Cripes! I would sooooo like to turn this into a caption competition, but my wolf pack of highly trained legal beagles have advised against it. Hey-ho.
With the St Jude storm about to hit our septic isle and mash everything to a gelatinous pulp, one of my correspondents has alerted me to another blast of dreadful wind which emanated from Sir Roger Gale, Member of Parliament for Fannit Norf since 1874, in the House of Commons this week.
As usual, Sir Rodge was guffing on about the airport in his customary, swivel-eyed manner (anyone recall his plan to turn Manston into the London Olympics Airport? Nope, nobody does, as it never happened.) Here's the entire text of his latest meanderings from Hansard:
I am delighted to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) for generating the opportunity for us to debate something of absolute national importance. Finally, I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Minister on the Front Bench and welcome him to his new job. I look forward to welcoming him to Kent in the not-too-distant future - he does not know that, but it is going to happen.
I do not want to rerun yesterday's debate either, but during the debate on air passenger duty, the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) referred to the loss of business to Schiphol and Charles de Gaulle - he might have added Frankfurt - and several other locations in Europe. This is crucial for the economy of the UK. We cannot gainsay the fact that the economic hub of the nation is in London. There is much good business in Manchester, Birmingham and Scotland, but the place that people have got used to interlining through, and therefore also doing business in, is London.
Frequently people just change planes, but equally frequently they stop over. Because they are coming through London, they take the opportunity to take in a show or do business in the City of London. It is not just the thousands of jobs at Heathrow or Gatwick that are at stake and which we could lose to mainland Europe; this is about all the other, ancillary jobs, and the tourism and business that go with them. The cost to the country from the loss of aviation business in the south-east to mainland Europe is almost inestimable.
A long time ago, I upset my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) when I championed the cause of the airport at Stansted. I remember saying then, "It's not Heathrow or Stansted; it's Stansted or Schiphol." That is even truer today than it was then. If I need to underscore that point, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and Air France are now flying from Manston, in Kent, twice daily to Schiphol, as they are from a number of other regional airports. They are not doing that for fun; they are doing it because they can see there is business to be taken, from the south-east of England in particular, to Schiphol to interline and to go on to all the other places in the world - literally, anywhere that it is possible to fly to from Schiphol. We cannot afford to sacrifice that business.
This debate is about aviation strategy, but my worry is that there is no aviation strategy. There is a commission, and Sir Howard Davies will do his job and report by 2015. Then there will be a debate and more discussion, and there will not be another strip of tarmac or another building, or a Boris island, for 20 years. That is how long it will take. We are losing business today - not tomorrow, in a year's time or in five years' time, but today. As we speak, business is transferring from the United Kingdom to the mainland European airports. We cannot afford to sustain that loss.
On the doorstep of London there is a place called Manston, in Kent. It has the fourth longest runway in the country - it has taken Concorde and wide-body jets - and it is available now. I am not suggesting for one moment that Manston could or should be another London airport, but I believe it could have a major role to play. In, I think, 2005 - I stand to be corrected - the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) published his White Paper on the future of aviation in the south-east, but since then nothing at all has happened in any meaningful or constructive form, apart from perhaps another terminal at Heathrow. I put it to him at the time that Manston was available, and I was told, "No, it's too far from London" - 76 miles.
Let us think about that. Manston is quite a long way - it is further than Gatwick and Heathrow. Actually, it is not, at least not in time. I hope we will eventually finish High Speed 1- my hon. Friend the Minister might have a hand in that. Indeed, I have travelled on the existing line, with old rolling stock, in under an hour from central London to Manston, and if that was possible then, with High Speed 1, it is even more possible today. We can get the journey time down to about 50 minutes. It takes more than 50 minutes to get from central London to Heathrow and almost as long to get to Gatwick. Therefore, in terms of time rather than distance, which is what matters to the traveller, Manston is viable.
So what do we have? We have an airport sitting in Kent, out on the peninsular, relatively out of harm's way in terms of overflying, available today and under new ownership - Manston was sold and bought last week. Its future was in a bit of doubt because it was on the market, but it has now been bought, so it is secure, at least for the foreseeable future. Manston is there and I say to my hon. Friend the Minister and the House that we have to buy time if we are not going to lose more jobs. Manston is never going to be another London airport. What Manston can do is take traffic from Gatwick to release capacity, allow Gatwick to take traffic from Heathrow and free up the capacity there, which is what we need in the short term while the Government take long-term decisions. Manston is a national asset - not a regional or local asset - and we need to use it now. This country cannot afford to waste it.
If you haven't died from a boredom-induced stroke (quite how Our Roger kept the bright young things tuned in during his stint as a pirate DJ in the 60s is beyond me!), you'll have seen that he perpetuates one or two inaccuracies there. Did you spot them? No?
Well how about '(Manston is) relatively out of harm's way in terms of overflying'? Oh well, perhaps geography isn't his strong point. 'Is secure for the foreseeable future'? Business and commerce not a strong point either, clearly. Unless by 'foreseeable future' he means the end of next month.
'Fourth longest runway in the country?' Er, it's the 14th longest, actually.
No wonder the bigwigs in That London don't take Sir Roger seriously. They've twigged he's about as reliable as Michael Fish!
Speaking of which, I'd better tool off and batten down the hatches here at the old cliff top mansion. Let's hope nothing blows off during the night!!
Which in another context may well be termed gerontophilia. But no, this is about Halloween. My neighbour Betty, who's 76, finds all the trick-or-treating quite scary. So this year she's fashioned this rather esoteric pumpkin, or 'bumpkin' as I like to call it, in the hope that the sight of it in her front window will put the little blighters off. Good luck with that, Betty. My guess is that it may well attract something a bit scarier than a couple of 8 year olds dressed as vampires, but hey-ho.
.JPG)
