Waiting to see if a window in the weather might let me fly two jobs today but it's not looking hopeful as the 'Great British Summer" gets underway in traditional rain, sleet, hail and thunderstorms. Wonderful to have our Blue Flags back but it would take a brave soul to walk on the beach as I write this.Keeping an eye on the vigorous blog debate surrounding the collapsed TransEuropa and the Port of Ramsgate and I wonder if several of the more exercised contributors may have missed something? If Thanet Council had foreclosed on the ferry operator three years ago, when the debt was hovering at £1 million would we be financially worse off than we are today?
After all, this is a large debt for the use of the harbour by a ferry company and not money the Council had in the first place. In the interim period the Council had an obligation to keep the Port of Ramsgate operating and there was a benefit to the local economy in having a cross-channel service operating, in much the same way as small regional airports in Europe are paid, a small pittance by the likes of Ryan Air but benefit from the tourist traffic in a broader sense.
Without a doubt, this is a serious debt that has run wildly out of control over the last year, with little or no chance of recovery. However, one question that needs addressing is whether Ramsgate is better or worse-off, as a consequence of the Council, like any sensible creditor, attempting to find a way of helping the ferry operator through its financial crisis, rather than pulling the plug on the debt two years ago?
Perhaps we should think hypothetically of the harbour, in terms of a large and expensive local car park, frequently empty and used by the lorries of a big supermarket delivering in and out of the island and subject to a regular billing process for the privilege. The supermarket chain admits to having cash-flow problems and the Council suggests a reduced payment schedule until the business can climb back on its feet. This works for a short while but then the business folds, leaving large debts everywhere. Was the Council, as a creditor, right to follow this initial course of action but wrong to let the debt run out of control?
Were the residents of Thanet better or worse-off as a consequence of the Council's decisions or was there really no change, as the £3 million only existed on paper, which would have been nice to have if there was any sensible way of achieving a solution that kept the cross-channel route operating in the long term?
It's a simplistic argument of course and there is of course a great deal more to explore next week in Cabinet in terms of the conduct of proper and correct local government process but I think we need to retain sight of the financial context as opposed to counting £ 3 million which never existed for us.








