What strikes me, listening to the phone ins, is the sheer range of issues people want sorted. Brexit really has sucked the life out of everything for 3 years plus.
I honestly believed that I would never see a worse PM than Gordon Brown. But I have. The last 3 years have been a terrible mistake. Things can only get better, I think the song goes.
ya think ?
Yes. May had appalling judgment, complete intransigence, was a very, very poor selector of advisors, promoted mediocrity, god she was awful. Boris will make mistakes but he will try to do things.
Something must be done, this is something, we must do that. I think I'd prefer inertia.
Nope. We have had 3 years of inertia. It didn't work.
I think Boris Johnson’s most viable strategy is inertia.
Being PM, especially in the current situation, is a very different kettle of fish, and he's already blown it.
LOL. Closed mind, much?
The guy has not stepped foot in Downing Street as PM, has made no pronouncements, has made no appointments. Yet you have rushed to judgment. As you rushed to judgment on here about Cameron's "renegotiation" with the EU, telling us what a fabulous effort it was.....
As he rushed to judgement that there was no possible benefits from Brexit.
There haven’t been any yet. The nation is in a state of atrophy.
"The whole worl’s in a terrible state o’ chassis".
What strikes me, listening to the phone ins, is the sheer range of issues people want sorted. Brexit really has sucked the life out of everything for 3 years plus.
I honestly believed that I would never see a worse PM than Gordon Brown. But I have. The last 3 years have been a terrible mistake. Things can only get better, I think the song goes.
ya think ?
Yes. May had appalling judgment, complete intransigence, was a very, very poor selector of advisors, promoted mediocrity, god she was awful. Boris will make mistakes but he will try to do things.
Something must be done, this is something, we must do that. I think I'd prefer inertia.
Nope. We have had 3 years of inertia. It didn't work.
Can you not think of plausible ways in which the last three years could have been much worse?
Boris was a good Mayor, it was a role which suited him perfectly. It's not true that Ken Livingstone was an easy opponent - he was surprisingly popular, and to be fair hadn't been too bad a mayor himself (he went bonkers afterwards, not while he was in office). Yes, you can point to failures by Boris - the Garden Bridge was an attractive idea but should have been canned early, on financial grounds - but he was pretty good on the police, on representing London, on attracting investment, on Boris Bikes, on TfL, and on the Olympics. Of course most of these weren't purely or even mainly down to Boris, but that's inevitable. Above all Boris left the hard work to a good team, and acted as the front-man, which is entirely appropriate for a role like Mayor.
Being PM, especially in the current situation, is a very different kettle of fish, and he's already blown it.
"the Garden Bridge was an attractive idea "
What makes you say that? It did not serve a purpose. It was not a proper transport link, and it was in the wrong place.
It was something Boris did for his mates, and the whole scheme was borderline fraudulent from the off. Everyone involved should pay back the millions that were spent.
It is the major factor that makes it impossible for me to support him as PM, or the party he leads. And as a Conservative, what should worry you more is that he could not even be arsed to accept responsibility.
I can’t think of any of Boris’s schemes that came in on budget or met up to his promises. Even the relatively successful bike scheme had to be bailed out by EU funding and runs at a loss, whereas Paris’s makes a profit. The West Ham/Olympic stadium episode was a financial disaster. The cable car was all cost and no benefit. The water cannons were useless and sold for scrap. The millions spent on the Island Airport were obviously being wasted from the outset. Etc.
Don’t forget the huge sums spent on the useless new routemasters.
Boris was a good Mayor, it was a role which suited him perfectly. It's not true that Ken Livingstone was an easy opponent - he was surprisingly popular, and to be fair hadn't been too bad a mayor himself (he went bonkers afterwards, not while he was in office). Yes, you can point to failures by Boris - the Garden Bridge was an attractive idea but should have been canned early, on financial grounds - but he was pretty good on the police, on representing London, on attracting investment, on Boris Bikes, on TfL, and on the Olympics. Of course most of these weren't purely or even mainly down to Boris, but that's inevitable. Above all Boris left the hard work to a good team, and acted as the front-man, which is entirely appropriate for a role like Mayor.
Being PM, especially in the current situation, is a very different kettle of fish, and he's already blown it.
"the Garden Bridge was an attractive idea "
What makes you say that? It did not serve a purpose. It was not a proper transport link, and it was in the wrong place.
It was something Boris did for his mates, and the whole scheme was borderline fraudulent from the off. Everyone involved should pay back the millions that were spent.
It is the major factor that makes it impossible for me to support him as PM, or the party he leads. And as a Conservative, what should worry you more is that he could not even be arsed to accept responsibility.
I can’t think of any of Boris’s schemes that came in on budget or met up to his promises. Even the relatively successful bike scheme had to be bailed out by EU funding and runs at a loss, whereas Paris’s makes a profit. The West Ham/Olympic stadium episode was a financial disaster. The cable car was all cost and no benefit. The water cannons were useless and sold for scrap. The millions spent on the Island Airport were obviously being wasted from the outset. Etc.
I will defend him over Boris Island. There is an obvious (though arguable) need for more airport capacity in the southeast, and Heathrow isn't ideally placed to fulfil it - especially if the trends continue long-term. The concept has been around for decades (e.g. the Maplin Sands airport), and it is sensible for alternatives to be looked at before a decision is made on how the demand will be met. And that costs money. Was the money 'wasted'? In a way: but the risks of not doing it is to build the wrong project in the wrong place.
England fast bowler James Anderson has been ruled out of his side's Ashes warm-up Test against Ireland at Lord's. Fast bowlers Mark Wood and Jofra Archer have side strains and were not named in the squad for the Ireland game, which starts on Wednesday.
Wood is unlikely to be fit before the fourth Ashes Test, which starts on 4 September, while England hope Archer could be available for the second Test, starting on 14 August.
What strikes me, listening to the phone ins, is the sheer range of issues people want sorted. Brexit really has sucked the life out of everything for 3 years plus.
I honestly believed that I would never see a worse PM than Gordon Brown. But I have. The last 3 years have been a terrible mistake. Things can only get better, I think the song goes.
ya think ?
Yes. May had appalling judgment, complete intransigence, was a very, very poor selector of advisors, promoted mediocrity, god she was awful. Boris will make mistakes but he will try to do things.
Something must be done, this is something, we must do that. I think I'd prefer inertia.
Nope. We have had 3 years of inertia. It didn't work.
I think Boris Johnson’s most viable strategy is inertia.
Indeed, faffing about pretty much guarantees Brexit happening, albeit as headless chicken Brexit.
What strikes me, listening to the phone ins, is the sheer range of issues people want sorted. Brexit really has sucked the life out of everything for 3 years plus.
I honestly believed that I would never see a worse PM than Gordon Brown. But I have. The last 3 years have been a terrible mistake. Things can only get better, I think the song goes.
ya think ?
Yes. May had appalling judgment, complete intransigence, was a very, very poor selector of advisors, promoted mediocrity, god she was awful. Boris will make mistakes but he will try to do things.
Something must be done, this is something, we must do that. I think I'd prefer inertia.
Nope. We have had 3 years of inertia. It didn't work.
Can you not think of plausible ways in which the last three years could have been much worse?
We've had decent equity growth, low interest rates, low unemployment, low inflation and a moderate (For both sides) housing market the last 3 years. Drop in sterling probably the only real issue to be honest.
