Walker wills
The conviction grows that the evident need of our Minister for the Environment, Mr Peter Walker—who has already been not very nice about historic town centres—to demonstrate to the public that he is no out right philistine, will ensure a victory for those who wish to ensure that the next Lon+ don airport should be coastal. I have always thought that Foulness off+ erect every possible advantage, save some inconvenience to the airport authorities and airline operators. These people should, any way, be prepared to put up with such in convenience, in view of the discomfort they produce. This is not really why I think that Foulness (or some similar site) must inevit+ ably be chosen, if a third London airport there must be. My reasoning is altogether coarser, and proceeds along two parallel lines. The first suggests that, since Roskill and his Commission were the product of the Labour government then, ergo, their report should be rejected.
The second, and more powerful line of reasoning is this: that Peter Walker, like the rest of the principal ministers of the new- look Heath administration, would like to do something positive, sensible and nice, if only
• for once. Anyone who by his decision places a new airport in the middle of England can- not be other than a thug (however sound his economics, or his cost-analyses, or his judicious discretion may prove). Peter Walker, who can hardly be regarded as one of nature's aesthetes, has more reason than most for avoiding the thuggish apostrophe,
Previous page
