Poll finds only one in five supports airport plan

Wainscott Wonder wrote:

Bravo @bogoffboris! Bravo!

09 Feb 2012 3:28 PM

Report Abuse

bogoffboris wrote:

I'll wave as your plane passes low overhead on its final approach!

To be honest the more, likewise, (see - we do share something!) bored I got the less inclined toward constructive debate I felt too!

To be continued..........

09 Feb 2012 3:20 PM

Report Abuse

Wainscott Wonder wrote:

@bogoffboris

It's been a pleasure debating this with you, I feel we have come to a dead end (some time ago in fact) as you have stopped replying with any substance or answering any of the perfectly reasonable questions I have posed in previous posts, so until the next airport story, I wish you adieu.

(P.S. I'm hoping you don't take my departure as a victory over the evil of mankind, I'm just a bit bored!)

09 Feb 2012 3:07 PM

Report Abuse

bogoffboris wrote:

And again there we go again ladies & gents - a handy 5 minute ride to an airport terminal is good thing to have from your font door is it?

Keep em coming my shallow friend - true colours blazing through.

Oh & move back to Heathrow while you're at it if its so precious to you.

09 Feb 2012 2:49 PM

Report Abuse

Wainscott Wonder wrote:

@bogoffboris

Haha you do make me laugh with some of your odd comments. One track mind? Of course, I think you'll find that's because this is a story about ONE issue. You too have had a one track mind throughout our 'discussion'. If you want to debate any others, then by all means let me know and I'll throw my opinions in on another thread somewhere as well.

I care about much more than just myself, I stand to gain nothing personally from the airport (short of having a handy 5-min bus ride to the new terminal when I go on holiday), I just care in a different way to yourself. Don't lower yourself to making personal insults just because we disagree.

I will continue to keep putting my own opinions forward (I, I, I) as I wouldn't be so arrogant and presumptuous as to act as spokesman for everyone.

09 Feb 2012 2:36 PM

Report Abuse

Wainscott Wonder wrote:

@bogoffboris

Hahaha you do make me laugh with some of your hypocritical comments. One track mind? Of course, I think you'll find that's because this is a story about ONE issue. You too have had a one track mind throughout our 'discussion'. If you want to debate any others, then by all means let me know and I'll throw my opinions in on another thread somewhere as well.

I care about much more than just myself, I stand to gain nothing personally from the airport #short of having a handy 5 minute bus ride to the new terminal when I go on holiday#, I just care in a different way to yourself.

I will continue to keep putting my own opinions forward #I, I, I# as I wouldn't be so arrogant and presumptuous as to act as spokesman for everyone.

09 Feb 2012 2:34 PM

Report Abuse

Wainscott Wonder wrote:

@bogoffboris

Hahaha you do make me laugh with some of your hypocritical comments. One track mind? Of course, I think you'll find that's because this is a story about ONE issue. You too have had a one track mind throughout our 'discussion'. If you want to debate any others, then by all means let me know and I'll throw my opinions in on another thread somewhere as well.

I care about much more than just myself, I stand to gain nothing personally from the airport (short of having a handy 5 minute bus ride to the new terminal when I go on holiday), I just care in a different way to yourself.

I will continue to keep putting my own opinions forward (I, I, I) as I wouldn't be so arrogant and presumptuous as to act as spokesman for everyone.

09 Feb 2012 2:34 PM

Report Abuse

bogoffboris wrote:

Wainscott. Keep em coming - Airports, airports, airports.

Really one track mind.

I note with interest also the number of "I thinks", "In my opinions", "In my eyes."

How about caring for more than yourself?

09 Feb 2012 2:09 PM

Report Abuse

Wainscott Wonder wrote:

@bogoffboris

I have read the Theresa Villiers article on your recommendation, thank you for pointing me towards it, although I'm not really sure what relevance it has to our discussion as there is only one short paragraph on aviation policy which contains a lot of politician talk for 'wait and see'. That is what I suggest we do.

At no point have I tried to make out that support for the airport development outweighs that against it at this moment in time, but to say that the country as a whole is not convinced is inaccurate. I think you'll find the majority of people are holding fire on an opinion one way or the other for the time being until a decision is made by government and further details are released. Once that is done, I can only see support for it increasing, as history shows that those who are against proposals like these are generally against it from the outset, and those who are undecided have a tendancy to lean towards the positive.

