New Thames Airport for London
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
for we are now bankrupt
Yes, except that it is too small; it cannot expand; none of the inter-city or inter-European trains go there; and it is disastrously arranged so that all aircraft fly over the capital.
blue collar workers, who were too thick to understand
Your silence incidentaly on my question of whether you had so much as set foot in Berkshire suggests that for all your words, you don't know the area you speak of?
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 25th Jun 2012 at 20:01.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Jabird:
Either you want the wonderful free markets which will deliver you the £50bn investment you will need for your new airport, and all the trade that comes with it.
That is not 'inward investment', that is 'selling the family silver'.
Jabird:
Either you want the wonderful free markets which will deliver you the £50bn investment you will need for your new airport, and all the trade that comes with it.
That is not 'inward investment', that is 'selling the family silver'.
And I don't make any claims to be an economist, but I think we all understand that one, apart from you.
So I ask you again, which is it - the capitalism which will build you an airport or the communism which will give it the protectionism it would need?
And whilst I'm at it (as I still haven't heard back from you on this) - what would the typical PSC be in this new airport - (a) with LHR still open and (b) with LHR closed?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "Our politicians need to be told loud and clear that they haven't got a f*@ing clue about aviation, nor the service it provides for both London in particular and the nation in general. Expanding Stanstead will have naff-all effect on LHR's overcrowding, and naff-all effect on improving UK trade or the UK economy.
Unless they were proposing to build 6 new runways and three new terminals at Stanstead, of course, plus closing LHR. But I don't think that is what they had in mind."
Wouldn't put in the same way, but essentially, this is spot on!
Quote: “Not quite. The premium is due to being close to the airport, the blight is being under the flightpath.”
The blight is near the thresholds of the rwys, at places like Poyle and Cranford, and even those properties are not cheap! Any one living under the wider flight path will tell you, if they’re being honest, that the noise is not nearly as bad as the protest groups would have us believe, and certainly not in Putney and Clapham for heaven‘s sake! The noisy jets of the 1960s are long gone, and those that aren‘t are banned from all European airspace.
Quote: “You failed to see my point. Yes, New Labour became the daaarrrling of the hopelessly out of touch chattering classes, who needed a pet-political party to implement their dreamland policies, but it was not the chattering classes who kept Blair and co in power.”
What kept Labour in power for 13 years was a useless Conservative opposition with unelectable policies and unelectable leaders. Call it the credibility gap if you like. Exactly the same situation in reverse kept Labour out of power for 18 years.
It could said that those oppositions at those times badly let the electorate down, ironically leaving the House of Lords to be the guardian of democracy.
Quote: “The 'liberal intelligentsia' ** represent 0.005% of the voting public. Thus New Labour was kept in power by blue collar workers, who were too thick to understand that Blair was selling them down the river by flooding the country with cheap workers who would undercut every working man in the nation”
No, it was/is pressure from big business as unskilled immigration drives wages down. The present government faces the same pressures and takes the same actions. It‘s exactly the same all over Europe and North America.
Unless they were proposing to build 6 new runways and three new terminals at Stanstead, of course, plus closing LHR. But I don't think that is what they had in mind."
Wouldn't put in the same way, but essentially, this is spot on!
Quote: “Not quite. The premium is due to being close to the airport, the blight is being under the flightpath.”
The blight is near the thresholds of the rwys, at places like Poyle and Cranford, and even those properties are not cheap! Any one living under the wider flight path will tell you, if they’re being honest, that the noise is not nearly as bad as the protest groups would have us believe, and certainly not in Putney and Clapham for heaven‘s sake! The noisy jets of the 1960s are long gone, and those that aren‘t are banned from all European airspace.
Quote: “You failed to see my point. Yes, New Labour became the daaarrrling of the hopelessly out of touch chattering classes, who needed a pet-political party to implement their dreamland policies, but it was not the chattering classes who kept Blair and co in power.”
What kept Labour in power for 13 years was a useless Conservative opposition with unelectable policies and unelectable leaders. Call it the credibility gap if you like. Exactly the same situation in reverse kept Labour out of power for 18 years.
It could said that those oppositions at those times badly let the electorate down, ironically leaving the House of Lords to be the guardian of democracy.
Quote: “The 'liberal intelligentsia' ** represent 0.005% of the voting public. Thus New Labour was kept in power by blue collar workers, who were too thick to understand that Blair was selling them down the river by flooding the country with cheap workers who would undercut every working man in the nation”
No, it was/is pressure from big business as unskilled immigration drives wages down. The present government faces the same pressures and takes the same actions. It‘s exactly the same all over Europe and North America.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 25th Jun 2012 at 20:21.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabird:
You cannot sell what you do not have, nor can you just print money to buy assets with a future value as the money with which you are trying to buy them will have no value!
