On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 21:02:41 +0100, Martin wrote:
>On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:53:00 GMT, jim@jibbering.com (Jim Ley) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 20:06:15 +0100, Martin wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:14:51 GMT, jim@jibbering.com (Jim Ley) wrote:
>>>>Well you assume as it was government subsidised that it was
>>>>economically viable - if it wasn't then the government absolutely
>>>>should not have been subsidising it, and therefore we shouldn't be
>>>>moaning that it took years, but that it happened at all.
>>>
>>>The government subsidised the airport infrastructure in UK before it was
>>>privatised.
>>
>>Sure, and you would hope they got fair value when it was privatised -
>>unfortunately I don't think they did, but at the same time one bad
>>decision doesn't mean we should applaud another.
>
>You don't believe in long term government investment in the infrastructure of a
>country?
Of course I do - economically though it's not immediately apparent to
me why reducing 8 million journeys time by 20 minutes is a
particularly useful investment. I fail to see the return. There
are a lot more useful infrastructure investments that could be made.
Jim. |