Consider your desired future with no further development of any airports or transport of any kind. Where does that leave us as a country?

In my eyes, it would mean an infrastructure crumbling under the strains of operating at full capacity; further economic decline due to the migration of commerce to the continent and decreased private investment from around the world, resulting in further job losses and an even tighter financial future for our children and our children's children, who would be grateful to get one of your loathed McStarbucks jobs. This then has the disasterous knock-on effects to the high street and property markets, amongst other, of people living on reduced incomes.

That's my opinion anyway, what does the future hold in your opinion?

Eyes wide shut - mine most certainly are not.

09 Feb 2012 12:31 PM

Report Abuse

bogoffboris wrote:

For those out there who are interesed in the continuing debate and have their eyes open there is an interview in todays (YES WAINSCOTT TODAYS) edition of Total Politics.com with the transport minister Theresa Villiers. One thing it does not reveal is that this government has plans to build Boris Island. Google Boris Island and/or Thames Estuary Airport and you will find the debate continues.

Wainscott you should open your eyes to more than provincial paper postings. I say again Telegraph, Times, Guardian, BBC, Londons Evening Standard (who are far, far from onside)

The country as a whole are not convinced.

09 Feb 2012 11:21 AM

Report Abuse

bogoffboris wrote:

Wainscott. As I say keep those postings coming - from the horses mouth : eyes wide shut, arms folded, willingly, fully in support and will not be dissuaded from a plan that will ruin so many lives for such material excuses.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I am against all such huge environmental atrocities - here or elsewhere in the country.

Again I find your uncaring headlong desire for a bright shiny new swathe of concrete and steel dismaying.

09 Feb 2012 10:47 AM

Report Abuse

Wainscott Wonder wrote:

Apologies, that last post was even longer than my usual ones! I've quoted @bogoffboris' post as well by mistake... My reply starts about halfway down.

09 Feb 2012 8:55 AM

Report Abuse

Wainscott Wonder wrote:

@Wainscott. Incredible - are you truly so short sighted (and before you reply you are thinking long-term about "developing" to keep up lest we drop behind Paris etc in 30 years time I am talking in terms of 100s of years - when we will be paying the price for your naivety. The damage you advocate cannot be undone and I care for the future of generations to come as much as for our children right here & now.)

Dont pretend to be as ill educated to not grasp that I am talking about Heathrow expansion if we're talking London. You say its Johnson & Greenings business to put an airport here but do you not understand how offensive it is that they play the "green" card and yet are pushing to concrete over vast tracts of land outside of their constituency? I reiterate my utter rebuttal of your NIMBY accusation - they are they NIMBYs not me/us/my friends & neighbours.

What comes across over & over is that you are prepared to roll over & take this. You WILL find that most are not. Also, moderating slightly, I suggest that when you moved here you did not adopt it as truly, deeply your home. Think of graveyards that will be annihilated, homes for generations concreted over, history & heritage that, even now, tonight, is still being reported upon on the BBC will simply disappear.

If you are not prepared to take that on then please keep posting : your cliched, jaundiced & blinkered views really are neatly encapsulating the body of people who need to be campaigned against.

@bogoffboris

I'm not really sure how you can accuse me of being short-sighted and nieve - we all know this isn't just about keeping up with our European competitors over the next 20-30 years, as a new airport will last far beyond that. Heathrow Airport has been around in its current guise for a good 60-70 years, so given the way that the aviation idustry has grown over that time, who's to say that a new purpose-built airport won't be around for the 100-years plus that you see as long term?

If you re-read my previous post, you will see that I covered the issue of Heathrow expansion, so no pretense of ill-education. A third runway there is papering over the cracks, not to mention that you are contradicting yourself by supporting that approach in that it would mean the wanton destruction of thousands of homes, graveyards, heritage and history etc etc that you claim to be so in favour of supporting.

You can't have it both ways - either you're against airport expansion/new developments in any way, shape or form, in any location in the country... Or, you don't care about anyone else, you just don't want it near you - the true definition of NIMBYism. Please enlighten me as to which camp you fall into, as at the moment I am a little confused.

Finally, I am not prepared to roll over and take this - I am fully in support of this. No need for rolling over.

09 Feb 2012 8:53 AM

Report Abuse

bogoffboris wrote:

@Wainscott. Incredible - are you truly so short sighted (and before you reply you are thinking long-term about "developing" to keep up lest we drop behind Paris etc in 30 years time I am talking in terms of 100s of years - when we will be paying the price for your naivety. The damage you advocate cannot be undone and I care for the future of generations to come as much as for our children right here & now.)