You cannot sell what you do not have, nor can you just print money to buy assets with a future value as the money with which you are trying to buy them will have no value!
'tis true, you are not an economist.
If you expand an economy with imaginary money (£300 bn worth), you will keep people working for the next five years as they absorb that extra income.
If you spend that money on the parasitic elements of society (civil service wages, tax cuts, social security, health expenditure etc: ), then that money will simply add to the balance of trade deficit, devalue the currency, and result in hyper inflation.
But if you spend that money on new industries that produce something (especially for export), and new infrastructure that makes the economy more efficient, you will pay back that investment in the coming years.
Think of this in terms of domestic finances. It is the difference between borrowing money for a holiday - and borrowing money for a new printing-press for your small publishing company. See the difference? Imaginary money can produce real wealth, if you use it wisely.
How do you think we got ourselves out of the Great Depression? It was not by sticking to the Gold Standard, that's for sure.
Frank:
No, it was/is pressure from big business as unskilled immigration drives wages down. The present government faces the same pressures and takes the same actions. It‘s exactly the same all over Europe and North America.
No, it was/is pressure from big business as unskilled immigration drives wages down. The present government faces the same pressures and takes the same actions. It‘s exactly the same all over Europe and North America.
I disagree. Politicians can easily resist big business.
The pressure came from the BBC and the Grauniad, who branded anyone who championed the rights of our domestic workers as racists and bigots. It was a very effective media campaign, by a pressure group funded from our enforced taxes, and it reflected and promoted the dream-world of the liberal 'intelligentsia' rather than the hopes, dreams and livelihoods of our domestic workers.
But the liberal Labour intelligentsia have always despised and spat upon the uncouth and unwashed working classes, and the working classes were too thick to understand that their new political masters (New Labour, as opposed to Old Labour) despised them.
.
Last edited by silverstrata; 26th Jun 2012 at 18:48.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you spend that money on the parasitic elements of society (civil service wages, tax cuts, social security, health expenditure etc: ), then that money will simply add to the balance of trade deficit, devalue the currency, and result in hyper inflation.
Besides -
Civil servants - needed to keep government working, although we could do with less of them.
Tax cuts - can certainly stimulate the economy, do you mean tax dodgers?
Social security - a welfare net is needed to help people back up, there is some fat here, but it is much harder to identify and cut out than you claim.
Health - well we need a health system, otherwise we die and we can't produce anything from 6 feet under. Focus needs to be on prevention not late cures, but that means more civil servants and nannying, you can't win on this one!
the working classes were too thick to understand that their new political masters
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabird:
Civil servants - needed to keep government working, although we could do with less of them.
Tax cuts - can certainly stimulate the economy, do you mean tax dodgers?
Social security - a welfare net is needed to help people back up, there is some fat here, but it is much harder to identify and cut out than you claim.
Health - well we need a health system, otherwise we die and we can't produce anything from 6 feet under. Focus needs to be on prevention not late cures, but that means more civil servants and nannying, you can't win on this one!
Civil servants - needed to keep government working, although we could do with less of them.
Tax cuts - can certainly stimulate the economy, do you mean tax dodgers?
Social security - a welfare net is needed to help people back up, there is some fat here, but it is much harder to identify and cut out than you claim.
Health - well we need a health system, otherwise we die and we can't produce anything from 6 feet under. Focus needs to be on prevention not late cures, but that means more civil servants and nannying, you can't win on this one!
Civil servants are generally parasitic. They produce nothing that we can consume, sell or that keeps us alive or keeps us happy. Civil servants are alike bankers. A small number of bankers lubricates the economy, while a large number of very wealthy bankers (or civil servants) are like a tumor growing on the back of UK PLC.
Tax cuts merely stimulate more imports from China, which makes the Chinese richer and us poorer. Until we start producing something from factories (remember those?), tax cuts actually hurt our economy.
Social security simply makes people lazy. The Poles are hard workers because they do not have a safety-net, whereas we have entire cities that live on the government teat and do naff-all for the country.
Health care. Sad to say, but very little of our health service is about patching up productive workers and sending them back to work. Most of it is employed in treating the permanently sick (unemployed scroungers who get more money by playing sick) or the retired. It might sound heartless to reduce health expenditure, but a country can only treat what it can afford - go to a third world country, and see what their health systems are like. A failing economy naturally means a reduction in health expenditure.
Jabird:
Sure, anyone who is working class is automatically thick!
Sure, anyone who is working class is automatically thick!
No. only the ones who cut their own wages and made themselves unemployed, by repeatedly voting for New Labour.
