My inside source (golf partner) is telling me that the Tories are
deliberately hiding their light under a bushel over Heathrow
expansion, at the moment, purely so they can play the politics of all
those marginal constituencies, nearby, to the maximum effect.

Certainly their opposition is hardly typical for them.

However, all is not lost because Boris is actually out there playing
devils advocate and temperature taker on behalf of the party, rather
than as reported just being a loose cannon, with his Thames estuary
proposal.

The Thames estuary proposal has been knocking about for years and
would certainly be a, once and for all, best solution to Heathrow’s
problems.

Here’s how my source expects it to play. The Tories plan to come out
nearer, or during, the election campaign with the following proposal.

First they promise to cancel all those New Labour new towns in the
sticks (big vote winner), for which the transport infrastructure does
not exist, secondly they propose closure of Heathrow and selling of
the land for housing (mega vote winner), for which the transport
infrastructure already exists, thirdly they use the money so raised to
pay towards a brand new airport in the Thames estuary with a rail
link.

Watch this space.

In message <6696da5e-01ed-4327-a2de-5681f7649bd5
ups.com>
thunderbird57303 wrote:

> My inside source (golf partner) is telling me that the Tories are
> deliberately hiding their light under a bushel over Heathrow
> expansion, at the moment, purely so they can play the politics of all
> those marginal constituencies, nearby, to the maximum effect.

> Certainly their opposition is hardly typical for them.

> However, all is not lost because Boris is actually out there playing
> devils advocate and temperature taker on behalf of the party, rather
> than as reported just being a loose cannon, with his Thames estuary
> proposal.

> The Thames estuary proposal has been knocking about for years and
> would certainly be a, once and for all, best solution to Heathrow’s
> problems.

> Here’s how my source expects it to play. The Tories plan to come out
> nearer, or during, the election campaign with the following proposal.

> First they promise to cancel all those New Labour new towns in the
> sticks (big vote winner), for which the transport infrastructure does
> not exist, secondly they propose closure of Heathrow and selling of
> the land for housing (mega vote winner), for which the transport
> infrastructure already exists, thirdly they use the money so raised to
> pay towards a brand new airport in the Thames estuary with a rail
> link.

> Watch this space.

I like it!

Michael Bell


--

On Jan 16, 11:54 am, thunderbird57...@hotmail.com wrote:
[..]
>
> First they promise to cancel all those New Labour new towns in the
> sticks (big vote winner), for which the transport infrastructure does
> not exist, secondly they propose closure of Heathrow and selling of
> the land for housing (mega vote winner), for which the transport
> infrastructure already exists, thirdly they use the money so raised to
> pay towards a brand new airport in the Thames estuary with a rail
> link.
>
> Watch this space.

OK, I'll be watching on April 1.

thunderbird57303 wrote:
>My inside source (golf partner) is telling me that the Tories are
>deliberately hiding their light under a bushel over Heathrow
>expansion, at the moment, purely so they can play the politics of all
>those marginal constituencies, nearby, to the maximum effect.
>
>Certainly their opposition is hardly typical for them.


On the contrary, it is entirely consistent with their stated opposition
to building a second runway at Stansted, and their stated opposition to
building a second runway at Gatwick.

<thunderbird57303> wrote in message
news:9bd5

First they promise to cancel all those New Labour new towns in the
sticks (big vote winner), for which the transport infrastructure does
not exist, secondly they propose closure of Heathrow and selling of
the land for housing (mega vote winner), for which the transport
infrastructure already exists, thirdly they use the money so raised to
pay towards a brand new airport in the Thames estuary with a rail
link.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

What a pity that it can't be done in that order.

And it also can't be done in that way, as HMG doesn't own Heathrow, so they
can't use the money generated by selling it.

tim

In message <6696da5e-01ed-4327-a2de-5681f7649bd5>
thunderbird57303 wrote:

[snip]
>
> First they promise to cancel all those New Labour new towns in the
> sticks (big vote winner), for which the transport infrastructure does
> not exist, secondly they propose closure of Heathrow and selling of
> the land for housing (mega vote winner), for which the transport
> infrastructure already exists, thirdly they use the money so raised to
> pay towards a brand new airport in the Thames estuary with a rail
> link.
>

Sorry that's total bollocks, your golfing partner is taking too many strokes
at the 19th hole. You can't sell Heathrow off and then use the money to
build a replacement airport elsewhere. To close Heathrow you've got to have
the replacement up and running first.