Dont pretend to be as ill educated to not grasp that I am talking about Heathrow expansion if we're talking London. You say its Johnson & Greenings business to put an airport here but do you not understand how offensive it is that they play the "green" card and yet are pushing to concrete over vast tracts of land outside of their constituency? I reiterate my utter rebuttal of your NIMBY accusation - they are they NIMBYs not me/us/my friends & neighbours.

What comes across over & over is that you are prepared to roll over & take this. You WILL find that most are not. Also, moderating slightly, I suggest that when you moved here you did not adopt it as truly, deeply your home. Think of graveyards that will be annihilated, homes for generations concreted over, history & heritage that, even now, tonight, is still being reported upon on the BBC will simply disappear.

If you are not prepared to take that on then please keep posting : your cliched, jaundiced & blinkered views really are neatly encapsulating the body of people who need to be campaigned against.

08 Feb 2012 9:18 PM

Report Abuse

miss wrote:

Many flights take-off from Kent everyday, Manston should be trailing night flights starting over the Olympic period.
For most people in the South East and Kent travel to an airport is far from local and it usually means several junctions of a long motorway or two even Manston. Llyd Airport, Beginhill and Rochester Airport all have direct flights over housing and near lots of wildlife, parks etc. So I think that this discussion is getting distorted. This airport would have a flight path over the water reducing risks of noise, pollution and aircraft failures over land. "On the other hand" there does seem to be some reason to the argument in that adequate funds should be spent on insuring the new airport is designed to consider the locals, key objectives are to reduce noise pollution and effects on wildlife to get most people on side with the notion. At present most people I speak to in Medway and places neighbouring Medway approve if the airport had strict planning?

08 Feb 2012 8:27 PM

Report Abuse

Wainscott Wonder wrote:

@bogoffboris

Just point out to me all of those huge sites in London where a new airport could be built...

Boris may be the Mayor of London, but like it or not, London is the financial capital of the country and a project like this directly impacts upon the City and the rest of the country, so again like it or not, it is his and the Transport Secretary's business.

Merely expanding the current airports is not enough because if that were to be done, then they would be at full capacity within thirty years and we'll be back to square one, plus we would have lost out on countless business opportunities resulting in more job losses and a poorer economy for future generations.

I appreciate where you're coming from, and as I've said before in an ideal world no greenery would be concreted over and the environment would be left untouched, I am completely in agreement with you there. However, this is not an ideal world and we must move with the times or be left behind.

08 Feb 2012 7:39 PM

Report Abuse

bogoffboris wrote:

Truly, staggeringly, very, very, deeply ill observed and the polar opposite of reality - yes this is NIMBYism but it is NIMBYism on Bojo/Greenings part. How can you not see that? They are clearly advocating airport expansion but IN SOMEONE ELSES BACK YARD! OURS!

If we have a "There you have it" moment it has been yours over and over again on with your willingness, nay desire, to sheep-like go along with the destruction of what is left of this corner of England.

Do you not see that at all? Are you not proud of the countryside around you? Do you not care a jot for anything other than a quick buck?

For the second time this evening I have considered taking a more conciliatory tone but have found myself again dismayed with your flagrant disregard for the place I consider home.

07 Feb 2012 9:49 PM

Report Abuse

Wainscott Wonder wrote:

@bogoffboris

...and there we have it. NIMBYism in its simplest form. So it's not the environment everywhere that you're concerned about - when you say alternatives everywhere, what you mean is 'build it in some other poor sod's back garden, after all they did choose to live near an airport.'

The stories that I found on my search showed the majority of opposition was some 12-18 months ago, but now more detailed plans than 'Boris is going to build an island' have been shown, the airlines' stance appears to have softened to a more 'let's wait and see what the options are.'

Regarding the business opinion, yes some companies are going to be against the airport on environmental grounds, but altimately business are there to provide a service and make money, and I think you'll struggle to find a single business that would turn down custom just because it has come as a result of the airport development.

07 Feb 2012 9:32 PM

Report Abuse

bogoffboris wrote:

@Wainscott. And furthermore a very quick google ("airlines in support of boris island") gave me a number of stories - try those under "flight mapping" unfortunately Kentonline won't allow me to send a URL.

