Forum Topics

Is the real point being missed on Hammersmith Bridge?

It has been quite interesting to see how the coverage of the Hammersmith Bridge debacle has developed. By the time it made it into the national press the focus was entirely on the ending of hopes that government funding would be forthcoming for a full reopening.This is not inaccurate, there seems to be now zero chance of this happening within the next decade if at all, but we already knew this would be the case if the Structures Fund wasn't going to provide the money.The scenario appears to have been that the Department for Transport decided that the money needed for Hammersmith Bridge was too big a proportion of the Structures Fund perhaps mindful that a prime minister with a more northern outlook was about to arrive. Also there was a previously undisclosed timeout on the funding which required work to be complete by 2030.It therefore appears to have originated the suggestion that a 'phased reopening' be the strategy i.e. further strengthening and restoration but no motor vehicles.Hammersmith & Fulham Council is clearly very cross about this as it put a huge amount of money into restoring the bridge on the basis that it was an investment in full reopening (possibly with payback through a toll). They are now demanding refunds from both TfL and DfT of money they have spent and appear to be making this a condition of accepting any grant from the Structures Fund.If this situation can't be resolved quickly (and it has been rumbling on for some time) the money from the Structures Fund will go elsewhere. Then Hammersmith & Fulham say they will be spending the statutory minimum on the bridge which amounts to enough to stop it falling down. This will mean that in the not too distant future the bridge will have to be closed to pedestrians and cyclists as well. The point is implicit in the article published on this site but when I went back and read the full report, I felt that it had been underplayed. As most subsequent reporting was based on this original coverage, this looming problem seems to be slipping under the radar.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 11h1 Comments ● 7h

What a way to run a country !

June 1987 Margaret Thatcher wins a General Election with a 102 seat majority. The Conservative Party ousted her in November 1990 and the next election was held in April 1992. May 2005 Tony Blair wins a General Election with a 66 seat majority. The Labour Party ousted him in June 2007 and the next election was held in May 2010.  May 2015 David Cameron wins a General Election with a 10 seat majority. He resigned in June 2016 following the Brexit referendum and the next election was held a year later.June 2017 Theresa May wins a General Election without an overall majority. She was pushed out by the Conservative Party in July 2019 and the next election was held five months later.December 2019 Boris Johnson wins a General Election with an 80 seat majority. He was ousted by the Conservative Party in July 2022 and the next election was held two years (and two Prime Ministers) later. July 2024 Keir Starmer wins a General Election with a 174 seat majority. He was ousted by the Labour Party in June 2026. I heard someone say on TV over the weekend that the last PM to stand down of his own accord in mid-term was Harold Wilson in 1976. He was also the first PM after losing to remain party leader to fight the next election since Winston Churchill. Since then, James Callaghan, Gordon Brown and Rishi Sunak were defeated in General Elections the first time they faced the electorate, John Major lost his second General Election as leader, and Liz Truss never faced a General Election. Both Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair had already won two General Elections before their third and final wins. We used to regard the constant turnover of Prime Ministers in Italy with a degree of contempt, but now they have Giorgia Meloni who has been in charge since October 2022 and looks set to provide an example of political stability by comparison to the UK. It was also notable how she hit back at Dumbass Donald over the weekend, showing a lot more fighting spirit after his foolish remarks than Starmer managed in similar circumstances. I'm not a fan of Keir Starmer but, like those I listed above, he won a General Election and ought to have been given the chance to serve a full term. Previously I accepted that it was legitimate to change PMs in mid-term without a General Election, but I am beginning to think that in circumstances where the ousted PM remained in good health and was attempting to carry out the policies outlined in the party manifesto (and did not have any legal or financial shenanigans coming to light) then if the party's MPs want a change of leader, the new leader should be required to set out their policies in front of the electorate and call a General Election to legitimise the new regime. IMHO the quality of our PMs has shown a marked decline since the 1960s, and I'm afraid that I can't see Andy Burnham bucking that trend. About the only thing be might do right would be to keep Nigel Farage away from Downing Street. But to do so he would have to do a lot better in the next three years than Starmer has in the last two. Could Kemi Badenoch or Penny Mordaunt become a British version of Giorgia Meloni ? We can but hope !

Richard Greenhough ● 17d81 Comments ● 1d