While the tories might cancel the 3rd runway, there's no way they are going
to shut LHR down completely, that way they lose too many potential donors to
party funds.

Borisport is never going to happen, the problems of building a major facility
in the Thames estuary have been thrashed out many times over the years, it's
fundamentally impractical on many levels.

1506 wrote:
> On Jan 16, 11:54 am, thunderbird57...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> OK, I'll be watching on April 1.

Wouldn't it be easier to just build the new housing in the Thames estuary?

John Rowland wrote:
> 1506 wrote:
>
> Wouldn't it be easier to just build the new housing in the Thames estuary?
>Possibly not. Why did what are now the estuarine boroughs move away
from the river? Danger of flooding? Visit, eg, East Ham church and you
will see what I mean.

On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 11:54:39 -0800 (PST), thunderbird57303
wrote:

>My inside source (golf partner)

and his credibility is based on...?
>
>Watch this space.

close Heathrow?

Don't think so - if the land is so desperately needed and they are
looking to close airports, why not close Northolt (right next to the
A40, Central, Met & Piccadilly lines A312 etc. etc. or any number of
airfields in plum spots.

On Jan 17, 7:41 am, Martin Edwards <big_mart> wrote:
> John Rowland wrote:
>>
>>
>> Possibly not.  Why did what are now  the estuarine boroughs move away
> from the river?  Danger of flooding?  Visit, eg, East Ham church and you
> will see what I mean.
>
> --
> Corporate society looks after everything.  All it asks of anyone, all it
> has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
> decisions.  -From “Rollerball”- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You ve got to hand it to those Tories, first they play the environment
card to stop expansion at Heathrow whilst Boris goes off and builds
another airport in the Thames flood plain.
All this works perfectly because they saw one plane landing on the
River Hudson.
Brilliant.

"JP" <junkmailhere> wrote in message
news:70e8c603-2a0c-4a7f-8884-7915c4d5476f
> On Jan 17, 7:41 am, Martin Edwards <big_mart> wrote:
>
> You ve got to hand it to those Tories, first they play the environment
> card to stop expansion at Heathrow whilst Boris goes off and builds
> another airport in the Thames flood plain.

Not on the flood plain, but on an artificial island, like Hong Kong.

"Graeme Wall" <Rail> wrote in message
news:13d9c61e50%Rail

>
> While the tories might cancel the 3rd runway, there's no way they are
> going to shut LHR down completely, that way they lose too many
> potential donors to party funds.
>
> Borisport is never going to happen, the problems of building a major
> facility in the Thames estuary have been thrashed out many times over
> the years, it's fundamentally impractical on many levels.

Agreed; it's far more likely, and much cheaper, to add a runway each to
Stansted and Gatwick, and I'm sure the new owners of both airports will
be pushing hard to do just that.

On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 11:20:15 -0000, "Recliner"
<recliner2-news> wrote:

>"Graeme Wall" <Rail> wrote in message
>news:13d9c61e50%Rail
>>Agreed; it's far more likely, and much cheaper, to add a runway each to
>Stansted and Gatwick, and I'm sure the new owners of both airports will
>be pushing hard to do just that.

RAF Lyneham closes in a couple of years - shame it wasn't a bit nearer
London.

Recliner wrote:
>
> Not on the flood plain, but on an artificial island, like Hong Kong.

Hong Kong is an artificial island? :-)

"John Rowland" <johnr> wrote in
message news:_Hkcl.71669$st4.42446
> Recliner wrote:
>>
>> Not on the flood plain, but on an artificial island, like Hong Kong.
>
> Hong Kong is an artificial island? :-)

OK, OK, Chep Lap Kok airport. Actually, the airport isn't quite an
artificial island, as it's actually an landfill extended version of two
small existing islands. Many other airports also start on the land, with
much of the taxiways and runways built on landfill extensions.

Also Kansai and Kobe airports, which really are artificial islands.