That was just a quick look which I'll gladly provide you with more to open your eyes to business opposition.

Try the Telegraph, Times, Guardian or Londons Evening Standard. Or the Daily Mail if thats your bag.

BAA (The aviation authority), British Airways, Virgin, Ryanair, Easyjet all say no, wrong side of London. Birmingham want to expand. So do Stanstead.

Alternatives everywhere.

07 Feb 2012 8:38 PM

Report Abuse

bogoffboris wrote:

@Wainscott. You keep showing your true colours - do you really stand by your aviation-fuel-tainted -spectacles anti-environmental position? Please keep posting as you are displaying all the signs of precisely the kind of person that needs to be campaigned against, re-informed or ejected.

Please tell us all why it should be destruction that is the only solution?

Air fuel costs are soaring (and its running out), we are being that governments around the world are cutting carbon emissions - this would negate that at a stroke, we are being encouraged (and with HS2 the gvnmt are allegedly leading the way) to expand existing infrastructure.

What you are doing is playing directly into the hands of Justine Greening (Heathrows MP and determined not to upset her constituents AT OUR COST) and Boris Johnson (a buffoon reaching the end of his tenure as London mayor and attempting to achieve something with a long list of boris bike-esque fiascos behind him.)

As far as businesses not in favour of this it is the mature businesses who are aware of their moral and environmental responsibilities and who can see this plan for what it is.

Also consider the fact that any reported investment in this would be from overseas investors as much as government. If you think that my reaction has been vociferous, wait until it pans out that China PLC reaps all the gains and we are truly left with my originally described McStarbucks jobs.

A very, very, very poor trade indeed and one anyone of sound mind should see for what it is.

07 Feb 2012 8:16 PM

Report Abuse

Wainscott Wonder wrote:

@bogoffboris

I'm not entirely sure where you get the idea that I have my eyes closed to the continuing debate - if anything, I think I have conceded more ground than you in that I have said that I understand your view, I just don't agree with it.

You, however, refuse to see even the slightest merit in the project, even to the extent where you believe that businesses do not want 150m people passing through their catchment area, or that airlines wouldn't want to move to a shiny new worldwide aviation hub. Unless you have evidence of these two comments that you continually put forward being true, I would stick to your environmental argument, which is much more cohesive.

In an ideal world, there would be no airports and green landscape everywhere with the planet being left untouched. However, we do not live in an ideal world - we live in a world where unfortunately money talks, and to keep up with this world and stop the country falling into long-term economic decline, we must spend to keep up. Expanding the existing airports simply will not do - a new airport is needed, and I for one would like our area to profit from the financial benefits it would bring. I don't think I'm alone in that opinion, even if I am in the minority at this stage of the proceedings.

07 Feb 2012 5:32 PM

Report Abuse

bogoffboris wrote:

@Wainscott. In which case you really are misjudging the feelings against this idea. Were you not so keen to see this progressed I may have considered withdrawing my comment about moving near an airport but you clearly are in favour of concrete & steel over our landscape so I stand by it. One of the fundamental differences between Heathrow expansion and a new airport is that there has been an airport on that site for years and residents move there knowing that full well, here in Medway we do not have such a blight. Why should our environment be drastically compromised?

A shame you have closed your eyes to the debate which is still continuing - or is it because all you see is the anti and undecideds? I say again airlines dont want it, residents dont want it, business is unconvinced, London doesnt want it, common sense screams that it is a vanity project at best and a monstrosity at worst.

07 Feb 2012 4:18 PM

Report Abuse

Wainscott Wonder wrote:

@bogoffboris

All I am doing is responding the points that you are raising with my own contrary argument, so I apologise if a well thought out and coherent argument is not what you were expecting from someone in favour of the airport development. I won't be changing my style of writing for you though.

If you go back over my last post, you will see that I have used the term 're-read' in reference to newspaper articles and such like. This means that I have already read the articles and I am well informed with the different opinions and arguments surrounding the project. I still have no desire to go back over them, as there will be no new information contained in them. I prefer to wait for subsequent news stories.

I don't believe for a second that you really mean the "If you want to live near an airport then move near an airport" comment, as otherwise I could retort with "If you don't want to live near an airport, then move away from the airport", which is quite frankly a ridiculous statement to make. Everyone has the right to live wherever they want to, and no-one has the right to say otherwise.

