is that out of this will come a variety of more sustainable solutions which go some way to addressing all of the various issues in a way which is more equitable and sensible. There is a wealth of knowledge about shipping here and also lots of people who are good at putting deals together. Change was inevitable. Macquarie + UA was like a fault-line.

Err, I don't. I'm not alone either. I want to be transported from A to B, on time, safely and reliably. That's pretty much it. If I want a snack, I'll take it with me from home. If I want a drink, they can put a vending machine in. I don't want a full cooked meal (at those prices), I dont want a shop full of tatty shite and I don't really see why a bar is such an automatic inclusion on a passenger ferry. Seriously, you can't manage a four hour crossing without a beer? As suggested above, I'd happily sit in my car if I had one with me, and I'd be more than happy to sit on any old seat. With all the shit shops and bars pulled out, there would be loads of room for more so everyone can sit down. It's not a pleasure cruise, it's a mode of transport. 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.

It still comes back to two basic questions: 1. Why should a vehicle and passenger service be cross - subsidized by the containerized freight business? The effect of that is to make it more expensive to do business on the IOM. If the passenger and vehicle service needs to be subsidized as an essential service then why not ring fence that part of the business and let central govt provide additional funds directly out of taxation ? 2. What level of profit is sustainable ?

Bristol Superfreighter

Container freight is a much bigger business than it was in the late 70s. Containerization being about reducing costs, there is no reason why the price of freight should be tied to the price of passengers. It's two different businesses. No more than the price of an email is linked to the price of a letter. The problem seems to be the user agreement. You might be right about the passenger service ending up being more expensive and less frequent. That might be how it should be. Or else funded by the tax payer as an essential service for dog owners and people with motorhomes.

Freight does not need subsidy. Competition is working. Container freight is a profitable business.

There is not any reason why the two issues (container freight vs passengers & vehicles) should necessarily be rolled into one argument. There is no natural reason why the passenger and vehicle service should be subsidised by container freight. As you say, passengers have an alternative - air services which are freely competitive. The majority of people do not take their vehicles away on a regular basis. The island as a whole may benefit from container traffic competition. Döhle have certainly not been the only group looking at competing on the freight side. If there is deemed to be a need for a public passenger and vehicle service which is subsidised, then why not out of taxation like in Scotland ? Rather than via excess container freight charges.

Why should the govt have "taken over" Manx Airlines ? There is still a perfectly adequate air service for the IOM. Much better than many equivalent tiny islands enjoy. Air services everywhere are always in flux. With luck Easy Jet will expand their timetable sooner or later. These things come and go according to the economy of air travel at any particular time. It has been like that for as long as air travel has existed. The Heathrow route would not have been sustainable anyhow (and Gatwick is more useful for most people). There is no reason why there should not be free competition for freight/container traffic - a market which has grown significantly over recent years. No reason why freight traffic should have to cross subsidize passenger and vehicle services. It really only comes down to whether vehicle traffic should be subsidised. There is a perfectly good passenger service out of Ronaldsway if people want cheap fares. The user agreement was always a mess.

There was always freight competition. Nothing fundamental has changed. Shift towards containerization gave Ro Ro the advantage over the years. But it isn't a given. Lift On / Lift Off is fine for relatively small quantities. And you cannot stop companies from competing or demand that other services be cross-subsidized. Problem with these big funds owning companies is that invariably they tend to want to squeeze at both ends. I've always found Easy Jet great.