.
Paxing All Over The World
Well, this last set of exchanges saves me the trouble of returning to this thread. We started out being able to discuss the idea of a new airport without screaming at each other. Please go and be petty elsewhere. Sheesh.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think these recent posts almost redefine the concept of "thread creep" but all very fascinating nonetheless.
As has been discussed before, it seems that politicians in this country have a complete inability to put short term political considerations aside and focus - and agree - on long term strategic projects whether they be new nuclear power stations or airports. Consequently, every five years or so, policies and programmes are abandoned, delayed, changed. Other countries e.g. France seem to be able to put political differences aside when nationally important issues are at stake and agree on long term national priorities. Also, countries such as France would never countenance selling off the "family silver" to foreign companies which are frequently controlled by foreign governments. Successive UK governments have claimed that this is just the free market operating but foreigners must be utterly slack jawed in amazement that we would let flagship company after flagship company be sold to offshore buyers, not to mention critical parts of our infrastructure. Almost more important than the lost profits is the gradual seepage away of intellectual property and know-how and the dearth of inspirational national champions with which to attract new young blood into e.g. aircraft engineering.
Our politicians just slope their shoulders and say that capitalism means no state interference and it doesn't matter where the IP and technology reside. But they are pretty much the only politicians who do think that way - look how France, Germany, Italy and others support their core technology and engineering industries and would never ever countenance them being foreign controlled - while we just flog them ours.
We once had world-leading aircraft manufacturing, nuclear technology and electronic companies but, in association with bad management on more than one occasion, short term political considerations and deliberate neglect have resulted in the disappearance of many of them. And, to get back on-thread, it is exactly the same attitude by craven, self-interested politicians which has got us into a position where the world's leading financial centre can no longer be connected to emerging world economies because these spineless wastrels have ensured that no new runway has been built in southern england for sixty years and, the way things seem tio be going, may not be built for another 60 years!
Ah - feel better for getting that of my chest!
As has been discussed before, it seems that politicians in this country have a complete inability to put short term political considerations aside and focus - and agree - on long term strategic projects whether they be new nuclear power stations or airports. Consequently, every five years or so, policies and programmes are abandoned, delayed, changed. Other countries e.g. France seem to be able to put political differences aside when nationally important issues are at stake and agree on long term national priorities. Also, countries such as France would never countenance selling off the "family silver" to foreign companies which are frequently controlled by foreign governments. Successive UK governments have claimed that this is just the free market operating but foreigners must be utterly slack jawed in amazement that we would let flagship company after flagship company be sold to offshore buyers, not to mention critical parts of our infrastructure. Almost more important than the lost profits is the gradual seepage away of intellectual property and know-how and the dearth of inspirational national champions with which to attract new young blood into e.g. aircraft engineering.
Our politicians just slope their shoulders and say that capitalism means no state interference and it doesn't matter where the IP and technology reside. But they are pretty much the only politicians who do think that way - look how France, Germany, Italy and others support their core technology and engineering industries and would never ever countenance them being foreign controlled - while we just flog them ours.
We once had world-leading aircraft manufacturing, nuclear technology and electronic companies but, in association with bad management on more than one occasion, short term political considerations and deliberate neglect have resulted in the disappearance of many of them. And, to get back on-thread, it is exactly the same attitude by craven, self-interested politicians which has got us into a position where the world's leading financial centre can no longer be connected to emerging world economies because these spineless wastrels have ensured that no new runway has been built in southern england for sixty years and, the way things seem tio be going, may not be built for another 60 years!
Ah - feel better for getting that of my chest!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Torqy:
As has been discussed before, it seems that politicians in this country have a complete inability to put short term political considerations aside and focus - and agree - on long term strategic projects whether they be new nuclear power stations or airports. Consequently, every five years or so, policies and programmes are abandoned, delayed, changed. Other countries e.g. France seem to be able to put political differences aside when nationally important issues are at stake and agree on long term national priorities. Also, countries such as France would never countenance selling off the "family silver" to foreign companies which are frequently controlled by foreign governments. Successive UK governments have claimed that this is just the free market operating but foreigners must be utterly slack jawed in amazement that we would let flagship company after flagship company be sold to offshore buyers, not to mention critical parts of our infrastructure. Almost more important than the lost profits is the gradual seepage away of intellectual property and know-how and the dearth of inspirational national champions with which to attract new young blood into e.g. aircraft engineering.