What strikes me, listening to the phone ins, is the sheer range of issues people want sorted. Brexit really has sucked the life out of everything for 3 years plus.
I honestly believed that I would never see a worse PM than Gordon Brown. But I have. The last 3 years have been a terrible mistake. Things can only get better, I think the song goes.
ya think ?
Yes. May had appalling judgment, complete intransigence, was a very, very poor selector of advisors, promoted mediocrity, god she was awful. Boris will make mistakes but he will try to do things.
Something must be done, this is something, we must do that. I think I'd prefer inertia.
Nope. We have had 3 years of inertia. It didn't work.
I think Boris Johnson’s most viable strategy is inertia.
I don't. I think that we will see a lot of eye catching policies which will cost a lot of public money but be a rather better backdrop to the inevitable election than a dementia tax. An election is coming soon. Clear the barnacles and man the guns.
Boris was a good Mayor, it was a role which suited him perfectly. It's not true that Ken Livingstone was an easy opponent - he was surprisingly popular, and to be fair hadn't been too bad a mayor himself (he went bonkers afterwards, not while he was in office). Yes, you can point to failures by Boris - the Garden Bridge was an attractive idea but should have been canned early, on financial grounds - but he was pretty good on the police, on representing London, on attracting investment, on Boris Bikes, on TfL, and on the Olympics. Of course most of these weren't purely or even mainly down to Boris, but that's inevitable. Above all Boris left the hard work to a good team, and acted as the front-man, which is entirely appropriate for a role like Mayor.
Being PM, especially in the current situation, is a very different kettle of fish, and he's already blown it.
"the Garden Bridge was an attractive idea "
What makes you say that? It did not serve a purpose. It was not a proper transport link, and it was in the wrong place.
It was something Boris did for his mates, and the whole scheme was borderline fraudulent from the off. Everyone involved should pay back the millions that were spent.
It is the major factor that makes it impossible for me to support him as PM, or the party he leads. And as a Conservative, what should worry you more is that he could not even be arsed to accept responsibility.
I can’t think of any of Boris’s schemes that came in on budget or met up to his promises. Even the relatively successful bike scheme had to be bailed out by EU funding and runs at a loss, whereas Paris’s makes a profit. The West Ham/Olympic stadium episode was a financial disaster. The cable car was all cost and no benefit. The water cannons were useless and sold for scrap. The millions spent on the Island Airport were obviously being wasted from the outset. Etc.
Don’t forget the huge sums spent on the useless new routemasters.
What makes you say that? It did not serve a purpose. It was not a proper transport link, and it was in the wrong place.
It was something Boris did for his mates, and the whole scheme was borderline fraudulent from the off. Everyone involved should pay back the millions that were spent.
It is the major factor that makes it impossible for me to support him as PM, or the party he leads. And as a Conservative, what should worry you more is that he could not even be arsed to accept responsibility.
It would have served a very good purpose, a pleasant pedestrian link between the South Bank and the tourist/theatre areas on the north bank. There's an excessively large gap between bridges there, and the two bridges on either side are quite unpleasant for pedestrians. It would have been even more useful than the Millennium Bridge, which equally 'isn't a proper transport link'.
The only thing wrong with it was that the design was too damned expensive. It would be great if it could be revived as a cheaper, simpler pedestrian bridge.
I’m sitting on the steps of the Hotel de Ville in divine Château-Gontier, in 39°C heat, while gorgeous tanned French belles saunter past, about to find a bar that will sell me a cold beer (or better still, a Norman cider). Have I missed anything?
(Sorry. In SeanT’s absence I thought a comment in his style would be fitting. It is true though.)
I holidayed near Domfront last year, lovely part of the world, perhaps a refreshing glass of Poiree would be best ?
It’s ridiculously scenic (I was in Domfront last night). In hindsight this was not the best week to plan a 70-miles-a-day cycling holiday, but the Mayenne - along which I’ve been riding today - is ravishing in the sunshine.
What strikes me, listening to the phone ins, is the sheer range of issues people want sorted. Brexit really has sucked the life out of everything for 3 years plus.
I honestly believed that I would never see a worse PM than Gordon Brown. But I have. The last 3 years have been a terrible mistake. Things can only get better, I think the song goes.
ya think ?
Yes. May had appalling judgment, complete intransigence, was a very, very poor selector of advisors, promoted mediocrity, god she was awful. Boris will make mistakes but he will try to do things.
Something must be done, this is something, we must do that. I think I'd prefer inertia.
Nope. We have had 3 years of inertia. It didn't work.
Can you not think of plausible ways in which the last three years could have been much worse?
We've had low interest rates, low unemployment, low inflation and a moderate (For both sides) housing market the last 3 years. Drop in sterling probably the only real issue to be honest.
A well made point - don't forget the Bored of Brexiters who are much more like the hoi poloi than your average PBer
What strikes me, listening to the phone ins, is the sheer range of issues people want sorted. Brexit really has sucked the life out of everything for 3 years plus.
I honestly believed that I would never see a worse PM than Gordon Brown. But I have. The last 3 years have been a terrible mistake. Things can only get better, I think the song goes.
ya think ?
Yes. May had appalling judgment, complete intransigence, was a very, very poor selector of advisors, promoted mediocrity, god she was awful. Boris will make mistakes but he will try to do things.
Something must be done, this is something, we must do that. I think I'd prefer inertia.
Nope. We have had 3 years of inertia. It didn't work.
Can you not think of plausible ways in which the last three years could have been much worse?
Plausible? I mean we haven't had a major asteroid strike or anything but plausible? I suppose Corbyn could actually have won in 2017 but that was never really plausible. I'm struggling.
What makes you say that? It did not serve a purpose. It was not a proper transport link, and it was in the wrong place.
It was something Boris did for his mates, and the whole scheme was borderline fraudulent from the off. Everyone involved should pay back the millions that were spent.
It is the major factor that makes it impossible for me to support him as PM, or the party he leads. And as a Conservative, what should worry you more is that he could not even be arsed to accept responsibility.
It would have served a very good purpose, a pleasant pedestrian link between the South Bank and the tourist/theatre areas on the north bank. There's an excessively large gap between bridges there, and the two bridges on either side are quite unpleasant for pedestrians. It would have been even more useful than the Millennium Bridge, which equally 'isn't a proper transport link'.
The only thing wrong with it was that the design was too damned expensive. It would be great if it could be revived as a cheaper, simpler pedestrian bridge.
Boris was a good Mayor, it was a role which suited him perfectly. It's not true that Ken Livingstone was an easy opponent - he was surprisingly popular, and to be fair hadn't been too bad a mayor himself (he went bonkers afterwards, not while he was in office). Yes, you can point to failures by Boris - the Garden Bridge was an attractive idea but should have been canned early, on financial grounds - but he was pretty good on the police, on representing London, on attracting investment, on Boris Bikes, on TfL, and on the Olympics. Of course most of these weren't purely or even mainly down to Boris, but that's inevitable. Above all Boris left the hard work to a good team, and acted as the front-man, which is entirely appropriate for a role like Mayor.
Being PM, especially in the current situation, is a very different kettle of fish, and he's already blown it.
"the Garden Bridge was an attractive idea "
What makes you say that? It did not serve a purpose. It was not a proper transport link, and it was in the wrong place.
