On 15 Jan, 12:18, Tony Polson wrote:

EE507 wrote:

The Tories can't decide whether they object to an expansion of airport
capacity on principle, or whether, as Boris says, it's just Heathrow
that is unsuitable. Rather like Labour didn't reverse rail
privatisation when they came to power, I suspect the Tories wouldn't
reverse any decision on Heathrow. Anyway, let's wait for the official
announcement.

The Tories have already stated, unequivocally, that they will cancel any
planned third runway at Heathrow when (if) they get into power.

Boris Toffson's Thames Estuary Airport plan is something of an
embarrassment for the Tory party. *He is shaping up to be as much of a
thorn in the Tories' side as Ken Livingstone was in his party's.


I disagree with the simple picture you paint in your final comment. I
think the truth is somewhat more complex - Boris is neither a puppet
of the Conservative Central Office and leadership, but nor is he
anything quite like the renegade that Ken was (or at least was capable
of being). Recliner's point (in his separate reply to your post) about
him having ambitions beyond London should also be borne in mind.

On 15 Jan, 13:29, "Recliner" wrote:

"Tony Polson" wrote:

Boris Toffson's Thames Estuary Airport plan is something of an
embarrassment for the Tory party. *He is shaping up to be as much of a
thorn in the Tories' side as Ken Livingstone was in his party's.

With one key difference: Ken never had ambitions beyond London politics,
but Boris does. This makes him a rival for whoever is leading the Tory
party, whereas Ken never had any leadership ambitions outside London.
But it might also make him more careful (ie, he probably won't do the
rightwing equivalent of Chavez type deals).

You'll note in my separate reply to Tony's post that I don't quite
agree with his simplistic analysis of Boris, but anyway regarding your
points...

I think Ken did once have ambitions beyond London, but they had gone
by the time he was elected Mayor in 2000.

Your point about Boris and his ambitions is true in my mind. I think
that at least some of his actions in London need to be viewed through
the national lens before they can be fully comprehended, as for at
least some of the time he is playing over the heads of the Londoners
in the stalls to the national audience in the grand circle (and
occasionally throwing a line or two in the direction of the opulent
box dwellers).

In message , at 13:51:50 on
Thu, 15 Jan 2009, Recliner remarked:
I doubt that the current St P has enough domestic platforms (on either
side) to be the London Terminus for the high speed link to the north.
Also, are they long enough?

Not enough of them, and they are approx 10 carriages long - is that
sufficient?
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 13:13:33 on Thu, 15
Jan 2009, Stuart remarked:
When you're in a bust you don't start spending billions on vanity
projects. Even in the boom years heathrow could cope with the
passenger numbers so why build a new runway now when they're
dropping?? Its like saying "oh , theres less traffic on the roads -
lets build some bypasses!"

Surely it's the best time to build public infrastructure?

Building companies are desperate for work and labour is plentiful,
things can be built cheaper and will be ready for when the demand picks

And Hoon has just announced more road building, exactly to this economic
model.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 11:42:26 on Thu, 15
Jan 2009, tim..... remarked:
Especially given that passenger numbers at heathrow are dropping
according to this report. The whole thing stinks.

We are in a "bust", so of course short-term passenger numbers are likely
to fall. The new runway is (one possible) solution for the capacity
required in the next "boom". If there's not going to be another "boom", we
don't need a lot of things, including Crossrail.

But it is quite possible that by the time the next boom comes along, the
attitude to companies for international travel has changed.

I've seen no discernible change in the 25 years I've been flying "on
business", apart from a few glitches caused by terrorist incidents and
nervous Americans, not cashflow.

It is business travellers that "demand" the benefits of a Heathrow hub. I
would suggest that tourist travellers would much prefer point to point from
their local airport, even if the cost of that is "one flight per week".

That's where much of the expansion is coming from, and I agree that
people should not expect the tourist sector to be a growth generator at
Heathrow. But Heathrow has spurned charter flights for a generation, and
has very few "low cost" airlines operating from there.
--
Roland Perry

In message
, at
03:44:34 on Thu, 15 Jan 2009, remarked:

When you're in a bust you don't start spending billions on vanity
projects.

So you'd recommend suspending Crossrail until we are well into the next
boom (and suffering from the fact it doesn't exist yet)?

Crossrail is required because even now the tube is an essential
service (the majority of its passengers are not off on holiday) that
is hopelessly overloaded.

You may not have noticed the number of layoffs in banking and retail,
and the reduction of consumer spending (shops in Oxford St need
customers as well as staff).

Heathrow is far from being essential and isn't overloaded anyway.

It's severely overloaded, and "essential" for UK plc's international
business ambitions.

As you say , its merely "predicted" to be so based on some finger in
the air guesitmates which are now all null and void anyway.

You can predict a sine-wave of boom and bust fairly easily (it may not
come true) just as much as you can "predict" an ongoing need for
crossrail.

The amount of economic activity provided to the economy by air travel
is minimal... Even most business can be done using phone or email.

From these remarks I can see you are completely out of touch with
reality. Although large volumes of "grunt trading" can be done
hands-off, you can generally only set up the initial relationships in
person.

Also economic growth (when it returns) is unsustainable anyway. At
some point it has to stop and building more and more runways isn't the
answer - what happens in 20 years if the new one is overloaded? Build
another on top of hounslow? And another on top of staines when thats
saturated too?

Once upon a time the answer was a third airport - which ended up at
Stansted. You may have noticed that Stansted has expansion plans too.

Its like saying "oh , theres less traffic on the roads -
lets build some bypasses!"

