The luvvies bridge
bianchimoon Posts: 3,942
edited August 2017 in The cake stop
It's a strange world we live in, public amenities closing left right and centre and the most important thing some people can think,of to spend money on is a bridge across the Thames that is neither needed or possibly wanted by the man on the street. A case of let them eat cake?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... nna-lumley
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... nna-lumley
All lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... d-defences
But yes, sentiment is right; inconsistency in the gov't austerity and concerns about some of their motives.
Marin Nail Trail
given that london pays far more tax per capita than the rest of the uk, it'd make much more sense to ask why london's money is being used to prop up lancashire, leeds and every other uk resident
the real issue is that this pretentious nonsense of a bridge is even being contemplated given the dire conditions of much of london's infrastructure and the sorry plight of those who are definitely not on the winning side of the ever widening wealth gap
So assuming you are talking about general taxation in your first sentence, London as it contibutes more in taxation should receive a more proportionate amount of expenditure. In your second sentence you imply that expenditure should go to eleviate the poor in London. But then I am fairly certain that the good people of lancashire, Leeds and every other non London Uk resident would argue that they pay far more tax per capita than the poor in London.
The estimated cost to the Uk economy due to the recent flooding was £5 billion without mentioning the personal cost and the potential of lives being lost.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016 ... mon-rattle
Amazingly enough, we are all part of the same country and, as we know from all the "road tax" arguments, trying to argue for a tax system based on who uses what doesn't tend to lead to happy conclusions. It's not about who subsidises who but what is actually needed. I think that most people would argue that London has lots of stuff already and doesn't 'need' any more; least of all a bridge with flowers on it. It's fine as it is. It has great facilities, great public transport, great museums etc - the same can't be said for many other places. At a time when facilities in, for example, the hypothetical Northern Powerhouse are being hacked left right and centre, it seems hard to see that this is even remotely a correct priority. Joanna Lumley has a lot to answer for.........
Marin Nail Trail
5 people have supported your petition so far. We’re checking your petition to make sure it meets the petition standards. If it does, we’ll publish it. This usually takes a week or less.
since saturday, one has now appeared on that site, so if you feel inclined please sign
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/119185 - cheers
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign ... nels-mayor
even more corrupt!!
The bridge’s annual running costs are estimated at £2.8m, a sum the trust aims to raise through donations and the corporate events that will close the bridge for 12 nights a year. However, Johnson announced in June that he would guarantee this sum from public money in perpetuity.
Have signed the petition.
And don't get me started on that cnut Osborne
It's just a hill. Get over it.
undoubtedly, but the High Line wasnt something new they had to build from scratch as such, it was revitalising an existing structure/space that had fallen into disuse and was something that could easily be turned into a green space in a very urban environment, and they dont, I believe,hire it out for canapes and champagne evenings, but maybe Im wrong on that
for this bridge, well you can argue whether London needs a new bridge or not,but it probably doesnt need a new restricted use bridge, and certainly not one thats only possible to be built with generous public money backing, and unless they cover it with greenhouses, and so its less of a bridge and more of a structure with a river view, absolutely nothing worthwhile is going to grow on it, because everything will be wind scorched by that infernal constant wind along the Thames and the fact you wont be able to retain enough moisture in the planting.
I'd imagine that there is a charge for the electricity at least.
I am not sure. You have no chance.
Yes, the High Line was a genius idea for an existing abandoned space which was an environmentally friendly and economical way of increasing green space. The pot plant bridge is an environmentally disastrous and hugely expensive way of creating a very contrived green space. Yes, more greenery is great but, again, London is well supplied with green. Try finding a scrap of green space in central Leeds. One small park in a Georgian square is about it but I wouldn't use that as an excuse to ask for a hugely expensive engineering project covered with begonias. Does anyone really think that London is "a dreary place that is all about function"? If such a bridge can be justified, the one definite truth (IMO) is that there are more needful places to put it than London.
A friend I was out riding with Sunday said it was good idea as it would bring more tourists into London. I tried to explain that the area it was being put in probably has more tourists per sq meters than anywhere else on the planet, not sure he got it
Pross, i don't think you've gone beyond the obvious, Johnson is out soon, but he has committed public money and agreed to fund it in perpetuity. It is not just a pretty bridge with flowers on, the issues with funding, environment, the tender processetc. Museums and galleries up and down the UK are being forced to shut for want of far less money than will cost to run per annum let alone build. No it's plain daft!
Shame it took £37 million to find out that it's a daft idea that London doesn't need / want. Sadiq Khan has done one good thing!
Road - Wilier Izoard Centaur/Cube Agree C62 Disc
Allround - Cotic Solaris
It would be interesting to see what exactly the £37.4 m has been squandered away on.
Wilier Cento Uno SR/Wilier Mortirolo/Specialized Roubaix Comp/Kona Hei Hei/Calibre Bossnut
Lumley is a believer so has nothing to answer
Boris is a charlatan and needs to explain his relationship with interested parties. He and Osborne should have the threat of Jail hanging over them.
and cameron seems to have a case to answer.
And whilst we are about it let's bang up Andrew Boff for having no shame
Andrew Boff, Conservative London Assembly member, said Mr Khan had wasted £9m in taxpayers' money as he could have scrapped the project as early as May of last year.
I'm involved in construction industry, dealing with architects and engineers. I'm pretty sure that as it was only in design phase and pre planning there is no way that consultancy and legal fees would have racked up £37m on pre construction. It must have gone to some very unscrupulous parties...... back handers all round.
http://littleatoms.com/society/londons- ... t-go-ahead