It was something Boris did for his mates, and the whole scheme was borderline fraudulent from the off. Everyone involved should pay back the millions that were spent.
It is the major factor that makes it impossible for me to support him as PM, or the party he leads. And as a Conservative, what should worry you more is that he could not even be arsed to accept responsibility.
I can’t think of any of Boris’s schemes that came in on budget or met up to his promises. Even the relatively successful bike scheme had to be bailed out by EU funding and runs at a loss, whereas Paris’s makes a profit. The West Ham/Olympic stadium episode was a financial disaster. The cable car was all cost and no benefit. The water cannons were useless and sold for scrap. The millions spent on the Island Airport were obviously being wasted from the outset. Etc.
Don’t forget the huge sums spent on the useless new routemasters.
Being PM, especially in the current situation, is a very different kettle of fish, and he's already blown it.
LOL. Closed mind, much?
The guy has not stepped foot in Downing Street as PM, has made no pronouncements, has made no appointments. Yet you have rushed to judgment. As you rushed to judgment on here about Cameron's "renegotiation" with the EU, telling us what a fabulous effort it was.....
Has made no pronouncements? Are you mad? He has made an absolutely brain-dead pronouncement as the centrepiece of his pitch, and has repeated it endlessly. To make things even worse, it's an almost exactly the same catastrophic error as Theresa May made, but at least she had the excuse that when she first made it March 29th looked doable. He has learnt nothing from her mistakes, which is surely going it a bit.
I’m sitting on the steps of the Hotel de Ville in divine Château-Gontier, in 39°C heat, while gorgeous tanned French belles saunter past, about to find a bar that will sell me a cold beer (or better still, a Norman cider). Have I missed anything?
(Sorry. In SeanT’s absence I thought a comment in his style would be fitting. It is true though.)
I holidayed near Domfront last year, lovely part of the world, perhaps a refreshing glass of Poiree would be best ?
It’s ridiculously scenic (I was in Domfront last night). In hindsight this was not the best week to plan a 70-miles-a-day cycling holiday, but the Mayenne - along which I’ve been riding today - is ravishing in the sunshine.
We noted plenty of cyclists coming through Domfront, part of a long route I think - the green road iirc ?
Boris was a good Mayor, it was a role which suited him perfectly. It's not true that Ken Livingstone was an easy opponent - he was surprisingly popular, and to be fair hadn't been too bad a mayor himself (he went bonkers afterwards, not while he was in office). Yes, you can point to failures by Boris - the Garden Bridge was an attractive idea but should have been canned early, on financial grounds - but he was pretty good on the police, on representing London, on attracting investment, on Boris Bikes, on TfL, and on the Olympics. Of course most of these weren't purely or even mainly down to Boris, but that's inevitable. Above all Boris left the hard work to a good team, and acted as the front-man, which is entirely appropriate for a role like Mayor.
Being PM, especially in the current situation, is a very different kettle of fish, and he's already blown it.
"the Garden Bridge was an attractive idea "
What makes you say that? It did not serve a purpose. It was not a proper transport link, and it was in the wrong place.
It was something Boris did for his mates, and the whole scheme was borderline fraudulent from the off. Everyone involved should pay back the millions that were spent.
It is the major factor that makes it impossible for me to support him as PM, or the party he leads. And as a Conservative, what should worry you more is that he could not even be arsed to accept responsibility.
I can’t think of any of Boris’s schemes that came in on budget or met up to his promises. Even the relatively successful bike scheme had to be bailed out by EU funding and runs at a loss, whereas Paris’s makes a profit. The West Ham/Olympic stadium episode was a financial disaster. The cable car was all cost and no benefit. The water cannons were useless and sold for scrap. The millions spent on the Island Airport were obviously being wasted from the outset. Etc.
The segregated Cycle Superhighways are excellent, thanks to Johnson’s clever hire of Andrew Gilligan as cycling commissioner. Rory Stewart’s wild horses wouldn’t drag me to vote for Johnson, but he remains the only prominent politician to have achieved high quality Dutch-style cycle infrastructure.
What strikes me, listening to the phone ins, is the sheer range of issues people want sorted. Brexit really has sucked the life out of everything for 3 years plus.
I honestly believed that I would never see a worse PM than Gordon Brown. But I have. The last 3 years have been a terrible mistake. Things can only get better, I think the song goes.
ya think ?
Yes. May had appalling judgment, complete intransigence, was a very, very poor selector of advisors, promoted mediocrity, god she was awful. Boris will make mistakes but he will try to do things.
Something must be done, this is something, we must do that. I think I'd prefer inertia.
Nope. We have had 3 years of inertia. It didn't work.
Can you not think of plausible ways in which the last three years could have been much worse?
Plausible? I mean we haven't had a major asteroid strike or anything but plausible? I suppose Corbyn could actually have won in 2017 but that was never really plausible. I'm struggling.
Well suppose Andrea Leadsom had won the leadership (with the help of a Leave EU social media campaign against Theresa May), invoked Article 50 in 2016 and left with no deal in 2018.
I will defend him over Boris Island. There is an obvious (though arguable) need for more airport capacity in the southeast, and Heathrow isn't ideally placed to fulfil it - especially if the trends continue long-term. The concept has been around for decades (e.g. the Maplin Sands airport), and it is sensible for alternatives to be looked at before a decision is made on how the demand will be met. And that costs money. Was the money 'wasted'? In a way: but the risks of not doing it is to build the wrong project in the wrong place.
Yes, it was worth studying, and to be fair the concept they came up with was quite innovative.
What strikes me, listening to the phone ins, is the sheer range of issues people want sorted. Brexit really has sucked the life out of everything for 3 years plus.
I honestly believed that I would never see a worse PM than Gordon Brown. But I have. The last 3 years have been a terrible mistake. Things can only get better, I think the song goes.
ya think ?
Yes. May had appalling judgment, complete intransigence, was a very, very poor selector of advisors, promoted mediocrity, god she was awful. Boris will make mistakes but he will try to do things.
Something must be done, this is something, we must do that. I think I'd prefer inertia.
Nope. We have had 3 years of inertia. It didn't work.
Can you not think of plausible ways in which the last three years could have been much worse?
We've had decent equity growth, low interest rates, low unemployment, low inflation and a moderate (For both sides) housing market the last 3 years. Drop in sterling probably the only real issue to be honest.
Low interest rates, low inflation and low property inflation are symptoms that have been "enjoyed" by most of the western world and are still a consequence of the aftermath of the GFC.
Low unemployment is a British success story but it has been accompanied with really bad productivity figures, poor investment, a continuing trade deficit and until recently a fall in real earnings which are still not quite back to their 2008 peak.
Boris was a good Mayor, it was a role which suited him perfectly. It's not true that Ken Livingstone was an easy opponent - he was surprisingly popular, and to be fair hadn't been too bad a mayor himself (he went bonkers afterwards, not while he was in office). Yes, Being PM, especially in the current situation, is a very different kettle of fish, and he's already blown it.
"the Garden Bridge was an attractive idea "
What makes you say that? It did not serve a purpose. It was not a proper transport link, and it was in the wrong place.
It was something Boris did for his mates, and the whole scheme was borderline fraudulent from the off. Everyone involved should pay back the millions that were spent.
