The question is "Can Riveroak really negotiate a deal with UKIP's TDC and Cllr Wells by engaging in what is in effect a propaganda war?" The answer is "No"
Whatever the rights and wrongs of UKIP's manifesto promise to reopen the airport they weren't voted in by the electorate on that one promise as clearly shown by the previous KCC elections where 7 out of 8 councillors were from UKIP and that was with the airport still open and operational.
What is clear for those that have an open mind is Riveroak as business partners is unworkable and for those still questioning why take a look at the negative campaign they have been running.
1. They are a US based Limited Liability Corporation
2. They are registered in Delaware (same as a tax haven elsewhere)
3. They have zero experience in running an airport business
4. Their business model is "Buy a distressed asset, add value, and then sell on quickly"
5. They are fronted by Tony Freudmann, who fronted Wiggens when that went wrong
6. The same Freudmann who gets struck of the roll of Solicitors for misappropriation.
My last post on Manston was about the concerns raised over whether a freight hub would damage Ramsgate's renaissance. go here to read http://promote-ramsgate.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/will-manston-destroy-ramsgate.html
While I am awaiting the statement from TDC I will post some of the more interesting comments from pro supporters while they take in what is happening.
Seems regime change is in the offing:
I find it quite strange that the councillors who were elected on a UKIP ticket and have left the party to set up their own little independent cabal are calling for others to leave too. Surely, the only honourable thing to do would be to resign and allow the voters to decide who represents them? Having seen these dead-heads in action I doubt they would get more than a handful of votes second time around.
ReplyDeletePresumably, having been let down by the previus administration, the electorate voted for these councillors, not because they were UKIP per se, but because they all PROMISED to make getting Manston up and running as an airport their primary motivation. The people voted for a PROMISE not a party. When the leader of UKIP made it clear that he was no longer in favour of his avowed support of Manston's resurrection these councilors left the party so they could continue to be loyal to their electorate and their PROMISE. To do otherwise would be hypocritical. Can I remind you of Chris Well's words before he was elected?
ReplyDeleteChris WellsApril 30, 2015 10:52 p.m.
Reading the owners outline proposals for Manston Airport simply highlights what's missing.
A runway.
It's not a leisure pool, not a residential block, nor, Lord help us, a new civic centre.
It's a runway.
Surrounded by the land that's needed to service a working airport.
It may have been on a year's sabbatical. It may have had it's most troubled year to date.
But change is coming, through a long awaited indemnity partner funded CPO.
And we will return Manston Airport to its proper place at the centre of our hearts, and our island.
Love Manston? Vote UKIP.iu
"Presumably, having been let down by the previus administration, the electorate voted for these councillors, not because they were UKIP per se, but because they all PROMISED to make getting Manston up and running as an airport their primary motivation."
ReplyDeleteYet the Tories also promised to reinstate the airport and lost seats. The person vilified, at the time, Iris Johnston won her seat and Peter Campbell a person who stated clearly that the airport was a non-event also won his seat for Labour.
Also you have to remember 7 of 8 seats at KCC were won by UKIP in 2013 when the airport was a going concern.
Facts that tend to disprove your theory but largely ignored by pro supporters because they do not fit your rhetoric.