The Evening Standard,
aka the London Daily Bozza, has
published a curious piece today. Under the by-line of “City Hall correspondent” Peter Dominiczak, it
is effectively calling for the creation of a new Thames estuary airport –
the “Boris Island” scheme. This, for
the Standard, is not new news. But it
is also backing the effective imposition of this scheme by diktat.
What you may or may not see
The piece looks at the recently constructed Hong Kong
airport, a project which had to go ahead given the constraints of the old
facility and its mildly hairy approach over the city – this included a right
turn almost immediately before landing – and that the new airport may soon be
expanded by constructing a third runway. This is contrasted with the timescales
affecting similar schemes in the UK.
But here a problem enters: the scale of the resources
required – not just the money, but also the inevitable enquiries and opposition
– cannot be met from private firms alone. Government must stand behind such a
scheme, especially if it is to be pushed through with any speed in the face of
what will inevitably be vociferous opposition. And that’s without sorting the SS Richard Montgomery.
Socialism? Gosh chaps, no way! Popularity? Cripes, er, difficult one!
So what does the Standard
suggest? Apparently, in Hong Kong, now an autonomous region, but a province of
the People’s Republic of China none the less, they just decide to do things,
and then go right ahead and do them. So presumably all those rotten
environmentalists and others opposed to dumping an airport in the Thames
estuary would be forced aside.
And all the while, no doubt, there would be a resolution of
the Richard Montgomery problem and the main project work, reclaiming the land
and building the airport, going on under the control of, well, a Government
department. That, after all, is how the Hong Kong scheme was built. And it is
how Paris-Charles de Gaulle airport (quoted in example) was conceived and
built, starting back in the mid 60s.
After all, no airport of any size in the UK has ever been
built without at least some public money being advanced: even London City was
granted a substantial sum by the London Development Agency. Heathrow was
developed by Government, as were Gatwick and Stansted. All other significant
airports in the UK were the result of local or national Government intervention
(notably via the RAF).
And if Boris Island is to go ahead, in the way that the Standard is suggesting, it too will need
significant Government intervention. So the London
Daily Bozza is effectively calling for the imposition of this project by
state socialist means, all of which is curiously apposite for a paper that is
owned by a Russian businessman. What career Tory Bozza will make of this is not
clear.
But if there’s any credit to be had, he’ll be there. Crikey readers!
1 comment:
Presumably the people of south Essex and north Kent have no rights against the will of the London Mayor, associated vested interests from London and doubtless the boss class who wish to fly anywhere and everywhere?
Post a Comment