It is the major factor that makes it impossible for me to support him as PM, or the party he leads. And as a Conservative, what should worry you more is that he could not even be arsed to accept responsibility.
I can’t think of any of Boris’s schemes that came in on budget or met up to his promises. Even the relatively successful bike scheme had to be bailed out by EU funding and runs at a loss, whereas Paris’s makes a profit. The West Ham/Olympic stadium episode was a financial disaster. The cable car was all cost and no benefit. The water cannons were useless and sold for scrap. The millions spent on the Island Airport were obviously being wasted from the outset. Etc.
I will defend him over Boris Island. There is an obvious (though arguable) need for more airport capacity in the southeast, and Heathrow isn't ideally placed to fulfil it - especially if the trends continue long-term. The concept has been around for decades (e.g. the Maplin Sands airport), and it is sensible for alternatives to be looked at before a decision is made on how the demand will be met. And that costs money. Was the money 'wasted'? In a way: but the risks of not doing it is to build the wrong project in the wrong place.
Thinking of a new airport in the middle of nowhere out on marshland surrounded by zillions of migrating birds, with no local workforce, no suitable transport links, and when the demand for air travel comes predominantly from the west side of London was idiocy. And he could never answer the question of what would happen to Heathrow, alternatively suggesting closure (devastating the economy of three Boroughs) or that it be some sort of unspecified regional airport.
Plus, as someone else said, the world’s most expensive buses promised to Londoners as hop-on platform buses, where the rear door is nowadays never opened between stops. In this week’s weather they will be mobile saunas without a single opening window.
What strikes me, listening to the phone ins, is the sheer range of issues people want sorted. Brexit really has sucked the life out of everything for 3 years plus.
I honestly believed that I would never see a worse PM than Gordon Brown. But I have. The last 3 years have been a terrible mistake. Things can only get better, I think the song goes.
ya think ?
Yes. May had appalling judgment, complete intransigence, was a very, very poor selector of advisors, promoted mediocrity, god she was awful. Boris will make mistakes but he will try to do things.
Something must be done, this is something, we must do that. I think I'd prefer inertia.
Nope. We have had 3 years of inertia. It didn't work.
Can you not think of plausible ways in which the last three years could have been much worse?
Plausible? I mean we haven't had a major asteroid strike or anything but plausible? I suppose Corbyn could actually have won in 2017 but that was never really plausible. I'm struggling.
Well suppose Andrea Leadsom had won the leadership (with the help of a Leave EU social media campaign against Theresa May), invoked Article 50 in 2016 and left with no deal in 2018.
That would have been better. We would long since have been over any initial disruption. Instead we have the paralysis of never ending uncertainty. Political incompetence is not free, it has a price and we are paying it.
Wonder what the internal party polling is like. With all the anti-Corbyn comments from both Johnson and Swinson, I'm beginning to suspect that it's a lot stronger for Corbyn‘s Labour than they, and some in the PLP, would like.
Judging by Labour over the 24 hours, their internal polling is showing them that they should be very worried about Jo Swinson, much less worried about Boris Johnson.
We see Labour are in serious trouble in London and in some critical areas in the Midlands and the North of England. No recovery in Scotland, but still leading in much of the North. The Tories are in trouble in Scotland and being squeezed in the South West.
The LibDems are on a bounce after the Cable doldrums, but the Labour Party are already campaigning on her record as a minister in the coalition, and it really wasn't pretty. One of the ad's I've seen is of her picture on a front cover of a newspaper supporting the putting up a statue of Thatcher. The comment underneath states that there are plenty of memorials around the UK already, they're called Food Banks. Expect to see plenty more.
What makes you say that? It did not serve a purpose. It was not a proper transport link, and it was in the wrong place.
It was something Boris did for his mates, and the whole scheme was borderline fraudulent from the off. Everyone involved should pay back the millions that were spent.
It is the major factor that makes it impossible for me to support him as PM, or the party he leads. And as a Conservative, what should worry you more is that he could not even be arsed to accept responsibility.
It would have served a very good purpose, a pleasant pedestrian link between the South Bank and the tourist/theatre areas on the north bank. There's an excessively large gap between bridges there, and the two bridges on either side are quite unpleasant for pedestrians. It would have been even more useful than the Millennium Bridge, which equally 'isn't a proper transport link'.
The only thing wrong with it was that the design was too damned expensive. It would be great if it could be revived as a cheaper, simpler pedestrian bridge.
But it wasn't going to serve that purpose, and the purpose was deliberately restricted. You couldn't even cycle over the thing: and Boris was a mayor who was supposed to be pro-cycling. It was, as is sadly the case with too much architecture nowadays, a pre-existing design plonked down where the architect felt he could con people to put it.
If there was a need for a bridge there, then there should have been a proper process in place to see if the need was really there, and what should be done to meet that need.
Worst of all, (from memory) its running costs would have been millions every year.
"an excessively large gap between bridges there"
I suggest you talk to east Londoners about that, and their wait for proper cross-river links. There are seven walkable bridges in two miles, as well as the other cross-river transport links.
And AIUI the Millennium Bridge is an example of where it was done correctly (for the time): the need was determined, and a proper competition held for a design. It came in over budget, but only £2.2 million above the £16 million. Not counting for inflation, you could have had two or three Millennium Bridges for the money that was spent on the Garden Bridge.
What strikes me, listening to the phone ins, is the sheer range of issues people want sorted. Brexit really has sucked the life out of everything for 3 years plus.
I honestly believed that I would never see a worse PM than Gordon Brown. But I have. The last 3 years have been a terrible mistake. Things can only get better, I think the song goes.
ya think ?
Yes. May had appalling judgment, complete intransigence, was a very, very poor selector of advisors, promoted mediocrity, god she was awful. Boris will make mistakes but he will try to do things.
Something must be done, this is something, we must do that. I think I'd prefer inertia.
Nope. We have had 3 years of inertia. It didn't work.
Can you not think of plausible ways in which the last three years could have been much worse?
Plausible? I mean we haven't had a major asteroid strike or anything but plausible? I suppose Corbyn could actually have won in 2017 but that was never really plausible. I'm struggling.
Well suppose Andrea Leadsom had won the leadership (with the help of a Leave EU social media campaign against Theresa May), invoked Article 50 in 2016 and left with no deal in 2018.
That would have been better. We would long since have been over any initial disruption. Instead we have the paralysis of never ending uncertainty. Political incompetence is not free, it has a price and we are paying it.
In the 'No Deal under Andrea Leadsom' counter-factual there would now be no uncertainty? So what would our relationship with the EU and constitutional status of the UK be?
Boris was a good Mayor, it was a role which suited him perfectly. It's not true that Ken Livingstone was an easy opponent - he was surprisingly popular, and to be fair hadn't been too bad a mayor himself (he went bonkers afterwards, not while he was in office). Yes, Being PM, especially in the current situation, is a very different kettle of fish, and he's already blown it.
"the Garden Bridge was an attractive idea "
What makes you say that? It did not serve a purpose. It was not a proper transport link, and it was in the wrong place.
It was something Boris did for his mates, and the whole scheme was borderline fraudulent from the off. Everyone involved should pay back the millions that were spent.
It is the major factor that makes it impossible for me to support him as PM, or the party he leads. And as a Conservative, what should worry you more is that he could not even be arsed to accept responsibility.
outset. Etc.
