Thurrock MP Jackie Doyle-Price wants new Lower Thames Crossing to go via Canvey

Echo: Campaigning – Thurrock MP Jackie Doyle-Price, foreground, at Orsett Heath Campaigning – Thurrock MP Jackie Doyle-Price, foreground, at Orsett Heath

A ROW has flared between Canvey and Thurrock after an MP said a new Thames crossing should go to the island.

Jackie Doyle-Price, Thurrock MP, saidthe M2 in Kent should be linked to the A130 on Canvey.

However, councillors on Canvey branded the plan a “disaster” and fear it would cause traffic chaos.

Canvey independent councillor Dave Blackwell said: “The island already has 27,000 vehicle movements a day. The roads wouldn’t be able to take it. It would be chaos. They’re at full capacity.

“Because Canvey is below sea level, we would suffer from more pollution and emissions from the extra vehicles on the roads.

“Thurrock Council doesn’t want it through its borough and neither do we. It would be a disaster for the island.”

The Government is considering two options for a Thames Crossing.

Option A would see another route built next to the Dartford crossing.

Option C would see a bridge from Kent land between Coalhouse and Tilbury forts and travel north towards the Orsett Cock junction of the A13, before meeting the M25 between junctions 29 and 30.

Tory Ms Doyle-Price said option D, which involved Canvey and was vetoed by ministers, would be her first choice as it would divert lorries sooner. She is trying to get option D reconsidered.

She spoke while campaigning in Orsett Heath, with Gravesham MP Adam Holloway and Thurrock councillors, against option C.

She said: “We’ve got all the extra HGV traffic coming out of London Gateway and the only way it can go is left – straight to the Dartford Crossing.

“We need better infrastructure going further west, that’s why D is favoured. The purpose would be to take some of the HGV traffic that comes from Dover off the M25 sooner.

“That would liberate the road network in Thurrock, which is now almost at capacity.”

But long-serving Canvey councillor RayHoward said he would fight “tooth and nail” to prevent a new crossing on Canvey.

The Conservative county and borough councillor added: “It’s a no-go area.

“It would be too costly and would come out nowhere near any infrastructure. The residents will put up a united front if there’s any suggestions the current suggestions aren’t to be used.

“More crossings need to be out further east towards London. That will take much of the burden away from the Dartford Crossing.”

**

MP: Council lacks leadership over plans

JACKIE Doyle-Price accused Thurrock Council of lacking leadership over the crossing plans.

The MP accused the authority of failing to lobby Essex and Kent County Councils properly and said Thurrock’s “none of the above” response to all the options was not good enough.

Ms Doyle-Price said: “The reality is Thurrock has an army of highways engineers and environmental health officers who could prove the air quality impact and prove what the impact on the roads would be and they did nothing.

"They just sat there with their fingers in their ears doing nothing, which is not good enough."

She said she told council leader, councillor John Kent “to give me the bullets and I’ll fire them’’ when the consultation for the options started. She added: “It didn’t happen.”

Councillor Kent hit back, saying the authority had worked hard over the last four years. 

Mr Kent said he had objected since 2010.  He added: “We have worked with residents and businesses to build support for our campaign against all the options that Government is considering.

“But, I have to remind Ms Doyle- Price that it’s her role as a backbench MP to hold the Government to account and I really wish she would do that.”

Comments (18)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:09am Thu 3 Apr 14

carnmountyouknowitmakessense says...

Canvey would be Ideal, as it has large areas of waste lands in the West
Canvey would be Ideal, as it has large areas of waste lands in the West carnmountyouknowitmakessense
  • Score: 19

7:41am Thu 3 Apr 14

morbeous says...

I think they should bulldoze Shoebury and build it from there
I think they should bulldoze Shoebury and build it from there morbeous
  • Score: 10

9:21am Thu 3 Apr 14

Bernard 87 says...

Agree with Jackie.

A new crossing from the M2 to the A130 makes the most sense. A short new motorway could be built across the sparsely populated Hoo Peninsula with no need to plough it through villages (unlike option c).

Tunnels under the Thames with them emerging in West Canvey would mean any traffic on the Island would be restricted to the industrial west. A new road could be built here linking Canvey and Corringham with 'The Manorway' upgraded and the A130 enlarged. Canvey residents get the extra route off the Island they have wanted for so long, traffic is concentrated in small area and the road system is already there.