As has been discussed before, it seems that politicians in this country have a complete inability to put short term political considerations aside and focus - and agree - on long term strategic projects whether they be new nuclear power stations or airports. Consequently, every five years or so, policies and programmes are abandoned, delayed, changed. Other countries e.g. France seem to be able to put political differences aside when nationally important issues are at stake and agree on long term national priorities. Also, countries such as France would never countenance selling off the "family silver" to foreign companies which are frequently controlled by foreign governments. Successive UK governments have claimed that this is just the free market operating but foreigners must be utterly slack jawed in amazement that we would let flagship company after flagship company be sold to offshore buyers, not to mention critical parts of our infrastructure. Almost more important than the lost profits is the gradual seepage away of intellectual property and know-how and the dearth of inspirational national champions with which to attract new young blood into e.g. aircraft engineering.
Agreed, agreed, agreed. You are not a sock-puppet for Silverstrata, are you? ;-)
It is also worth mentioning that the three terms of New Labour in the naughties had nothing to do with the betterment of the UK - it was all about social engineering for a certain political ideology. So Blair and co did not give a stuff about what happened to the UK, as long as they could change our society and extinguish any thoughts of pride or patriotism.
So you are 100% correct, Torqy, and this is why we have ended up with no high speed rail network, no new nuclear power stations, precious little new housing (despite another 5 million people), no new roads, no new ports, no new industries - and no new airports.
Thus LHR has stagnated into the dire position it is in now, because of all of the reasons given above. This is why we need to make a break with past fudging and kicking the problem down the road a bit - and we need to build an entirely new piece of world-class infrastructure.
If we don't we are completely lost as a nation. We are half lost already, and if you think the economy is dire now, then just wait until all the international banks in London jump-ship to Amsterdam, because London has become so difficult to get to.
.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "I think these recent posts almost redefine the concept of "thread creep" but all very fascinating nonetheless.
As has been discussed before, it seems that politicians in this country have a complete inability to put short term political considerations aside and focus - and agree - on long term strategic projects whether they be new nuclear power stations or airports. Consequently, every five years or so, policies and programmes are abandoned, delayed, changed. Other countries e.g. France seem to be able to put political differences aside when nationally important issues are at stake and agree on long term national priorities. Also, countries such as France would never countenance selling off the "family silver" to foreign companies which are frequently controlled by foreign governments. Successive UK governments have claimed that this is just the free market operating but foreigners must be utterly slack jawed in amazement that we would let flagship company after flagship company be sold to offshore buyers, not to mention critical parts of our infrastructure. Almost more important than the lost profits is the gradual seepage away of intellectual property and know-how and the dearth of inspirational national champions with which to attract new young blood into e.g. aircraft engineering.
Our politicians just slope their shoulders and say that capitalism means no state interference and it doesn't matter where the IP and technology reside. But they are pretty much the only politicians who do think that way - look how France, Germany, Italy and others support their core technology and engineering industries and would never ever countenance them being foreign controlled - while we just flog them ours.
We once had world-leading aircraft manufacturing, nuclear technology and electronic companies but, in association with bad management on more than one occasion, short term political considerations and deliberate neglect have resulted in the disappearance of many of them. And, to get back on-thread, it is exactly the same attitude by craven, self-interested politicians which has got us into a position where the world's leading financial centre can no longer be connected to emerging world economies because these spineless wastrels have ensured that no new runway has been built in southern england for sixty years and, the way things seem tio be going, may not be built for another 60 years!"
Interesting analysis, it illustrates well the Thatcherite chickens are still coming home to roost. Regretably, there is no indication that the "neo-con" Thatcher-Blair hegemony is over.
Quote: "Thus LHR has stagnated into the dire position it is in now, because of all of the reasons given above."
This is true, but it is not the entire story. It has to be said that the "stagnation" of Heathrow, if that it what it is, started before 1979.
In the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s, governments were obsessed with building up Gatwick as a hub for a private longhaul airline, (BUA, Bcal, Laker and Virgin), whilst state-owned BEA and BOAC hubbed at Heathrow.
This "second force" policy was a disaster, as the Gatwick-based carriers all failed except for Virgin. Virgin survived because it was able to shift its hub to Heathrow when this policy collapsed. Back then Heathrow developped a need for a third parallel rwy. Was it forthcoming, was it hell!
Quote: "we need to build an entirely new piece of world-class infrastructure."
Maybe, but not in the Thames estuary. In the intervening fifty years the "new piece of world-class infrastructure" would have to be at Heathrow.
Quote: "then just wait until all the international banks in London jump-ship to Amsterdam, because London has become so difficult to get to."
Frankfurt and Paris would be ahead of Amsterdam, but it won't happen. They wouldn't want to put up with EU regulations and the "banking union", "fiscal union" and "federal superstate" (more Europe) that the Brussels bureaucrats and some heads of government have planned for the "eurozone". Markets and financial industries like stability, there's none in the "eurozone" at present!