I will defend him over Boris Island. There is an obvious (though arguable) need for more airport capacity in the southeast, and Heathrow isn't ideally placed to fulfil it - especially if the trends continue long-term. The concept has been around for decades (e.g. the Maplin Sands airport), and it is sensible for alternatives to be looked at before a decision is made on how the demand will be met. And that costs money. Was the money 'wasted'? In a way: but the risks of not doing it is to build the wrong project in the wrong place.
Thinking of a new airport in the middle of nowhere out on marshland surrounded by zillions of migrating birds, with no local workforce, no suitable transport links, and when the demand for air travel comes predominantly from the west side of London was idiocy. And he could never answer the question of what would happen to Heathrow, alternatively suggesting closure (devastating the economy of three Boroughs) or that it be some sort of unspecified regional airport.
Plus, as someone else said, the world’s most expensive buses promised to Londoners as hop-on platform buses, where the rear door is nowadays never opened between stops. In this week’s weather they will be mobile saunas without a single opening window.
There are opening windows, just a little small. The rear door if left open during motion will be a little dangerous, methinks.
Having three doors makes a difference at busy times. Surprised that even in Brum and Coventry, the buses only have ONE door for entry/exit!
Wonder what the internal party polling is like. With all the anti-Corbyn comments from both Johnson and Swinson, I'm beginning to suspect that it's a lot stronger for Corbyn‘s Labour than they, and some in the PLP, would like.
Judging by Labour over the 24 hours, their internal polling is showing them that they should be very worried about Jo Swinson, much less worried about Boris Johnson.
We see Labour are in serious trouble in London and in some critical areas in the Midlands and the North of England. No recovery in Scotland, but still leading in much of the North. The Tories are in trouble in Scotland and being squeezed in the South West.
The LibDems are on a bounce after the Cable doldrums, but the Labour Party are already campaigning on her record as a minister in the coalition, and it really wasn't pretty. One of the ad's I've seen is of her picture on a front cover of a newspaper supporting the putting up a statue of Thatcher. The comment underneath states that there are plenty of memorials around the UK already, they're called Food Banks. Expect to see plenty more.
Boris surging on the YouGov live poll.... now just less than half of the public are "dismayed" about him winning:
1. Boris Johnson has been announced as the new leader of the Conservative party. Which of the following best reflects your reaction to Boris Johnson becoming leader? Delighted 13% Pleased 16% Disappointed 8% Dismayed 48% Don't really mind either way 10% Don't know 5%
Thinking of a new airport in the middle of nowhere out on marshland surrounded by zillions of migrating birds, with no local workforce, no suitable transport links, and when the demand for air travel comes predominantly from the west side of London was idiocy. And he could never answer the question of what would happen to Heathrow, alternatively suggesting closure (devastating the economy of three Boroughs) or that it be some sort of unspecified regional airport. (Snip)
It's not idiocy. There is no 'good' solution to the problem: even Heathrow expansion has a whole host of issues. And the proposal for a Thames Estuary airport has been looked at many times over the decades precisely because the other options are also problematic.
HK and Japan have both done it, for similar reasons.
LHR3 is probably the best decision in the short-term (as long as they get diggers in soon). But it is perfectly correct that other options are looked at - and discarded - early on. And that costs money.
Wonder what the internal party polling is like. With all the anti-Corbyn comments from both Johnson and Swinson, I'm beginning to suspect that it's a lot stronger for Corbyn‘s Labour than they, and some in the PLP, would like.
Judging by Labour over the 24 hours, their internal polling is showing them that they should be very worried about Jo Swinson, much less worried about Boris Johnson.
We see Labour are in serious trouble in London and in some critical areas in the Midlands and the North of England. No recovery in Scotland, but still leading in much of the North. The Tories are in trouble in Scotland and being squeezed in the South West.
The LibDems are on a bounce after the Cable doldrums, but the Labour Party are already campaigning on her record as a minister in the coalition, and it really wasn't pretty. One of the ad's I've seen is of her picture on a front cover of a newspaper supporting the putting up a statue of Thatcher. The comment underneath states that there are plenty of memorials around the UK already, they're called Food Banks. Expect to see plenty more.
Not that I am a fan of Maggie, but foodbanks are surely a more recent phenomenon.
I have no problem with Maggie having a statue, after all we do have ones of a number of controversial figures including Oliver Cromwell and Robert Clive in Westminster.
But it wasn't going to serve that purpose, and the purpose was deliberately restricted. You couldn't even cycle over the thing: and Boris was a mayor who was supposed to be pro-cycling. It was, as is sadly the case with too much architecture nowadays, a pre-existing design plonked down where the architect felt he could con people to put it.
If there was a need for a bridge there, then there should have been a proper process in place to see if the need was really there, and what should be done to meet that need.
Worst of all, (from memory) its running costs would have been millions every year.
"an excessively large gap between bridges there"
I suggest you talk to east Londoners about that, and their wait for proper cross-river links. There are seven walkable bridges in two miles, as well as the other cross-river transport links.
And AIUI the Millennium Bridge is an example of where it was done correctly (for the time): the need was determined, and a proper competition held for a design. It came in over budget, but only £2.2 million above the £16 million. Not counting for inflation, you could have had two or three Millennium Bridges for the money that was spent on the Garden Bridge.
I should jolly well hope that you couldn't cycle over it. It shows they've learnt from the Millennium Bridge, where the rules are frequently broken.
I'm not sure how the need for further bridges down-river is relevant to what I said. I agree that it was going to be too expensive, and indeed I cited it as one of his failures. That doesn't alter the fact that it was an attractive concept and that it would have served a very useful purpose.
Dr. Foxy, food banks started under Blair and have continually risen ever since. They can't be used to condemn any particular policy because their use rose during Brown's spending period, during recession, during recovery.
Wonder what the internal party polling is like. With all the anti-Corbyn comments from both Johnson and Swinson, I'm beginning to suspect that it's a lot stronger for Corbyn‘s Labour than they, and some in the PLP, would like.
Judging by Labour over the 24 hours, their internal polling is showing them that they should be very worried about Jo Swinson, much less worried about Boris Johnson.
We see Labour are in serious trouble in London and in some critical areas in the Midlands and the North of England. No recovery in Scotland, but still leading in much of the North. The Tories are in trouble in Scotland and being squeezed in the South West.
The LibDems are on a bounce after the Cable doldrums, but the Labour Party are already campaigning on her record as a minister in the coalition, and it really wasn't pretty. One of the ad's I've seen is of her picture on a front cover of a newspaper supporting the putting up a statue of Thatcher. The comment underneath states that there are plenty of memorials around the UK already, they're called Food Banks. Expect to see plenty more.
It’s easy to counter that by asking what the Labour Party have achieved in terms of their supposed target groups in need of help since there was last a labour government? With corbyn they have achieved nothing in government and now see success as losing a GE by less than was thought.
Dr. Foxy, food banks started under Blair and have continually risen ever since. They can't be used to condemn any particular policy because their use rose during Brown's spending period, during recession, during recovery.
Corbynites don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.
