The national paper last night revealed that Mr Cameron is expected to launch a consultation on a new airport within weeks, with the expectation that the Conservative Party leader will support a new airport in the South East.

The decision to back a new hub airport in th Thames Estuary will provide a major boost to the Mayor of London’s re-election bid this year. Boris Johnson, who will see a challenge from Labour’s Ken Livingstone in the contest, has been calling for an airport to be built on an artificial island in the estuary – dubbed “Boris Island”.

The announcement had been due to be made on 3rd January, but was blocked by the Liberal Democrat Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg. Conservatives claimed it was purely a cynical political move, to avoid a boost to Mr Johnson, who the Liberal Democrats will also be challenging in May.

However, a Liberal Democrat source told The Daily Telegraph that “aviation policy is very sensitive and we didn’t support rushing out an announcement over the New Year.

“The consultation will almost certainly be launched in March and Nick Clegg does not have a fixed view on the outcome.”

The UK is in need of aviation capacity expansion in order to remain a major economic competitor on the world stage, and failure to act now could have dire consequences over the next 50 years.

However, there are also serious enviornmental and safety concerns to building an airport in the Thames Estuary and The View from Medway will be abondoning policy independence and Founding Editor Alan W Collins will be abandoning party loyalty to fiercly and publicly oppose these proposals.

We will be looking at the issues in more detail over the coming days, weeks and months (and, if necessary, years!) and will be fighting alongside every other opponent to the airport (irrespective of party or ideology), focusing energy where it matters: at the heart of government and government influence.

Ladies and gentlemen of Medway: this is no longer an issue we can silently shake our heads in disagreement to when we read it in the paper. The government has stepped up the challenge – and we, too, must step up our opposition.

If you care about Medway, if you care about our countryside, if you care about our landscape, then join the fight. We need to send a clear, consistent and resounding message to the government:

THE PEOPLE OF MEDWAY SAY NO! TO A THAMES ESTUARY AIRPORT!

“Not cleared at all. Anyone who knows anything about government procedures (which I do, having spent decades on both sides of the fence at local and national level), as well as human nature will realise that the only way to authoritatively eliminate an undesirable proposal is to go through the full process first.

“Especially with a powerful figure such as the Mayor of London firmly in the equation, it couldn’t be simply dismissed out of hand. There would be demands to look at it again and again until a full & thorough job had been done. The best way to kill it quickly is to have a broad-based review of aviation needs.

“Although there is no guarantee this would result in a firm and (effectively permanent) “no”, it is the most likely outcome, especially with the recent communications between Ministers past and present to local MP Mark Reckless. Whatever, though, it is the only way it could be done, so I am pleased this route is being taken, and so should you and Medway residents.”

It read: “I am writing to say that I do not feel that there is a need for your pipe dream of an airport scheme on or near the Thames Estuary and believe that you should drop this pie in the sky idea with immediate effect. I feel the same about the other schemes that have also been presented, which I notice you have also added your support to.”

As I stated in my letter to the Daily Telegraph last week, I, like most people, can recognise that airport expansion is greatly needed to promote and protect the UK’s national and economic interests. As I wrote, the most damaging prospect is not doing the wrong thing, but not doing anything at all:

“What is needed is an immediate consultation on the proposals, followed by a decision. Action needs to be taken before permanent damage is done to our trade links, a damning prospect for our economy.”

However, I do not believe that the Thames Estuary or the Hoo Peninsula is the right location for a new hub airport – it is at almost the south-eastern-most tip of the UK and would require a costly forward journey from London for almost any end destination outside of the capital. So, whilst I see due process as being essential, I will, both preceeding and during, use that due process to voice opposition to either site as the location of a new hub airport.

Today, I received a response from the Mayor of London’s office, which is no doubt a stock response being forwarded in turn to everyone who has used the above e-mail template. I have my own thoughts on this, but I will leave them for another day and, instead, allow you to make your own minds up first:

“Over the past year and more a national debate has begun about London’s future airport needs and the Mayor of London has been a leading participant in this. In the wake of the economic and financial crisis it is clear that both London and the UK must urgently find ways to rebalance and recover their economic vitality.

“This will require identifying new trade and investment opportunities, many of which are likely to be with emerging economies, in addition to our traditional trading partners. The Mayor believes that it will only be possible to do this if we ensure we have first class aviation links with the rest of the World. If we fail, we risk further damage to an economy that has become highly aviation-reliant.