As has been discussed before, it seems that politicians in this country have a complete inability to put short term political considerations aside and focus - and agree - on long term strategic projects whether they be new nuclear power stations or airports. Consequently, every five years or so, policies and programmes are abandoned, delayed, changed. Other countries e.g. France seem to be able to put political differences aside when nationally important issues are at stake and agree on long term national priorities. Also, countries such as France would never countenance selling off the "family silver" to foreign companies which are frequently controlled by foreign governments. Successive UK governments have claimed that this is just the free market operating but foreigners must be utterly slack jawed in amazement that we would let flagship company after flagship company be sold to offshore buyers, not to mention critical parts of our infrastructure. Almost more important than the lost profits is the gradual seepage away of intellectual property and know-how and the dearth of inspirational national champions with which to attract new young blood into e.g. aircraft engineering.
Our politicians just slope their shoulders and say that capitalism means no state interference and it doesn't matter where the IP and technology reside. But they are pretty much the only politicians who do think that way - look how France, Germany, Italy and others support their core technology and engineering industries and would never ever countenance them being foreign controlled - while we just flog them ours.
We once had world-leading aircraft manufacturing, nuclear technology and electronic companies but, in association with bad management on more than one occasion, short term political considerations and deliberate neglect have resulted in the disappearance of many of them. And, to get back on-thread, it is exactly the same attitude by craven, self-interested politicians which has got us into a position where the world's leading financial centre can no longer be connected to emerging world economies because these spineless wastrels have ensured that no new runway has been built in southern england for sixty years and, the way things seem tio be going, may not be built for another 60 years!"
Interesting analysis, it illustrates well the Thatcherite chickens are still coming home to roost. Regretably, there is no indication that the "neo-con" Thatcher-Blair hegemony is over.
Quote: "Thus LHR has stagnated into the dire position it is in now, because of all of the reasons given above."
This is true, but it is not the entire story. It has to be said that the "stagnation" of Heathrow, if that it what it is, started before 1979.
In the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s, governments were obsessed with building up Gatwick as a hub for a private longhaul airline, (BUA, Bcal, Laker and Virgin), whilst state-owned BEA and BOAC hubbed at Heathrow.
This "second force" policy was a disaster, as the Gatwick-based carriers all failed except for Virgin. Virgin survived because it was able to shift its hub to Heathrow when this policy collapsed. Back then Heathrow developped a need for a third parallel rwy. Was it forthcoming, was it hell!
Quote: "we need to build an entirely new piece of world-class infrastructure."
Maybe, but not in the Thames estuary. In the intervening fifty years the "new piece of world-class infrastructure" would have to be at Heathrow.
Quote: "then just wait until all the international banks in London jump-ship to Amsterdam, because London has become so difficult to get to."
Frankfurt and Paris would be ahead of Amsterdam, but it won't happen. They wouldn't want to put up with EU regulations and the "banking union", "fiscal union" and "federal superstate" (more Europe) that the Brussels bureaucrats and some heads of government have planned for the "eurozone". Markets and financial industries like stability, there's none in the "eurozone" at present!
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 28th Jun 2012 at 21:38.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank:
In the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s, governments were obsessed with building up Gatwick as a hub for a private longhaul airline,
In the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s, governments were obsessed with building up Gatwick as a hub for a private longhaul airline,
No.
In the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s, governments were obsessed with not making any big strategic decisions that may effect their popularity at the next election. Thus successive governments have tinkered with transport policy, instead of grasping the bull (and the unions) by the horns.
Thats why we ended up with no high speed rail network.
That's why we ended up with no planned, clean-sheet airports.
Thats why we ended with no world-class London airport.
Thats why we ended up with our largest sea-port on a lonely stretch of coastline with no road or rail links. (and all the formerly big ports idle or closed).
The whole half century has been a complete shambles, because nobody in government had any vision, and nobody had any balls.
Frank:
Interesting analysis, it illustrates well the Thatcherite chickens are still coming home to roost. Regretably, there is no indication that the "neo-con" Thatcher-Blair hegemony is over.
Interesting analysis, it illustrates well the Thatcherite chickens are still coming home to roost. Regretably, there is no indication that the "neo-con" Thatcher-Blair hegemony is over.
Thatcher's chickens??? !! You mean Labour's chickens.
It was the Labour administrations that allowed the unions to get the whip hand in industry, and it was the unions who destroyed our manufacturing industry by their short-sighted wage claims (and to hell with the company) - long before Thatcher came to power.