As for the price to pay for jobs and business development, yes I think it is a fair swap. No-one wants to have to build an airport anywhere, but projections show it is an inevitability that we will need a new airport (in one location or another) and that the business sector needs a new aiport to keep up with its competitors in Europe or we will suffer even greater financial hardship in 20-30 years time when custom dries up.

If the current economic climate shows us nothing else, it is that we can't afford to be stuck in the present, we have to look to the future and secure jobs and employment for future generations, otherwise we will in an even worse predicament come the middle of the century.

Speculate to accumulate.

07 Feb 2012 3:10 PM

Report Abuse

bogoffboris wrote:

@ Wainscott. If you take one thing from this then take that, despite your wordy responses, you are not arguing from a majority position and you will always face stern criticism. Being in favour of such destruction can ONLY be construed as support for job creation at any (ANY) price. It is not a price remotely worth paying.

As far as being "not interested" in what is being said in the wider world then that reinforces the view that you are blindly supporting this plan to concrete over somewhere that you moved to without any consideration for those who you call neighbours.

If you want to live near an airport then move to near an airport.

07 Feb 2012 12:45 PM

Report Abuse

Wainscott Wonder wrote:

@bogoffboris

My suggestion to not get defensive was merely aimed about your suspicion about my innocent question of where you lived.

I have absolutely no problem with you having the view that the landscape of the Isle of Grain should remain untouched - everyone is allowed to hold and express their own opinions, including me. I'm not trying to persuade you or bully you into thinking like me, merely putting across the polar viewpoint that this airport development and everything that comes with it could be a massive boost for the area.

I'm not quite sure where you have grasped this notion from that I'm 'all about concrete and steel'. I have constantly put forward the argument that this would be great for dealing with the issue of local unemployment, increasing business in the area, raising house prices, improving infrastructure.

The fact that I used to live near Heathrow doesn't have the slightest bearing on why I now live in Wainscott - you have certainly put two and two together and got five with that - and as for my comments about Grain and my friends and acquaintances who have lived and still remain living there, once again this is down to personal opinion. I'm not saying there aren't people in Grain who love the place, but it certainly isn't all of them who are against the proposal.

I have no desire to re-read the news stories of the past few weeks - they give a very limited picture of what is really going on at the moment, and the precise details of the project are still sketchy anyway, which is probably why almost a third of the people in the recent poll are undecided on the issue. When more details are published, I think you will see a rise in support from local people and businesses when they see what an airport development could bring to them.

06 Feb 2012 9:45 PM

Report Abuse

bogoffboris wrote:

@Wainscott. Your suggestion not to get defensive shows that you have failed to grasp the level of opposition here : OF COURSE I will get defensive - I'm defending the future of my environment. Also you reveal you used to live near Heathrow - please, please, please do not move into a clean environment and then state its not all bad under an airport : as I previously suggested if you wish to live near an airport then move near an airport, DO NOT come and attempt to justify more landscape destruction. Why did you move here? Was part of that to move away from an airport? Along with your derisory comment about Grain you've pretty much blown your argument by showing its all about concrete and steel for you.

Burying your minority comments in wordinesss does not make your viewpoint correct or the popular view. I suggest you re-read some of the threads, local & international news, business & airline opinion, even Londoners aren't sold on the idea.

06 Feb 2012 7:57 PM

Report Abuse

Wainscott Wonder wrote:

@ John

If you look at the proposals closely yourself, you will see that whilst this development is probably a good 20-30 years off, by that time the existing airports that we have in the South-East would be unable to cope with the demand, even if they were expanded to full capacity. This is one of the main reasons why a new airport is needed. The increased demand will mean that the closure of the other airports is not necessary as they will continue to operate at levels similar to that which they currently operate at now.

I'm not nieve enough to think that there won't be government changes and backtracking and alterations and hold-ups... but the same goes for any major project of this sort. This is why we need to get started on the project as soon as possible, so that even with the hold-ups we do not get left behind as a country in the world's developing economy. This development is key not just to Kent and London, but the country as a whole.

At the same time, you should not be nieve enough to think that successive governments won't push on with this project. Labour may be against it now, but put them back in power and I guarantee they will push on with it. Our political parties in this country are not so dis-similar, despite their protestations to the contrary (one of the reasons for the low poll-turnouts, but that's another issue), and all they are doing is playing the vote-winning game right now by opposing the development.