“The Mayor’s recent research has shown that for the most economically beneficial forms of aviation -business travel, inbound tourism and air freight, sufficient hub airport capacity is essential. This work has also shown that Heathrow is no longer capable of performing its role as the nation’s sole hub airport sufficiently well. Its expansion would not only have unacceptable environmental consequences, it would not be able to meet our long-term capacity needs.

“For these reasons the Mayor is keen to explore alternative solutions and to have a broad and open-minded debate about them. He is not wedded to any single location. Rather, he is keen to ensure that decisions are made by those responsible on a proper basis, following a rigorous assessment not only of the economic costs and benefits, but also the social and environmental impacts of the various options.

“The Mayor has now completed a first phase of work in which he has made the overall economic case for a new hub airport. He is planning further work to help move the debate forwards and this is expected to involve consideration of commercial and environmental issues as well as options for the location of such an airport.

“The complexity and scale of implications regarding the choice of a new airport location are such that a huge amount of work will be needed before any particular location becomes a preferred option.”

“Officials have privately slapped down Boris Johnson’s campaign for a four-runway airport to the east of London. That could lead to an angry backlash by the Mayor of London, who will speak to the Institute of Directors about the project today. Mr Johnson thinks the project — dubbed “Boris Island” —could boost the economy and generate tens of thousands of jobs.

“There had been suggestions of growing support in Downing Street and even the backing of George Osborne, the Chancellor. But sources say that the claims are overblown and the Treasury has not started considering the proposal. Plans for another similar scheme, on the Isle of Grain in Kent, have been put forward by Lord Foster of Thames Bank at the cost o£50 billion.

“Ministers are thought to be dubious. Obstacles include the cost of any project, particularly in difficult economic times; concerns about the proximity of flight paths to Schipol airport, Amsterdam; the negative impact on Heathrow, which generates tens of thousands of jobs in West London; and the fact that the site would be close to the sunken warship SS Richard Montgomery, which contains explosives.

“There are also concerns about the hundreds of thousands of migrating birds, increasing the risk of aircraft engine failure caused by bird strike.”

From HS2 to south-east airport capacity, local residents in affected areas have been up in arms about proposals which, when decided, need to balance the needs of the UK to grow domestically and internationally and the locality.

John Cridland, the Director General of the CBI, “has identified airport expansion as one of the big policy battlegrounds of 2012,” according to The Times. “Britain will be left behind the ‘premier league of nations’ if it is not addressed, he warned.”

More specifically, Mr Cridland said “we desperately need a bold vision for the UK to have a world leading airport.

“The coalition agreement says no more runway capacity in the South East of England. I can’t cope with that. Surely if we want to stay in the premier league of the world economy, if we are going to access export markets of the world’s emerging economies, we have got to have a world-leading airport.

“People in the industry think it should be built on Heathrow because there is so much sunk capital and connectivity already there. That is why it would be quite radical to start somewhere else.

“There is a lot of thinking to do on this but there is no point doing that thinking if we are going to be banging our head against a brick wall. There is no point doing that detailed work if we haven’t won the battle on the principle. At the moment [the Government] doesn’t even have the vision.”

On airport expansion, the Mayor of London is the only leading politician calling for extra capacity. One option is to have a major airport hub on the Thames Estuary.

That’s where the NIMBYs go wild.

As a Medway boy, I am opposed to the idea of having either Boris Island or a Peninsula airport.

But, in the interests of growth, we need a reasoned debate on a new airport (or expansion at an existing airport) which examines each option on its economic and logical viability: its environmental impact, its local impact and its overall location.

Personally, I would rule out a Thames Estuary airport on all three counts.

When an airport was proposed at Cliffe in 2002 (with the support of the then Labour government), it was successfully opposed on the grounds of (amongst other things) its impact on the environment. As Rochester & Strood MP Mark Reckless wrote in yesterday’s Medway Messenger, “the proposed airport sits in the middle of a series of important natural and historical zones; a large Special Protection Area (SPA) protected under an EU Directive, a number of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and a popular public amnesty, namely the RSPB Reserve of Northward Hill.

“Building an airport in the middle of a historic bird sanctuary is monumentally ill advised.”

On the same letters page, Cllr Chris Buckwell, the Chairman of St James Isle of Grain Parish Council, said that the proposal “would consume around 2,500 residences”. It would also affect the surrounding area in terms of aviation traffic noise and vastly increased associated road and rail infrastructure cutting through the picturesque Kent countryside. So much for the Garden of England…

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, increased capacity needs to be strategically placed. Almost the south-eastern most point of the UK is anything but strategic. Sure, it would benefit London, but passengers seeking to travel beyond the nation’s capital would first need to travel through it – taking between 40 and 50 minutes on HS1 to reach London St Pancras International alone.