The road building programme (such as it is) hasn't been suspended
because of the bust.

You're not good with analogies are you.

Hoon has just announced more roadbuilding.
--
Roland Perry

"Mizter T" wrote
I think Ken did once have ambitions beyond London, but
they had gone by the time he was elected Mayor in 2000.

Exactly right. After Mrs Thatcher scrapped the GLC, Ken stated that only the
house of Commons could really achieve anything; however, after a couple of
years as a back bench MP, isolated even within Kinnock's Old Labour, he soon
realised that there was no 'guaranteed' way of achieving his ends, then he
turned his attention back to more local aims.

Boris is 'old tory' just as much as Ken is 'old labour'; he is loyal to
those who voted for him, and has his own agenda. I suspect his differences
with the National Tories are smaller than a few news stories might suggest,
and when/if Lord Snooty gets elected, he'll work much more closely with
them.

At the moment, he has power, they don't - and he's not going to waste
opportunities, simply to please Her Majesty's Official Opposition.

However much of a Tory Boris is, he ain't stupid, and he recognises that
London needs those awful socialist ideas like public transport. One reason
why Lord Snooty has to keep saying that many of Boris' plans are 'local
issues' up for local decisions (eg anything remotely connected to congestion
charging).

London will always be a 'special case', and it's no surprise that Boris'
policies differ from Ken's only in superficial ways. So far, at least.

Boris' re-election manifesto will be a joy to behold ;o)
--

Andrew

Interviewer: Tonight I'm interviewing that famous nurse, Florence
Nightingale
Tommy Cooper (dressed as a nurse): Sir Florence Nightingale
Interviewer: *Sir* Florence Nightingale?
Tommy Cooper: I'm a Night Nurse

Campaign For The Real Tommy Cooper

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 11:00:51 on
Thu, 15 Jan 2009, Peter Masson remarked:

I envisage an underground terminus, possibly double ended, with one
entrance
from the concourse at St Pancras (near the access to the Thameslink
platforms, and another with an entrance from Euston (may need a
travelator).

What would it be "underneath", there's a lot of existing stuff under StP
and KX, and I'm not sure you'd be able to locate anything under the
British Library.

Put it under Phoenix Road/Brill place, behind the British Library, so at
right angles to the Thameslink platforms.

The suggestion of reversing the Kent domestics at St P, and extending them
to Heathrow, has some attractions, but the rolling stock you need is not
really compatible (Kent domestics a lot of seats for commuters; HEx plenty
of luggage space, and a high quality first class section. Also, the St
Pancras throat is now very congested with tracks going in all directions,
and I'm not sure how an exit that has to turn west will work.

I really can't see how a HSL from St Pancras, or more likely Euston as
that's the only obvious space for the terminus, via Heathrow, will work. It
would have to be in tunnel at least pretty well all the way to Heathrow, and
with a stop there is only going to be marginally quicker to the West
Midlands than going at 125 mph down the WCML. The Greengauge proposals (head
out of London via Northolt Junction, and follow the general alignment of the
Chiltern Line/M40, serving Heathrow with a branch, joining the main HSL in
the vicinity of Denham) seem to me to be more rational.

Peter

"Mizter T" wrote in message

On 15 Jan, 13:29, "Recliner" wrote:

"Tony Polson" wrote:

Boris Toffson's Thames Estuary Airport plan is something of an
embarrassment for the Tory party. He is shaping up to be as much of
a thorn in the Tories' side as Ken Livingstone was in his party's.

With one key difference: Ken never had ambitions beyond London
politics, but Boris does. This makes him a rival for whoever is
leading the Tory party, whereas Ken never had any leadership
ambitions outside London. But it might also make him more careful
(ie, he probably won't do the rightwing equivalent of Chavez type
deals).

You'll note in my separate reply to Tony's post that I don't quite
agree with his simplistic analysis of Boris, but anyway regarding your
points...

I think Ken did once have ambitions beyond London, but they had gone
by the time he was elected Mayor in 2000.

Obviously it's hard to say for sure, but I don't think Ken ever showed
much interest in anything other than ruling London. He executed a coup
to get the top GLC job, and hung on to it tenaciously thereafter.

He only became an MP when he was forcibly evicted from the GLC by
Maggie, and then didn't do any of things he'd need to do to start
climbing the ministerial ladder. As soon as there was the chance to
become mayor of London, he leapt at it, making very clear that he was
going to stand and do his damnedest to win, regardless of what the
Labour party thought or did to him.

All very different to Boris, who'd never shown much previous interest in
London politics, and who had to be persuaded to stand. And only well
into the campaign did he show much interest in winning.

Your point about Boris and his ambitions is true in my mind. I think
that at least some of his actions in London need to be viewed through
the national lens before they can be fully comprehended, as for at
least some of the time he is playing over the heads of the Londoners
in the stalls to the national audience in the grand circle (and
occasionally throwing a line or two in the direction of the opulent
box dwellers).

Agreed. he's also made clear that he has no intention of doing the
mayor's job for more than eight years, and as he's too young to retire
in seven years time, one has to assume he has other ambitions (beyond
some lucrative non-execs).

"Roland Perry" wrote in message

In message , at 13:51:50 on
Thu, 15 Jan 2009, Recliner remarked:
I doubt that the current St P has enough domestic platforms (on
either side) to be the London Terminus for the high speed link to
the north. Also, are they long enough?

Not enough of them, and they are approx 10 carriages long - is that
sufficient?

I would have thought new high speed trains would be longer than that
(even the Pendos will soon be 11 cars long).