Thinking of a new airport in the middle of nowhere out on marshland surrounded by zillions of migrating birds, with no local workforce, no suitable transport links, and when the demand for air travel comes predominantly from the west side of London was idiocy. And he could never answer the question of what would happen to Heathrow, alternatively suggesting closure (devastating the economy of three Boroughs) or that it be some sort of unspecified regional airport. (Snip)
It's not idiocy. There is no 'good' solution to the problem: even Heathrow expansion has a whole host of issues. And the proposal for a Thames Estuary airport has been looked at many times over the decades precisely because the other options are also problematic.
HK and Japan have both done it, for similar reasons.
LHR3 is probably the best decision in the short-term (as long as they get diggers in soon). But it is perfectly correct that other options are looked at - and discarded - early on. And that costs money.
Which will happen first - HS2, Brexit, Heathrow 3 or a lunar human SLS mission... ?
But it wasn't going to serve that purpose, and the purpose was deliberately restricted. You couldn't even cycle over the thing: and Boris was a mayor who was supposed to be pro-cycling. It was, as is sadly the case with too much architecture nowadays, a pre-existing design plonked down where the architect felt he could con people to put it.
If there was a need for a bridge there, then there should have been a proper process in place to see if the need was really there, and what should be done to meet that need.
Worst of all, (from memory) its running costs would have been millions every year.
"an excessively large gap between bridges there"
I suggest you talk to east Londoners about that, and their wait for proper cross-river links. There are seven walkable bridges in two miles, as well as the other cross-river transport links.
And AIUI the Millennium Bridge is an example of where it was done correctly (for the time): the need was determined, and a proper competition held for a design. It came in over budget, but only £2.2 million above the £16 million. Not counting for inflation, you could have had two or three Millennium Bridges for the money that was spent on the Garden Bridge.
I should jolly well hope that you couldn't cycle over it. It shows they've learnt from the Millennium Bridge, where the rules are frequently broken.
I'm not sure how the need for further bridges down-river is relevant to what I said. I agree that it was going to be too expensive, and indeed I cited it as one of his failures. That doesn't alter the fact that it was an attractive concept and that it would have served a very useful purpose.
We are supposed to be pro-cycling (I don't cycle a lot any more, and I am not a pro-cycling lobbyist). But the idea of creating a bridge in that area and forcing cyclists over the adjacent road bridges is crass.
I think your last paragraph shows your problem. The concept might be attractive: the location for that concept was not. It was the wrong thing in the wrong place.
"I'm not sure how the need for further bridges down-river is relevant to what I said. "
Because vast amounts of London taxpayers' money was spent, it makes sense to ask: "Where's the place I can build a bridge that gets me the most bang for the buck?"
Dr. Foxy, food banks started under Blair and have continually risen ever since. They can't be used to condemn any particular policy because their use rose during Brown's spending period, during recession, during recovery.
The right of rise of food bank use since 2014 is significantly higher than ever before.
Thinking of a new airport in the middle of nowhere out on marshland surrounded by zillions of migrating birds, with no local workforce, no suitable transport links, and when the demand for air travel comes predominantly from the west side of London was idiocy. And he could never answer the question of what would happen to Heathrow, alternatively suggesting closure (devastating the economy of three Boroughs) or that it be some sort of unspecified regional airport. (Snip)
It's not idiocy. There is no 'good' solution to the problem: even Heathrow expansion has a whole host of issues. And the proposal for a Thames Estuary airport has been looked at many times over the decades precisely because the other options are also problematic.
HK and Japan have both done it, for similar reasons.
LHR3 is probably the best decision in the short-term (as long as they get diggers in soon). But it is perfectly correct that other options are looked at - and discarded - early on. And that costs money.
I disagree. Heathrow's issue is primarily noise pollution. Apart from that it has every advantage over Boris Island in terms of closeness to destination, infrastructure, cost.
If you can isolate the problem, it's usually best to put your focus there.
Thinking of a new airport in the middle of nowhere out on marshland surrounded by zillions of migrating birds, with no local workforce, no suitable transport links, and when the demand for air travel comes predominantly from the west side of London was idiocy. And he could never answer the question of what would happen to Heathrow, alternatively suggesting closure (devastating the economy of three Boroughs) or that it be some sort of unspecified regional airport. (Snip)
It's not idiocy. There is no 'good' solution to the problem: even Heathrow expansion has a whole host of issues. And the proposal for a Thames Estuary airport has been looked at many times over the decades precisely because the other options are also problematic.
HK and Japan have both done it, for similar reasons.
LHR3 is probably the best decision in the short-term (as long as they get diggers in soon). But it is perfectly correct that other options are looked at - and discarded - early on. And that costs money.
Which will happen first - HS2, Brexit, Heathrow 3 or a lunar human SLS mission... ?
Define 'lunar human SLS mission'. IMV the answer is: Brexit A round-Moon SLS mission (without landing) HS2 An SLS- and Gateway- based Moon landing LHR3
All are subject to politics, however. Sidney Camm's is reputed to have said: "an aircraft has four dimensions - length, width, height and politics." The same is true for engineering: politics is massively important for the success of a project.
Thinking of a new airport in the middle of nowhere out on marshland surrounded by zillions of migrating birds, with no local workforce, no suitable transport links, and when the demand for air travel comes predominantly from the west side of London was idiocy. And he could never answer the question of what would happen to Heathrow, alternatively suggesting closure (devastating the economy of three Boroughs) or that it be some sort of unspecified regional airport. (Snip)
It's not idiocy. There is no 'good' solution to the problem: even Heathrow expansion has a whole host of issues. And the proposal for a Thames Estuary airport has been looked at many times over the decades precisely because the other options are also problematic.
HK and Japan have both done it, for similar reasons.
LHR3 is probably the best decision in the short-term (as long as they get diggers in soon). But it is perfectly correct that other options are looked at - and discarded - early on. And that costs money.
I disagree. Heathrow's issue is primarily noise pollution. Apart from that it has every advantage over Boris Island in terms of closeness to destination, infrastructure, cost.
If you can isolate the problem, it's usually best to put your focus there.
In the short term, yes. But not if you think air usage will continue for another five decades. Then Heathrow's stuffed, even with R3 and a putative R4.
Besides, what we're talking about is whether it's right to study the options; and IMV it was perfectly sane to include BI in that study.
Boris was a good Mayor, it was a role which suited him perfectly. It's not true that Ken Livingstone was an easy opponent - he was surprisingly popular, and to be fair hadn't been too bad a mayor himself (he went bonkers afterwards, not while he was in office). Yes, Being PM, especially in the current situation, is a very different kettle of fish, and he's already blown it.
"the Garden Bridge was an attractive idea "
What makes you say that? It did not serve a purpose. It was not a proper transport link, and it was in the wrong place.
It was something Boris did for his mates, and the whole scheme was borderline fraudulent from the off. Everyone involved should pay back the millions that were spent.
It is the major factor that makes it impossible for me to support him as PM, or the party he leads. And as a Conservative, what should worry you more is that he could not even be arsed to accept responsibility.
outset. Etc.
I will defend him over Boris Island. There is an obvious (though arguable) need for more airport capacity in the southeast, and Heathrow isn't ideally placed to fulfil it - especially if the trends continue long-term. The concept has been around for decades (e.g. the Maplin Sands airport), and it is sensible for alternatives to be looked at before a decision is made on how the demand will be met. And that costs money. Was the money 'wasted'? In a way: but the risks of not doing it is to build the wrong project in the wrong place.