It was Thatcher who put a halt to that, and put the country back on an even keel, where managers could once again manage. Her biggest failing was not doing more for the already ailing manufacturing sector, but by then the creed of world trade and open borders had taken root, and the result was further decimation of our industry.
Then we had Blair, and Blair did not give a stuff about the country. All he wanted was racial equality and multiculturalism, and the economy and industry could take a running jump as far as he was concerned. Indeed, the faster we came down to the level of Ethiopia, the faster he would achieve his racial equality goals (everyone to the lowest common denominator).
Never mind Charles I or James II, the biggest governmental traitor Britain has ever had was Blair. Absolutely nothing was done for the nation, in a full 12 years.
.
Last edited by silverstrata; 29th Jun 2012 at 21:37.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silver,
I was no fan of Blair either (and yes, got to confront him too), but it is just silly to say that all he cared about was being PC - he left that to Harriet Harperson!
A thread about infrastructure has to dip into politics, but it is completely ridiculous to say you should cut back on other government spending to build a new airport, which (a) could easily be billions of pounds over budget if publicly funded, and (b) could also still suck money out of the economy if it enables more flights to be taken to holiday destinations.
Now there are probably some figures out there that say that LHR & LCY provide a net gain to the economy through enabling trade and exporting specialised knowledge based services, but I doubt that could be said of any other airport.
So think again about what you would want achieved with this new airport.
a) Who would pay for it?
b) How would you ensure that it did indeed focus on the kind of flights that helped the economy, and that it didn't just add extra general capacity by taking the pressure off LGW, STN etc?
I note that point (b) is actually very difficult to do, unless you were to develop a routes committee which decided which destinations should and shouldn't be served. Silly of course, but without that, you have little evidence that your sinking sands airport could generate any kind of ROI for the nation as a whole, let alone its shareholders, whether institutional, private or government.
I was no fan of Blair either (and yes, got to confront him too), but it is just silly to say that all he cared about was being PC - he left that to Harriet Harperson!
A thread about infrastructure has to dip into politics, but it is completely ridiculous to say you should cut back on other government spending to build a new airport, which (a) could easily be billions of pounds over budget if publicly funded, and (b) could also still suck money out of the economy if it enables more flights to be taken to holiday destinations.
Now there are probably some figures out there that say that LHR & LCY provide a net gain to the economy through enabling trade and exporting specialised knowledge based services, but I doubt that could be said of any other airport.
So think again about what you would want achieved with this new airport.
a) Who would pay for it?
b) How would you ensure that it did indeed focus on the kind of flights that helped the economy, and that it didn't just add extra general capacity by taking the pressure off LGW, STN etc?
I note that point (b) is actually very difficult to do, unless you were to develop a routes committee which decided which destinations should and shouldn't be served. Silly of course, but without that, you have little evidence that your sinking sands airport could generate any kind of ROI for the nation as a whole, let alone its shareholders, whether institutional, private or government.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: W
Age: 42
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silver Strata
You're right wing extremism is bordering on repugnant. This is a thread about the merits (or otherwise) of a new airport in the Thames estuary. You're obsession with Labour bashing or pro Thatcherism is taking things way of course. Wind it in.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: “No.
In the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s, governments were obsessed with not making any big strategic decisions that may effect their popularity at the next election. Thus successive governments have tinkered with transport policy, instead of grasping the bull (and the unions) by the horns.”
Silverstrata, my original comments about the second “force policy” were correct and accurate. It may have been the only aviation policy in fifty years, but a policy nonetheless. In the present era of privately owned airports and carriers and of degregulation and open-skies it cannot be reinstated, so forget about dual hubs and “Heathwick“.
It is also risible to suggest that strategic decisions concerning aviation affect general election results. It’s a highly technical issue and often fairly localised. Most voters aren’t necessarily across the fact that it can be of huge national importance, and probably don‘t care either way.
Quote: “Thats why we ended up with no high speed rail network.
That's why we ended up with no planned, clean-sheet airports.
Thats why we ended with no world-class London airport.
Thats why we ended up with our largest sea-port on a lonely stretch of coastline with no road or rail links. (and all the formerly big ports idle or closed).”
No, planning law has a large part to play in this, but it's not the only story. It also has much to do with governmental “neocon” obsessions of with the private sector and letting the market decide. Why do you think our airports are mostly privately owned (unusual), and the railways franchised out like ITV used to be? You only have to look at the USA, where “neocon” ideas originated, to see a crumbling infrastructure.
Quote: “The whole half century has been a complete shambles, because nobody in government had any vision, and nobody had any balls.”
Difficult to argue with this one!
Quote: “Thatcher's chickens??? !! You mean Labour's chickens.”
Same thing these days!