You also have to remember that the A130 is empty most of the time and would cost less to upgrade to a full motorway than building a new stretch through Thurrock.

Connectiveity wise. Option 'D' is much better located. It would be be central to the rest of Essex, Kent and East Anglia. It would be near major population centres such as Medway, Basildon, Southend and Chelmsford. It would be a quicker drive from the Kent ports to the major industrial sites across South Essex.

And most importantly, it would mean less green belt land would have to be destroyed.
Agree with Jackie. A new crossing from the M2 to the A130 makes the most sense. A short new motorway could be built across the sparsely populated Hoo Peninsula with no need to plough it through villages (unlike option c). Tunnels under the Thames with them emerging in West Canvey would mean any traffic on the Island would be restricted to the industrial west. A new road could be built here linking Canvey and Corringham with 'The Manorway' upgraded and the A130 enlarged. Canvey residents get the extra route off the Island they have wanted for so long, traffic is concentrated in small area and the road system is already there. You also have to remember that the A130 is empty most of the time and would cost less to upgrade to a full motorway than building a new stretch through Thurrock. Connectiveity wise. Option 'D' is much better located. It would be be central to the rest of Essex, Kent and East Anglia. It would be near major population centres such as Medway, Basildon, Southend and Chelmsford. It would be a quicker drive from the Kent ports to the major industrial sites across South Essex. And most importantly, it would mean less green belt land would have to be destroyed. Bernard 87
  • Score: 25

10:12am Thu 3 Apr 14

Howard Cháse says...

It would link up nicely with Boris Island International airport too.....
It would link up nicely with Boris Island International airport too..... Howard Cháse
  • Score: 5

11:05am Thu 3 Apr 14

Nebs says...

Bernard 87 wrote:
Agree with Jackie.

A new crossing from the M2 to the A130 makes the most sense. A short new motorway could be built across the sparsely populated Hoo Peninsula with no need to plough it through villages (unlike option c).

Tunnels under the Thames with them emerging in West Canvey would mean any traffic on the Island would be restricted to the industrial west. A new road could be built here linking Canvey and Corringham with 'The Manorway' upgraded and the A130 enlarged. Canvey residents get the extra route off the Island they have wanted for so long, traffic is concentrated in small area and the road system is already there.

You also have to remember that the A130 is empty most of the time and would cost less to upgrade to a full motorway than building a new stretch through Thurrock.

Connectiveity wise. Option 'D' is much better located. It would be be central to the rest of Essex, Kent and East Anglia. It would be near major population centres such as Medway, Basildon, Southend and Chelmsford. It would be a quicker drive from the Kent ports to the major industrial sites across South Essex.

And most importantly, it would mean less green belt land would have to be destroyed.
Yes.
[quote][p][bold]Bernard 87[/bold] wrote: Agree with Jackie. A new crossing from the M2 to the A130 makes the most sense. A short new motorway could be built across the sparsely populated Hoo Peninsula with no need to plough it through villages (unlike option c). Tunnels under the Thames with them emerging in West Canvey would mean any traffic on the Island would be restricted to the industrial west. A new road could be built here linking Canvey and Corringham with 'The Manorway' upgraded and the A130 enlarged. Canvey residents get the extra route off the Island they have wanted for so long, traffic is concentrated in small area and the road system is already there. You also have to remember that the A130 is empty most of the time and would cost less to upgrade to a full motorway than building a new stretch through Thurrock. Connectiveity wise. Option 'D' is much better located. It would be be central to the rest of Essex, Kent and East Anglia. It would be near major population centres such as Medway, Basildon, Southend and Chelmsford. It would be a quicker drive from the Kent ports to the major industrial sites across South Essex. And most importantly, it would mean less green belt land would have to be destroyed.[/p][/quote]Yes. Nebs
  • Score: 10

11:37am Thu 3 Apr 14

marshman says...

