According to the Standard at least...

"Crossrail will go ahead, new Transport Secretary Philip Hammond announced
today. He ended fears that the Lib-Con government could pull the plug on the
landmark £16billion rail scheme for London."

"Speaking to the Evening Standard on his first full day in the job, he said:
"I think the funding for Crossrail is already established. We are making
sure that in delivering the project we absolutely optimise value for money."

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...h-crossrail.do

Paul S

On May 13, 6:39*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
"I think the funding for Crossrail is already established. We are making
sure that in delivering the project we absolutely optimise value for money."

Hmmm. "I think..." I hope this is a one off, and future decisions
will be made from a knowledgeable position!

PhilD

--

On May 13, 6:39*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

According to the Standard at least...

"Crossrail will go ahead, new Transport Secretary Philip Hammond announced
today. He ended fears that the Lib-Con government could pull the plug on the
landmark £16billion rail scheme for London."

"Speaking to the Evening Standard on his first full day in the job, he said:
"I think the funding for Crossrail is already established. We are making
sure that in delivering the project we absolutely optimise value for money."

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...e-23833771-.do

Sounds positive - particularly where he says: "It's happening, it's
being built, spades are in the ground" - they don't sound like the
words of someone who's about to cancel or delay it.

On May 13, 10:39*am, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
According to the Standard at least...

"Crossrail will go ahead, new Transport Secretary Philip Hammond announced
today. He ended fears that the Lib-Con government could pull the plug on the
landmark £16billion rail scheme for London."

"Speaking to the Evening Standard on his first full day in the job, he said:
"I think the funding for Crossrail is already established. We are making
sure that in delivering the project we absolutely optimise value for money."

This is excellent news. So far, so good for Crossrail. Come the
recovery, it will be needed, really needed.

On May 13, 7:17*pm, E27002 wrote:

This is excellent news. *So far, so good for Crossrail. *Come the
recovery, it will be needed, really needed.

Assuming the coalition of fools does not mess up the recovery.

--
Nick

In message
, at
10:42:37 on Thu, 13 May 2010, PhilD remarked:
"I think the funding for Crossrail is already established. We are making
sure that in delivering the project we absolutely optimise value for money."

Hmmm. "I think..."

?? "Someone told be me that we couldn't wriggle out of it..."
--
Roland Perry

On 13 May, 18:39, "Paul Scott" wrote:
According to the Standard at least...

More likely that when Nicholas Ridley's reincarnation proclaimed he
would finish Crossrail he was actually asserting that he would
*finish* Crossrail?

--
gordon

Assuming the coalition of fools does not mess up the recovery.


What by not applying Labour's keep on spending bull****?

Labour's keep on spending bull**** was just for the election.

Behind the scenes, they were already planning exactly the same sort of
cuts and more that the Tories had been on about.

In fifty days time, we will have another budget, between then and now
the coalition get to see the previous government’s books that they’ve
been keeping highly secret.

Somehow, I don’t think it’s going to be good news.

The economy has been way beyond the comfort zone of ideological
argument for some time now.

It’s the mathematics that are in control now and if responding to them
means a double dip recession then tough – there’s simply no other
option.

Though it’s arguable that Labour would have almost certainly failed to
respond to the mathematics. Not because of ideology, but because
traditionally they have always been incapable of facing up to any
harsh financial reality without imploding.

With that lot, eventually, it would have taken the IMF to do it for
us, quite possibly with Gordon Brown running them (into oblivion) by
then.

Assuming the coalition of fools does not mess up the recovery.


Presumably then, you must believe that running up a national debt of
1.4 trillion pounds was not the slightest bit foolish.

I didn’t even know what a trillion was until Gordon invented it.

You just have to be an economist, perhaps with a doctorate in history.

On May 13, 9:33*pm, allantracy wrote:

Assuming the coalition of fools does not mess up the recovery.

Presumably then, you must believe that running up a national debt of
1.4 trillion pounds was not the slightest bit foolish.

How does that answer my comment ?

The coalition of fools could make things worse.

I made no remark about how we got there. Only trhat those now in
control might mess it up.



--
Nick