Thinking of a new airport in the middle of nowhere out on marshland surrounded by zillions of migrating birds, with no local workforce, no suitable transport links, and when the demand for air travel comes predominantly from the west side of London was idiocy. And he could never answer the question of what would happen to Heathrow, alternatively suggesting closure (devastating the economy of three Boroughs) or that it be some sort of unspecified regional airport.
Plus, as someone else said, the world’s most expensive buses promised to Londoners as hop-on platform buses, where the rear door is nowadays never opened between stops. In this week’s weather they will be mobile saunas without a single opening window.
There are opening windows, just a little small. The rear door if left open during motion will be a little dangerous, methinks.
Having three doors makes a difference at busy times. Surprised that even in Brum and Coventry, the buses only have ONE door for entry/exit!
It was Londoners’ mourning the loss of the open platform (very useful between stops) that got Boris the support for the project in the first place.
I like that quote, but it doesn't apply here. Johnson is unprincipled, dishonest and feckless. But he isn't an idiot.
It was a lousy acceptance speech- mostly just waffle, with only one definite commitment- the highly problematic "out by Halloween". It was empty and vague. The contrast with the passionate and detailed speech from Swinson was telling.
He give loads of evidence that he will be as bad a PM as he was a foreign secretary, and his term there was borderline catastrophic.
Bullshit is not a strategy and the anti-Maybot will be even worse than she was.
Thinking of a new airport in the middle of nowhere out on marshland surrounded by zillions of migrating birds, with no local workforce, no suitable transport links, and when the demand for air travel comes predominantly from the west side of London was idiocy. And he could never answer the question of what would happen to Heathrow, alternatively suggesting closure (devastating the economy of three Boroughs) or that it be some sort of unspecified regional airport. (Snip)
It's not idiocy. There is no 'good' solution to the problem: even Heathrow expansion has a whole host of issues. And the proposal for a Thames Estuary airport has been looked at many times over the decades precisely because the other options are also problematic.
HK and Japan have both done it, for similar reasons.
LHR3 is probably the best decision in the short-term (as long as they get diggers in soon). But it is perfectly correct that other options are looked at - and discarded - early on. And that costs money.
I disagree. Heathrow's issue is primarily noise pollution. Apart from that it has every advantage over Boris Island in terms of closeness to destination, infrastructure, cost.
If you can isolate the problem, it's usually best to put your focus there.
In the short term, yes. But not if you think air usage will continue for another five decades. Then Heathrow's stuffed, even with R3 and a putative R4.
Besides, what we're talking about is whether it's right to study the options; and IMV it was perfectly sane to include BI in that study.
They did that already several times, including looking at expanding Luton and Standsted. An estuary airport was studied in depth. On close inspection it wasn't a good solution. Mainly because it lacks road and rail links to central London and fails to serve London's vast hinterland entirely, which is spread out to the north and west of the city. You would then have to cross London to get to it.
I can’t think of any of Boris’s schemes that came in on budget or met up to his promises. Even the relatively successful bike scheme had to be bailed out by EU funding and runs at a loss, whereas Paris’s makes a profit. The West Ham/Olympic stadium episode was a financial disaster. The cable car was all cost and no benefit. The water cannons were useless and sold for scrap. The millions spent on the Island Airport were obviously being wasted from the outset. Etc.
I will defend him over Boris Island. There is an obvious (though arguable) need for more airport capacity in the southeast, and Heathrow isn't ideally placed to fulfil it - especially if the trends continue long-term. The concept has been around for decades (e.g. the Maplin Sands airport), and it is sensible for alternatives to be looked at before a decision is made on how the demand will be met. And that costs money. Was the money 'wasted'? In a way: but the risks of not doing it is to build the wrong project in the wrong place.
Nope. Boris Island was doubly in the wrong place. It was the wrong side of London for almost anyone other than East Anglians and North Sea fish, for a start. But worse than that, it was due east of London when the prevailing winds are westerly, or occasionally easterly (one reason that Heathrow is in the wrong place as well, but sustained there by historical accident): either climbing out or landing, swathes of airliners would have to fly at low level over one of the world's metropolises.
Situated on the East is worse than the West, as the prevailing westerlies mean that the low level would be climbing out - the point at which engines are at their most taxed and failures are most common. It's already a miracle we haven't had an airliner crash into London climbing out of Heathrow; it'd be considerably more likely at Boris Island.
I’m sitting on the steps of the Hotel de Ville in divine Château-Gontier, in 39°C heat, while gorgeous tanned French belles saunter past, about to find a bar that will sell me a cold beer (or better still, a Norman cider). Have I missed anything?
(Sorry. In SeanT’s absence I thought a comment in his style would be fitting. It is true though.)
I can’t think of any of Boris’s schemes that came in on budget or met up to his promises. Even the relatively successful bike scheme had to be bailed out by EU funding and runs at a loss, whereas Paris’s makes a profit. The West Ham/Olympic stadium episode was a financial disaster. The cable car was all cost and no benefit. The water cannons were useless and sold for scrap. The millions spent on the Island Airport were obviously being wasted from the outset. Etc.
I will defend him over Boris Island. There is an obvious (though arguable) need for more airport capacity in the southeast, and Heathrow isn't ideally placed to fulfil it - especially if the trends continue long-term. The concept has been around for decades (e.g. the Maplin Sands airport), and it is sensible for alternatives to be looked at before a decision is made on how the demand will be met. And that costs money. Was the money 'wasted'? In a way: but the risks of not doing it is to build the wrong project in the wrong place.
Nope. Boris Island was doubly in the wrong place. It was the wrong side of London for almost anyone other than East Anglians and North Sea fish, for a start. But worse than that, it was due east of London when the prevailing winds are westerly, or occasionally easterly (one reason that Heathrow is in the wrong place as well, but sustained there by historical accident): either climbing out or landing, swathes of airliners would have to fly at low level over one of the world's metropolises.
Situated on the East is worse than the West, as the prevailing westerlies mean that the low level would be climbing out - the point at which engines are at their most taxed and failures are most common. It's already a miracle we haven't had an airliner crash into London climbing out of Heathrow; it'd be considerably more likely at Boris Island.
East Anglians and North Sea Fish? Oh to live in your West London Hammersmith bubble. The North and West of London is already served by Heathrow; a place nobody except people in Hammersmith or Reading can in anyway get to. Kent and Essex both have huge populations, some say they are nearly as big as St John's Wood or Ealing. God forbid.
I can’t think of any of Boris’s schemes that came in on budget or met up to his promises. Even the relatively successful bike scheme had to be bailed out by EU funding and runs at a loss, whereas Paris’s makes a profit. The West Ham/Olympic stadium episode was a financial disaster. The cable car was all cost and no benefit. The water cannons were useless and sold for scrap. The millions spent on the Island Airport were obviously being wasted from the outset. Etc.
I will defend him over Boris Island. There is an obvious (though arguable) need for more airport capacity in the southeast, and Heathrow isn't ideally placed to fulfil it - especially if the trends continue long-term. The concept has been around for decades (e.g. the Maplin Sands airport), and it is sensible for alternatives to be looked at before a decision is made on how the demand will be met. And that costs money. Was the money 'wasted'? In a way: but the risks of not doing it is to build the wrong project in the wrong place.