Quote: “It was Thatcher who put a halt to that, and put the country back on an even keel, where managers could once again manage. Her biggest failing was not doing more for the already ailing manufacturing sector, but by then the creed of world trade and open borders had taken root, and the result was further decimation of our industry.”
Hindsight tells us that these comments reveal a very selective memory. Who sold off airports and airlines? You can argue the merits or otherwise, but it can't be difficult to see that with this policy, the government loses direct control over the sector.
Quote: “Then we had Blair, and Blair did not give a stuff about the country. All he wanted was racial equality and multiculturalism, and the economy and industry could take a running jump as far as he was concerned. Indeed, the faster we came down to
the level of Ethiopia, the faster he would achieve his racial equality goals (everyone to the lowest common denominator).”
But most of all, Blair wanted wars. Could it be because he was the first prime minister not to have participated in a war? Maybe he was also the first not to have had to do compulsory military service(?).
Quote: “So think again about what you would want achieved with this new airport.
a) Who would pay for it?”
The eternal question that Silver won’t (can’t?) answer.
Quote: “b) How would you ensure that it did indeed focus on the kind of flights that helped the economy, and that it didn't just add extra general capacity by taking the pressure off LGW, STN etc?
I note that point (b) is actually very difficult to do, unless you were to develop a routes committee which decided which destinations should and shouldn't be served. Silly of course, but without that, you have little evidence that your sinking sands airport could generate any kind of ROI for the nation as a whole, let alone its shareholders, whether institutional, private or government.”
This one is easy to answer: it cannot be done, airports are private sector, and don't forget the EU's potential to interfere!
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 30th Jun 2012 at 22:58. Reason: clarity
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabird:
A thread about infrastructure has to dip into politics, but it is completely ridiculous to say you should cut back on other government spending to build a new airport
A thread about infrastructure has to dip into politics, but it is completely ridiculous to say you should cut back on other government spending to build a new airport
Thats not what I said. I said we should use the latest £300 billion of 'quantitive easing' to fund transport infrastructure, instead of wasting that money on the parasitic banking sector.
And direct infrastructure projects would lubricate and expand the UK economy more than any bank lending will, as that money would go directly into primary businesses, wages and jobs; which would then trickle down into secondary businesses, wages and jobs.
PhilW:
You're right wing extremism is bordering on repugnant. You're obsession with Labour bashing or pro Thatcherism is taking things way of course. Wind it in.
You're right wing extremism is bordering on repugnant. You're obsession with Labour bashing or pro Thatcherism is taking things way of course. Wind it in.
What you mean is that you have been fed such a diet of liberal fantasy propaganda over the last 15 years, that you have forgotten what a realistic and rational viewpoint is. And if you read my posts more carefully I also bash Thatcher, where bashing is due - like her open-borders trade policy, when it was obvious that our workers could not compete with the Far East on price.
BTW - I presume you are also a product of our wonderful new liberal comprehensive education as well as its propaganda - its 'your' and not 'you're'. The latter is not a possessive determiner, it is a contraction of 'you are'. That is when the rot set in: when our grammar education system was destroyed.
Frank:
These comments reveal a very selective memory. Who sold off airports and airlines? You can argue the merits or otherwise, but it can't be difficult to see that with this policy, the government loses direct control over the sector.
These comments reveal a very selective memory. Who sold off airports and airlines? You can argue the merits or otherwise, but it can't be difficult to see that with this policy, the government loses direct control over the sector.
The government still retains the whip-hand on policy. Whether a new train line is privately or publicly owned, the government can still determine where it goes - by deed of law.
Ditto for the aviation sector. The government can strongly indicate where it wants a new airport to be built, and by economic or legal carrots and sticks, get its policy acted upon.
.
As an aside, there was an interesting article in the latest Log Magazine, which said that we needed to be really bold in aviation, we need to invoke the spirit of Isambard Kingdom Brunel - and build a third runway at LHR. Sorry, but Brunel would not have been seen dead overseeing the plans of a third runway - he would have been down in East London designing the Silver-Boris airport.
.
Last edited by silverstrata; 3rd Jul 2012 at 19:11.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, but Brunel would not have been seen dead overseeing the plans of a third runway - he would have been down in East London designing the Silver-Boris airport.
Now when I am dissing IKB just to disagree with Silver, we know this thread really is well past its sell by date
And Silver giving US grammar lessons. Come on!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabird:
Now when I am dissing IKB just to disagree with Silver, we know this thread really is well past its sell by date. And Silver giving US grammar lessons. Come on!
Now when I am dissing IKB just to disagree with Silver, we know this thread really is well past its sell by date. And Silver giving US grammar lessons. Come on!
