Government spending
Sir: If we are to believe Mr Powell — and a lot of us do — then the root cause of our present economic trouble is simply government overspending. In the sacred name of growth Mr Heath and his friends have elected to behave more like drunken sailors than responsible politicians.
There are three projects which seem to lend themselves to the spree on which Government is engaged: (1) The Channel Tunnel. I am in no position to assess what commercial benefits will accrue from this. But if the Government is hoping for a vast increase in the tourist trade it had better think again. I see no chance of such an increase except for the very rich. It will only be possible for the rest of us to go to France, by Chunnel or by any other means if we are prepared to take our own food with us, then use a transistor radio to avoid the necessity of buying out-of-date English newspapers at 20p a time, to avoid sending postcards at 15p each and to drink tap water, Charges in France for just about any purchase whatsoever are totally ex tortionate — a fact which the tourist is going to find out. Anyway, thank God I don't live in Kent.
(2) Concorde. I am doubtful whether the saving of three hours on a 3,000 mile flight is really going to matter very much. A saving, incidentally which can very easily be spent in traffic blocks here and/or in the US. To paraphrase a famous Chinese statesman at the turn of the century when told that his train from London to Birmingham had broken the existing record by ten minutes," and what is it intended that I should do with the ten minutes (or three hours) which you have so kindly saved me?" And in addition there is the environmental factor.
(3) 'Wolin Scheme. This is a matter which touches me more closely since I travel a great deal by air to the Con tinent during the course of any given year. At the present time the only aiport available to me is Heathrow involving a train or car journey of about five hours with all its attendant costs. And with Maplin this will become nearer seven hours than six.
I understand that Chambers of Commerce throughout the country have tried to impress on Government the desirability of increasing and improving Provincial airports such as Birmingham, Manchester and possibly Bristol.
This seems the ultimate in good sense. Why should it be necessary to go to London before one can take a plane to France or Spain? In my own case services trom Bristol would provide a most welcome answer, The common sense attending the Chambers of Commerce proposal seem so obvious that one is tempted to speculate whether there is not some ulterior motive in the Government's refusal to consider the abandonment of Maplin. Does it anticipate some electoral advantage in the provision of the' thousands of extra jobs which Maplin would need? Or is the attraction a financial one at the expense of the taxpayer?
And there is one further advantage which the improved utilisation of provincial airports would provide. With the dispersal of Continental traffic over the length and breadth of England (and Scotland, for we must not forget Prestwick) it will be possible to get planes away on time and as advertised. At the present time due to congestion a wait of two to three hours is by no means uncommon and when part of this has to be spent sitting in the aircraft in the holding area air travel ceases to present the attractions in which all concerned would have us believe.
Martyn Snow Honeysuckle Cottage, Riverside East, Newton Ferrers, Plymouth
Previous page