I think that she's either on drugs or has stopped taking the ones prescribed to her. Look at a map and you see the logical route for a lower crossing is Shoebury - Sheerness. Maybe all she needs is new glasses.
I think that she's either on drugs or has stopped taking the ones prescribed to her. Look at a map and you see the logical route for a lower crossing is Shoebury - Sheerness. Maybe all she needs is new glasses. marshman
  • Score: 2

12:59pm Thu 3 Apr 14

Howard Cháse says...

marshman wrote:
I think that she's either on drugs or has stopped taking the ones prescribed to her. Look at a map and you see the logical route for a lower crossing is Shoebury - Sheerness. Maybe all she needs is new glasses.
Stick a dozen new tunnels spaced regularly in pairs betweee Dartford and Shoeburyness link them up with the relevant nearest big roads and have done with it.....
[quote][p][bold]marshman[/bold] wrote: I think that she's either on drugs or has stopped taking the ones prescribed to her. Look at a map and you see the logical route for a lower crossing is Shoebury - Sheerness. Maybe all she needs is new glasses.[/p][/quote]Stick a dozen new tunnels spaced regularly in pairs betweee Dartford and Shoeburyness link them up with the relevant nearest big roads and have done with it..... Howard Cháse
  • Score: 7

3:09pm Thu 3 Apr 14

poortaxpayer says...

A crossing at Canvey has to contend with these problems:-

The Superport have dredged a channel 60 feet deep along that stretch of the Thames for their massive ships - any tunnel would have to be very very deep to get under this trench. The Dartford tunnels are 80 feet below the surface of the Thames and 25 feet below the riverbed. Any Canvey tunnel may have to be 150 feet or more below the river surface to avoid the dredged trench.

Any bridge at Canvey would have to be very high to allow the massive ships to pass under on their way to the Superport at Coryton.
A crossing at Canvey has to contend with these problems:- The Superport have dredged a channel 60 feet deep along that stretch of the Thames for their massive ships - any tunnel would have to be very very deep to get under this trench. The Dartford tunnels are 80 feet below the surface of the Thames and 25 feet below the riverbed. Any Canvey tunnel may have to be 150 feet or more below the river surface to avoid the dredged trench. Any bridge at Canvey would have to be very high to allow the massive ships to pass under on their way to the Superport at Coryton. poortaxpayer
  • Score: 0

4:00pm Thu 3 Apr 14

Kim Gandy says...

carnmountyouknowitma
kessense
wrote:
Canvey would be Ideal, as it has large areas of waste lands in the West
It is below sea level and is on a flood plain.

Why don't you have it going through your garden?

You NIMBYs are all the same, full of ideas of what should be done, when, where and how but not if it inconveniences you.

I see you've got your playmates on here thumbs upping your comments today.

The rest of the time everybody else just sees through you. Always have to be deliberately controversial.

This proposal has been on the table before and has been vetoed so obviously those making the big decisions know a lot more than you.

You are so full of ideas and BS you really ought to be in politics yourself but coming out from behind the safety of your keyboard and pseudonym and actually DOING something wouldn't really be an option would it?

Like the other curtain twitching pot-shotters on here, you're only fit for sounding off on a website.

I bet you have never campaigned against anything in your life, never stood for election, never held public office and never got off your butt to do anything useful, given the amount of time you spend here. Oh and I have done all of the above - and more.

At least I'm working between the times I get on here, or doing something else useful.

Get yourself elected and get involved with the whole process, do some research and learn something instead of just speculating and repeating sound bites and bits of cockeyed information you cobble together from your barmy mates and rubbish websites..

Too much trouble? Thought so!
[quote][p][bold]carnmountyouknowitma kessense[/bold] wrote: Canvey would be Ideal, as it has large areas of waste lands in the West[/p][/quote]It is below sea level and is on a flood plain. Why don't you have it going through your garden? You NIMBYs are all the same, full of ideas of what should be done, when, where and how but not if it inconveniences you. I see you've got your playmates on here thumbs upping your comments today. The rest of the time everybody else just sees through you. Always have to be deliberately controversial. This proposal has been on the table before and has been vetoed so obviously those making the big decisions know a lot more than you. You are so full of ideas and BS you really ought to be in politics yourself but coming out from behind the safety of your keyboard and pseudonym and actually DOING something wouldn't really be an option would it? Like the other curtain twitching pot-shotters on here, you're only fit for sounding off on a website. I bet you have never campaigned against anything in your life, never stood for election, never held public office and never got off your butt to do anything useful, given the amount of time you spend here. Oh and I have done all of the above - and more. At least I'm working between the times I get on here, or doing something else useful. Get yourself elected and get involved with the whole process, do some research and learn something instead of just speculating and repeating sound bites and bits of cockeyed information you cobble together from your barmy mates and rubbish websites.. Too much trouble? Thought so! Kim Gandy
  • Score: -10

4:01pm Thu 3 Apr 14

Kim Gandy says...

poortaxpayer wrote:
A crossing at Canvey has to contend with these problems:-

The Superport have dredged a channel 60 feet deep along that stretch of the Thames for their massive ships - any tunnel would have to be very very deep to get under this trench. The Dartford tunnels are 80 feet below the surface of the Thames and 25 feet below the riverbed. Any Canvey tunnel may have to be 150 feet or more below the river surface to avoid the dredged trench.