No, we know the thread is past its sell-by date when you use the term 'dissing', and then comment on grammar in the same posting.
Now that really has to be the end-game.
.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "The government still retains the whip-hand on policy. Whether a new train line is privately or publicly owned, the government can still determine where it goes - by deed of law.
Ditto for the aviation sector. The government can strongly indicate where it wants a new airport to be built, and by economic or legal carrots and sticks, get its policy acted upon."
Examples needed please, silverstrata, can only think of one new airport recently opened, Sheffield (now closed). AFAIK, there was no government involvement whatsoever in this enterprise.
Quote: "BTW - I presume you are also a product of our wonderful new liberal comprehensive education as well as its propaganda - its 'your' and not 'you're'. The latter is not a possessive determiner, it is a contraction of 'you are'. That is when the rot set in: when our grammar education system was destroyed."
"...our wonderful new liberal comprehensive education.." is not that new, silverstrata, your hero, Margaret Thatcher, killed off most of the
grammar schools in the early 1970s when education secretary in Edward "Grocer" Heath's government. Her successor, Shirley Williams, finished off the job.
Funny enough there was a percieved problem with secondary modern schools, so they closed the grammar schools. Strange politicians' logic but there we are.
Quote: "As an aside, there was an interesting article in the latest Log Magazine, which said that we needed to be really bold in aviation, we need to invoke the spirit of Isambard Kingdom Brunel - and build a third runway at LHR."
Quite right, let's have some forsight, build the fourth as well, do it now.
Quote: "Sorry, but Brunel would not have been seen dead overseeing the plans of a third runway - he would have been down in East London designing the Silver-Boris airport."
You know this how? Surely he'd have found a site somewhere in the LHR area, in his old stamping ground, with links to his railway!
Quote: "And Silver giving US grammar lessons. Come on"
Would like just one lesson from Silver: how the estuary airport is going to be finanaced.
Ditto for the aviation sector. The government can strongly indicate where it wants a new airport to be built, and by economic or legal carrots and sticks, get its policy acted upon."
Examples needed please, silverstrata, can only think of one new airport recently opened, Sheffield (now closed). AFAIK, there was no government involvement whatsoever in this enterprise.
Quote: "BTW - I presume you are also a product of our wonderful new liberal comprehensive education as well as its propaganda - its 'your' and not 'you're'. The latter is not a possessive determiner, it is a contraction of 'you are'. That is when the rot set in: when our grammar education system was destroyed."
"...our wonderful new liberal comprehensive education.." is not that new, silverstrata, your hero, Margaret Thatcher, killed off most of the
grammar schools in the early 1970s when education secretary in Edward "Grocer" Heath's government. Her successor, Shirley Williams, finished off the job.
Funny enough there was a percieved problem with secondary modern schools, so they closed the grammar schools. Strange politicians' logic but there we are.
Quote: "As an aside, there was an interesting article in the latest Log Magazine, which said that we needed to be really bold in aviation, we need to invoke the spirit of Isambard Kingdom Brunel - and build a third runway at LHR."
Quite right, let's have some forsight, build the fourth as well, do it now.
Quote: "Sorry, but Brunel would not have been seen dead overseeing the plans of a third runway - he would have been down in East London designing the Silver-Boris airport."
You know this how? Surely he'd have found a site somewhere in the LHR area, in his old stamping ground, with links to his railway!
Quote: "And Silver giving US grammar lessons. Come on"
Would like just one lesson from Silver: how the estuary airport is going to be finanaced.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 5th Jul 2012 at 21:54. Reason: accuracy
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, we know the thread is past its sell-by date when you use the term 'dissing', and then comment on grammar in the same posting.
dissing - present participle of dis
Verb:
Act or speak in a disrespectful way toward.
Verb:
Act or speak in a disrespectful way toward.
Foster on the other hand is actually accomplished across at least as many disciplines - from architecture outright (Stansted), to bridge building (Millau) to yacht and bus design to Metro system and even graphic design (Bilbao).
It is Foster who we should be challenging here, because apart from one or two mistakes (mainly London's Millennium Bridge), he has delivered workable projects, generally on time and on budget (Wembley was a multi-party screw up!).
Why is he getting embroiled in such a clearly flawed project? At least Silver has rightly pointed out that the site as proposed is going to cause no-end of problems as it is almost as physically constrained as LHR, and it will be impossible to add any further runways to the north without doing a Valencia style diversion of the Thames.
But if we are going to keep up with the playground antics, I can only echo FDF's request for Silver to give us the maths lesson!
a) How do you pay for the new airport and
b) How much do the airlines pay (per pax) to use it?
Without a business plan, there is no plan, might aswell just roll out lines in the sand pit.