As for the investment in the infrastructure, if the project is kept at the size they are proposing, then yes, I expect the entire proposal to be carried out. It won't spring up overnight, but it will come.

06 Feb 2012 8:35 AM

Report Abuse

Wainscott Wonder wrote:

@bogoffboris

No need to get defensive, it was merely an innocent enquiry about where you live to give me some perspective to your argument. For all I knew, you could be living in Australia and have no knowledge whatsoever of the local geography - clearly that is not the case.

For the record, I, as my name suggests, live in Wainscott.

A very similar distance from the proposed site as yourself and, as I have said in previous threads, a very similar distance to that which I used to live from Heathrow Airport, so I am well aware of the potential pitfalls and benefits that being so close to a world-renowned airport can bring.

As for your accusations of arrogance, I know a good few people who have lived and grown up on the peninsula, and some who are still living in Grain. Not a single one of them is against the airport development, so whilst I don't presume that I am speaking for the whole of Kent, neither should you do so.

06 Feb 2012 8:13 AM

Report Abuse

John wrote:

To Wainscott Wonder:
Do you really believe that the entire proposed transport infrastructure will be completed? I would suggest the likelihood is that, even if the airport is completed, the most we will get in terms of transport improvements will be local links onto existing overcrowded roads and rail lines. We have a habit in this country of having bright ideas and then not completing them. Look at HS1 - only just completed after being half-finished for years. As to any promised high-speed links from Euston to the North, still only vague plans!

Additionally, to justify an airport of the size proposed would imply the closure of, at least, some other airports in the area. As Bogoffboris has suggested, the government are not likely to approve proposals that would lead to massive increases in unemployment in, say, the Heathrow area. Nor would government and businesses want to write off all the money invested in the existing airports. So what are we likely to get? The answer is, I would suggest, a watered down scheme for a smaller airport without most of the infrastructure improvements.

The detailed planning of the proposed airport and infrastructure projects (of whatever size) will obviously take years. How many changes of government and how many financial crises will there be before any building starts? How many changes of mind will there be? How many homes will be blighted and for how long? How many possible business proposals will be put on hold because "you can't build there, we may need the land for a new road link" or whatever?

I am not saying that I oppose the plans. What I would say is that those supporting the idea do need to think what is really likely to happen.

06 Feb 2012 1:04 AM

Report Abuse

bogoffboris wrote:

@ Wainscott: Walking distance from the Medway in Rainham, born & brought up here 40+ years ago and a Kentish Man through and through so please be careful with that line of enquiry.

Particularly as you show your true colours in your dismissal of the area concerned with such arrogant rudeness - it is peoples homes you have just character assassinated.

Where do YOU live and how much of your standpoint is borne from being sufficiently far away that you need not care?

Cab we really afford to keep abusing our planet in the way you condone?

05 Feb 2012 10:08 PM

Report Abuse

Wainscott Wonder wrote:

@bogoffboris

Just out of interest, where abouts do you live and how affected by this proposal do you expect to be?

The amount of investment that a project of this scale will bring to the area is immeasurable in my opinion, not only through jobs created at the airport itself, but for all businesses in Medway, Kent, Essex and East London and the transport infrastructure that will be created.

Can we really afford to sit around doing nothing for the economy for another 20 years before realising that this project could really put our area on the global map?

And forgive me, but I have been out to Grain more times than I care to remember and I really don't remember it being the picturesque, idyllic area that some people make it out to be.

05 Feb 2012 9:25 PM

Report Abuse

bogoffboris wrote:

Sorry Wainscott but thats a bit of a persecution complex - I'm not saying only skilled jobs are worth creating at all. The point is that a new airpot will not be the magic bullet you hope it to be - of course I wish prosperity on my home but the trade off between what jobs are created and the permanent, vast blight on the landscape that this would be is a very poor trade indeed.

Don't allow yourself to be fooled otherwise.

05 Feb 2012 12:23 PM

Report Abuse

Wainscott Wonder wrote:

@bogoffboris

Why is it that you consider only skilled jobs are worth creating? There are a hell of a lot of well-educated, skilled workers in Kent who would just be grateful for ANY job, and without the lower paid workers like cleaners, restaurant staff etc where would we be? These are essential jobs that you may see as below you but would go a long way towards solving the long-standing problem of unemployment in this area.

Also, what makes you say that businesses and airlines are against this proposal? I can this of very few businesses who would be against boosting the economy in the area.

