Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Haringey Labour Leader comments on the appeal of Zac Goldsmith
The Standard (article) — Tory MP Zac Goldsmith announces bid to run for London Mayor.
One subject that would appear to unite all the Council with an important plank of Mr Goldsmith, is opposition to a third runway at Heathrow airport (I seem to recall that Haringey passed a unanimous motion at Full Council about that).
Would Zac back Boris Island?!
CDC
Haringey Councillor
Liberal Democrat Party
Tags for Forum Posts: Gatwick, Green, Heathrow, LibDem, Mayor, Zac Goldsmith, appeal, candidate, expansion, runway
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by StephenBln on
-
The Estuary airport idea is just pie in the sky and a non starter.
Boris' intentions are in fact, to move the whole operation to the East of London, where the residents are generally less well off and the property prices are lower. Thereby increasing, the values of properties in West and South West London, by reducing amongst other things, the noise pollution. When Boris talks of 'a bad decision' being compounded, what he actually means is, why wasn't the airport built among the slums in the first place?
I think the post war choice of Heathrow as London's Airport, as well as the closing of Croydon, which had previously been the main airport, had everything to do with it's proximity to the affluent parts of London. As well as the ease of access to the areas where the flyers of the 40s actually lived.
The only answer to the question of more space, is to build new runways at Birmingham, Manchester & perhaps Glasgow. It's time for the use of Airports to be spread out more evenly around the country. So many flights, whether from North America, Eastern Europe and Asia come into British air space well to the North of London. Better high speed rail connections would make the use of 'northern' airports easier. https://de.flightaware.com/live/airport/EGLL
DG article on housing prices in Greater London 27th June 2015: http://diamondgeezer.blogspot.de/ Showing property/renting prices in the Eastern London Boroughs.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
what he actually means is, why wasn't the airport built among the slums in the first place?
Stephen I take your point about the origins of Heathrow. However I have to wonder if there is any economic proposal that you would not wish to interpret through the prism of class warfare?!
Can I invite you to consider John D's excellent point (above) about creating large numbers of all-new jobs, where they might be needed more?
-
-
Clive, John Ds point isn't excellent at all. It's actually tosh, because hardly any 'new jobs' would be created. The reality is that they would just be relocated Heathrow jobs and filled by workers with worse conditions attached to them. Filled no doubt, by thousands of former LHR employees who would all then be commuting West to East.
The answer is to regionalise airport capacity and send the jobs to areas where they are really needed, outside of the City/State of London.
As for the MP for Uxbridge's and once Mayor of London's motivations. Come on Clive, you don't really believe that do you.?
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
The existing jobs at Heathrow will remain at LHR because the existing two runways remain.
The proposal for a third runway is about expansion, not devolution.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Clive, is there any reason why you refuse to use class, inequality and people's differing economic interests as one of the most useful prisms in interpreting economic proposals?
Although I couldn't see any mention of "class war" as such in Stephen's comment above.
For a recent reference to a poorer London area as a "War Zone" I don't know a better example than from Haringey's Lyn Garner, Director of "regeneration". As the link shows, Haringey refused to say exactly where in Tottenham the zone is situated. But we know where the Muswell Hill colonial administration are planning to destroy current real homes and businesses.
-
-
Incremental Heathrow expansion is about short-medium term gain and profit.
At some point in the future, when a fifth runway at Heathrow is contemplated, people will wonder how we arrived at such a ghastly position, when the third runway was already pressing on and dominating the centre of London, and not in a good way.
If you've ever been to Chek Lap Kok – Hong Kong's huge modern airport, built to the west of Hong Kong island and largely on reclaimed land – you'd see in a moment the advantages of starting with a clean sheet and thinking big. Planes take-off and land over water.
This is a tribute to planning and far-sighteness. I see this thoroughly advanced airport, built without compromise, as being a small factor in the economic success of China.
It seems almost cheeky to note that this serious, long-term strategy was necessarily approved by Communist authorities.
-
-
No Clive, the new airport at Hong Kong was approved while still a Crown Colony. But I think there may have been an agreement with Bejing to consult about large capital expenditure projects. It was always a great experience landing at Kai Tak in Hong Kong.
The aircraft noise pollution in London is immense, especially over the inner city areas along the Thames flightpath into LHR. Not an outside TV broadcast or interview on radio goes by without the droning of aircraft noise in the background.
Surely the answer is to greatly expand LGW as London South & STN as London North and possibly Bristol as London West. Connect all up with non British Standard high capacity railway lines.. not like the lousy line in from Gatwick. This would eventually enable LHR to be closed. The whole Heathrow site would make a good site for a new town complete with good transport connections. Exactly what London needs.
-
-
No Clive, the new airport at Hong Kong was approved while still a Crown Colony
No Stephen, I'm aware of that. There cannot be any doubt that this massive, successful infrastructure project, that began well before the 1997 handover, had the full approval of the Communist Chinese Government. If they didn't want it, they could have stopped it, easily.
At one time during the late 1960s, the Communists cut off water supplies to Hong Kong in order to exert pressure (I remember seeing at primary school, slides of the bucket-queues that formed).
Over decades, it would have been easy for China to have invaded HK. It never happened, because it suited and continues to suit China to have a successful HK, including possibly the world's best airport.
IMO, Boris has got it right.
-
-
I agree with Stephen here.
( must be the heat - I better go and lie down
)
-
-
John I can call for medical intervention, if you're willing.
-
-
John, if you haven't come across this booklet, you might find you it interesting reading. (Link downloads a pdf file.)
"Like ‘sex’, the word ‘jobs’ makes an excellent tabloid headline: short, sharp and emotive. [...] when thousands are losing their jobs, and millions fear that they may do so, any promise of more jobs is welcome. Thus the suggestion that a new or expanded airport will create more jobs is a sure way to attract support from the public and a fair wind from the planners. Naturally airport companies and airlines make the most of this. Yet because they have a commercial interest in magnifying the number of new jobs, their figures need careful examination." - Brendon Sewell: Airport Jobs: false hopes; cruel hoax. (2009)
-
-
To be honest, Alan, I don't see why we need a third runway anywhere but, if there is to be one, why at Heathrow? Let's spread the joy around
Personally, having seen the chaos on the M20 caused by French workers striking at Calais I think we should go for a second Channel Tunnel but to Belgium, this time.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