Nope. Boris Island was doubly in the wrong place. It was the wrong side of London for almost anyone other than East Anglians and North Sea fish, for a start. But worse than that, it was due east of London when the prevailing winds are westerly, or occasionally easterly (one reason that Heathrow is in the wrong place as well, but sustained there by historical accident): either climbing out or landing, swathes of airliners would have to fly at low level over one of the world's metropolises.
Situated on the East is worse than the West, as the prevailing westerlies mean that the low level would be climbing out - the point at which engines are at their most taxed and failures are most common. It's already a miracle we haven't had an airliner crash into London climbing out of Heathrow; it'd be considerably more likely at Boris Island.
East Anglians and North Sea Fish? Oh to live in your West London Hammersmith bubble. The North and West of London is already served by Heathrow; a place nobody except people in Hammersmith or Reading can in anyway get to. Kent and Essex both have huge populations, some say they are nearly as big as St John's Wood or Ealing. God forbid.
Plus it is the same prevailing wind, from W to E, if planes climbing out of Heathrow are endangering the capital then planes climbing out of Boris island would surely be endangering those North Sea fish you have it in for. You wont blow up if you go east of Aldgate believe it or not,
Boris was a good Mayor, it was a role which suited him perfectly. It's not true that Ken Livingstone was an easy opponent - he was surprisingly popular, and to be fair hadn't been too bad a mayor himself (he went bonkers afterwards, not while he was in office). Yes, Being PM, especially in the current situation, is a very different kettle of fish, and he's already blown it.
"the Garden Bridge was an attractive idea "
What makes you say that? It did not serve a purpose. It was not a proper transport link, and it was in the wrong place.
It was something Boris did for his mates, and the whole scheme was borderline fraudulent from the off. Everyone involved should pay back the millions that were spent.
It is the major factor that makes it impossible for me to support him as PM, or the party he leads. And as a Conservative, what should worry you more is that he could not even be arsed to accept responsibility.
outset. Etc.
I will defend him over Boris Island. There is an obvious (though arguable) need for more airport capacity in the southeast, and Heathrow isn't ideally placed to fulfil it - especially if the trends continue long-term. The concept has been around for decades (e.g. the Maplin Sands airport), and it is sensible for alternatives to be looked at before a decision is made on how the demand will be met. And that costs money. Was the money 'wasted'? In a way: but the risks of not doing it is to build the wrong project in the wrong place.
Plus, as someone else said, the world’s most expensive buses promised to Londoners as hop-on platform buses, where the rear door is nowadays never opened between stops. In this week’s weather they will be mobile saunas without a single opening window.
There are opening windows, just a little small. The rear door if left open during motion will be a little dangerous, methinks.
Having three doors makes a difference at busy times. Surprised that even in Brum and Coventry, the buses only have ONE door for entry/exit!
It was Londoners’ mourning the loss of the open platform (very useful between stops) that got Boris the support for the project in the first place.
@IanB2 I never mourned the loss of the open platform. The total number of incidents of deaths and injuries (both passengers and staff) on [the old] Routemasters is around 2 times that on doored buses.
Comments
Boris 92153 (66.4pc)
Hunt 46656 (33.6pc)
t/o a genuinely large 87.4pc
Drop in sterling probably the only real issue to be honest.
The only thing wrong with it was that the design was too damned expensive. It would be great if it could be revived as a cheaper, simpler pedestrian bridge.
Has Boris cocked it up yet?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Gateway_Bridge
Speaking of exercise in the mad heat, here's tonight's run for me https://www.plotaroute.com/route/396661 !
Low unemployment is a British success story but it has been accompanied with really bad productivity figures, poor investment, a continuing trade deficit and until recently a fall in real earnings which are still not quite back to their 2008 peak.
The Lib Dems had 106075 electors, so the smaller party still.
Plus, as someone else said, the world’s most expensive buses promised to Londoners as hop-on platform buses, where the rear door is nowadays never opened between stops. In this week’s weather they will be mobile saunas without a single opening window.
Do you want Boris/Hunt figures to include the spoiled ballots and add up to less than 100
Are the resignation letters still flying all over the place?
If there are 40 000 "entryists" then the party sizes were not disimilar.
If there was a need for a bridge there, then there should have been a proper process in place to see if the need was really there, and what should be done to meet that need.
Worst of all, (from memory) its running costs would have been millions every year.
"an excessively large gap between bridges there"
I suggest you talk to east Londoners about that, and their wait for proper cross-river links. There are seven walkable bridges in two miles, as well as the other cross-river transport links.
And AIUI the Millennium Bridge is an example of where it was done correctly (for the time): the need was determined, and a proper competition held for a design. It came in over budget, but only £2.2 million above the £16 million. Not counting for inflation, you could have had two or three Millennium Bridges for the money that was spent on the Garden Bridge.
Having three doors makes a difference at busy times. Surprised that even in Brum and Coventry, the buses only have ONE door for entry/exit!
HK and Japan have both done it, for similar reasons.
LHR3 is probably the best decision in the short-term (as long as they get diggers in soon). But it is perfectly correct that other options are looked at - and discarded - early on. And that costs money.
I have no problem with Maggie having a statue, after all we do have ones of a number of controversial figures including Oliver Cromwell and Robert Clive in Westminster.
I'm not sure how the need for further bridges down-river is relevant to what I said. I agree that it was going to be too expensive, and indeed I cited it as one of his failures. That doesn't alter the fact that it was an attractive concept and that it would have served a very useful purpose.
I think your last paragraph shows your problem. The concept might be attractive: the location for that concept was not. It was the wrong thing in the wrong place.
"I'm not sure how the need for further bridges down-river is relevant to what I said. "
Because vast amounts of London taxpayers' money was spent, it makes sense to ask: "Where's the place I can build a bridge that gets me the most bang for the buck?"
This simple question was not asked.
He did a very good impression of an idiot when he was Foreign Secretary.
NEW THREAD
If you can isolate the problem, it's usually best to put your focus there.
IMV the answer is:
Brexit
A round-Moon SLS mission (without landing)
HS2
An SLS- and Gateway- based Moon landing
LHR3
All are subject to politics, however. Sidney Camm's is reputed to have said: "an aircraft has four dimensions - length, width, height and politics." The same is true for engineering: politics is massively important for the success of a project.
Besides, what we're talking about is whether it's right to study the options; and IMV it was perfectly sane to include BI in that study.
He give loads of evidence that he will be as bad a PM as he was a foreign secretary, and his term there was borderline catastrophic.
Bullshit is not a strategy and the anti-Maybot will be even worse than she was.
Boris Island was doubly in the wrong place. It was the wrong side of London for almost anyone other than East Anglians and North Sea fish, for a start.
But worse than that, it was due east of London when the prevailing winds are westerly, or occasionally easterly (one reason that Heathrow is in the wrong place as well, but sustained there by historical accident): either climbing out or landing, swathes of airliners would have to fly at low level over one of the world's metropolises.
Situated on the East is worse than the West, as the prevailing westerlies mean that the low level would be climbing out - the point at which engines are at their most taxed and failures are most common. It's already a miracle we haven't had an airliner crash into London climbing out of Heathrow; it'd be considerably more likely at Boris Island.
I never mourned the loss of the open platform.
The total number of incidents of deaths and injuries (both passengers and staff) on [the old] Routemasters is around 2 times that on doored buses.
https://www.london.gov.uk/questions/2002/0072