04 Feb 2012 11:04 PM

Report Abuse

bogoffboris wrote:

Sorry - some shocking spelling mistakes in there!

03 Feb 2012 4:46 PM

Report Abuse

bogoffboris wrote:

@M Worthy sounding and, no doubt, well & honestly meant but the whole idea runs counter to and will not reconcile with what we are accepting as global environemntal change. We have to cut back fuel consumption and carbon emissions - making it even more repugnant that BoJo is pushing this plan. That is true NIMBYism - lets have a new airport but in someone elses back yard.

Lets just hope that all our views are properly put forward and listened to eh?

And to all those "undecideds" - c'mon ladies & gentlemen this is far, far, far to important to be a "dont know." Inertia creep will turn your "I don't know" into a "I'd like an airport please" and you'll regret being steam rollered.

03 Feb 2012 4:27 PM

Report Abuse

M wrote:

@Bogoffboris. No one knows the true support or opposition to the project. What we need is an impartial approach to analyse the whole project and its effect. It's too easy to pick the good points or the bad points. All I am saying at the moment is don't dismiss this out of hand and only to make a judgment when we have all of the facts. The Medway Council should also not dismiss this straight away without a complete and thorough investigation. Maidstone BC opposed the Channel Rail link and station which was planned at the bottom of BlueBell Hill and won against the station. Short sighted because can you get on the train in Maidstone? The new airport could prove to be the wrong thing but at the moment my opinion is that it would be of a major benefit to the Thames Corridor communities.

03 Feb 2012 2:12 PM

Report Abuse

bogoffboris wrote:

@M Quite happy & sure about that thanks. I'm not sure you've read & taken in anything other than what you want to see. As an "employer" its dangerous to blindly believe and promise that a mass of concrete will bring job creation - you will have seen the likelihood of Heathrow closing in favor of this project. (a) Do you believe the government would sanction that many redundancies and (b) who do you think would take the skilled jobs? Yup, those workers who would relocate around to Medway. Unless you want an army of McStarbucks employees and that, frankly, is a very poor tradeoff.

Existing capacity must expand before another airport is ever considered - just because other parts of England have been dumped on for Londons sake why should we put up with being dumped on too?

I say again you should rethink, become aware you are not in the majority and start caring for your environment.

03 Feb 2012 1:22 PM

Report Abuse

M wrote:

@BogoffBoris, are you sure the minority are the people that want the Airport? Previous comments on this KM site appear to be more in favour of the development. It is a very emotive subject but there should be a broader analysis of the whole. Running a pole of only 250 is hardly a true indicator - and what was the question?. As a resident of Medway yes I would welcome the airport and the new infastructure of roads, Thames crossings etc. Consider also the employment potential. Remember employment brings wealth and prosperity to an area. It is obviously not all good but a proper look at the proposal and its good and bad points along with the impact on the area should be carried out. An official poll undertaken of all of the electorate in Medway. The Medway Council should also look to the possibility that it might be good for the area, rather than just jumping up and opposing. As an employer and resident in Medway I again say it may be a good idea.

03 Feb 2012 1:06 PM

Report Abuse

bogoffboris wrote:

Brace yourselfs. Here they come again - here come that MINORITY (lets hear that said again : MINORITY) who are blindly in favor of this. How can you care so little for the environment and be so foolish to believe that there will be material gain for us residents. Business doesnt want it, airlines dont want it, residents dont want it (therefore politicians are against it - sorry but thats just how it is), fuel cost is soaring, we're supposed to be cutting carbon emissions, Bojo is Mayor of London not Kent, LPG containers, The Montgommery, weather, birds? Sheesh people wise up, wake up or move to near an airport if thats what you really want.

03 Feb 2012 12:26 PM

Report Abuse

m wrote:

Poll - what poll? No one asked me. From other comments there seem to be more in favour than against. On such an important topic can someone not organise a more representative opinion poll. The Airport will come and it will bring huge benefits to the area.

03 Feb 2012 10:18 AM

Report Abuse

Richard wrote:

I wonder what question was asked. The negative campaign waged by Medway Council is not representative of residents. Where are the leaders with vision who want to see economic prosperity for our region?

03 Feb 2012 9:29 AM

Report Abuse

dasmon777 wrote:

250 people is hardly representative.

03 Feb 2012 8:29 AM

Report Abuse