Where is the incentive to travel to a new hub and then require excessive and unnecessary forward journey times, when they can be culled by arriving at a regional airport nearer to their ultimate location?

I don’t know what the right answer to airport expansion is, but I do know that the NIMBYs in all parts of Britain have the potential to hamper the UK growth we desperately need.

Of course NIMBYs need to be heard, but their voices need to be weighted relative to demand and other deciding factors – a challenge I wouldn’t wish upon anyone!

Mark Reckless, the MP for Rochester & Strood, has written to the new Transport Secretary Justine Greening to confirm that the government’s position remains unchanged.

Local sources voiced concerns over the Transport Secretary’s potential stance on Mayor of London Boris Johnson’s proposals for a floating island airport in the estuary or a land-based airport on the peninsula, as she had previously opposed expansion of both Gatwick and Heathrow airports.

Her predecessor, Philip Hammond, who took on the role of Defence Secretary following Liam Fox’s resignation last week, had previously assured MPs that the government had no plans to build any new airports in the South East Region.

Boris Johnson had commissioned studies into how best to increase air freight and passenger capacity to allow London to compete with other major world cities.

However, he has indicated that his preference lies in a new hub airport in the Thames estuary which could create thousands of jobs, but which would require a complete overhaul of transport infrastructure and has been met with fierce opposition from Medway Council and local residents.

Mr Reckless said “I know that residents, particularly on the Hoo Peninsula, have been sick of hearing rumours and stories in the press, usually The Sunday Times, about a potential ‘Boris Island’ or similar and I want the record set straight for my constituents once and for all.

“I strongly oppose the idea of a Thames estuary airport and having spoken to many constituents, I know that the vast majority of them do not support it either.”

BAA, who own Heathrow and Stanstead airports, and previously owned Gatwick airport, have launched a big lobbying campaign, coinciding with the appointment of a new Transport Secretary, solely for expansion at the country’s existing hub airport of Heathrow.

This last week was dominated by the Ray Lewis business and the Glasgow East by-election (most notably, Labour’s difficulty in finding a candidate). There were also a sprinkling of other issues and happenings, such as the G8 summit — which appears to have had little media or ‘blog coverage.

Possibly the most interesting facet of the Lewis affair is that it all concerned matters from over a decade ago. They are of course still important, and the allegations must be thoroughly investigated — but even if found to be valid (and there is at least one that shows relatively mild dishonesty — the “JP” claim on Lewis’s CV) it has to be said that Lewis (and Boris Johnson) did the right thing by his departure.

Yes, full checks should have been made before he was taken on. My personal suspicion is that — as a “Cameron man” — Lewis might well have been assumed to have had all the checks done by Conservative Party Central Office before David Cameron recommended him (or however it was done) to Boris. Whatever the cause, lessons will need to be learned. It is quite possible that there is an endemic problem at City Hall, which would explain how other seemingly dodgy characters such as Lee Jasper were taken on. I don’t know how far back Jasper’s “history” goes, but it is unlikely to be just eight years.

Fortunately, Boris is sufficiently astute to learn and act to ensure there is no repeat. He is new at the job of Mayor of London and all it entails, so I (and, I suspect, many others) am prepared to cut him a bit of slack in these early times — as long as he tightens up his ship’s operations and procedures. His prompt action in this case — in contrast to the way Ken Livingstone handled the Jasper issue (which went on for many months before Jasper finally departed) — shows that he has a markedly different attitude and takes his responsibilities very seriously.

Interestingly, the mainstream media behaviour in these two parallel cases has also shown differences in how they treated the two cases. Even though the allegations against Lee Jasper concerned what he was claimed to be doing with huge sums of public money at that time (i.e. not from a decade or more ago, and certainly very serious in nature), it was only one newspaper — and initially just one reporter on that paper — who was pursuing the Jasper story.

By contrast, the (largely Left-leaning) British mainstream media came out almost universally, all guns blazing, against Ray Lewis and (as far as they could) Boris Johnson at more-or-less the first sniff of a story. The effort they must have put in between them to get hold of what they have been putting about is vastly (perhaps infinitely?) greater than they did (with the singular exception of Andrew Gilligan at the London Standard) concerning Jasper.

Now there’s a lesson for all of us to learn, in all of this: we really cannot trust the media to be impartial.