Any bridge at Canvey would have to be very high to allow the massive ships to pass under on their way to the Superport at Coryton.
Thank God for somebody with some common sense and knowledge.

Somebody who knows what they're talking about - at last.
[quote][p][bold]poortaxpayer[/bold] wrote: A crossing at Canvey has to contend with these problems:- The Superport have dredged a channel 60 feet deep along that stretch of the Thames for their massive ships - any tunnel would have to be very very deep to get under this trench. The Dartford tunnels are 80 feet below the surface of the Thames and 25 feet below the riverbed. Any Canvey tunnel may have to be 150 feet or more below the river surface to avoid the dredged trench. Any bridge at Canvey would have to be very high to allow the massive ships to pass under on their way to the Superport at Coryton.[/p][/quote]Thank God for somebody with some common sense and knowledge. Somebody who knows what they're talking about - at last. Kim Gandy
  • Score: -7

4:05pm Thu 3 Apr 14

shoess3 says...

morbeous wrote:
I think they should bulldoze Shoebury and build it from there
No chance. a. Not enough traffic in this part of the world to warrant it, b. it would need further road infrastructure over Rochford district (that won't happen), c Southend Council would fight it tooth and nail, d. the distance between Shoebury and sheerness is huge (remember this is the North Sea, not just the Estuary) at more than 6.5 miles compared to under half a mile at Dartford and 2 miles at Canvey e. there's actually nice peaceful places in Shoebury and Southend, not so in Canvey and Tilbury!
[quote][p][bold]morbeous[/bold] wrote: I think they should bulldoze Shoebury and build it from there[/p][/quote]No chance. a. Not enough traffic in this part of the world to warrant it, b. it would need further road infrastructure over Rochford district (that won't happen), c Southend Council would fight it tooth and nail, d. the distance between Shoebury and sheerness is huge (remember this is the North Sea, not just the Estuary) at more than 6.5 miles compared to under half a mile at Dartford and 2 miles at Canvey e. there's actually nice peaceful places in Shoebury and Southend, not so in Canvey and Tilbury! shoess3
  • Score: -9

4:42pm Thu 3 Apr 14

Dave_ says...

Bernard has got it about right.
An alternative route away from the new port to the south coast and Channel ports, to the east coast via A130 and A12 and an extra route to/from Canvey. The people I know who live on Canvey moan that having effectively one decent road off is a pain if it's blocked, as the alternative through Benfleet is of no use for heavy traffic.

The arguments against tunnelling etc are unfounded, although a bridge might be a bit too much. A tunnel is less of a blot on the landscape.

One of the problems in Essex at any rate has been decent North/South transport links, until they got round to the A13/A130 link at Sadler's Farm. Go bit further north anf the A120 now provides a decent link to the M11. Just that currently we have a bottleneck at Purfleet and anything close to this will not alleviate the situation. We need decent road (and rail) infrastructure that is spread out, not concentrated so that one hiccough creates chaos.
Bernard has got it about right. An alternative route away from the new port to the south coast and Channel ports, to the east coast via A130 and A12 and an extra route to/from Canvey. The people I know who live on Canvey moan that having effectively one decent road off is a pain if it's blocked, as the alternative through Benfleet is of no use for heavy traffic. The arguments against tunnelling etc are unfounded, although a bridge might be a bit too much. A tunnel is less of a blot on the landscape. One of the problems in Essex at any rate has been decent North/South transport links, until they got round to the A13/A130 link at Sadler's Farm. Go bit further north anf the A120 now provides a decent link to the M11. Just that currently we have a bottleneck at Purfleet and anything close to this will not alleviate the situation. We need decent road (and rail) infrastructure that is spread out, not concentrated so that one hiccough creates chaos. Dave_
  • Score: 4

5:05pm Thu 3 Apr 14

carnmountyouknowitmakessense says...

Kim Gandy wrote:
carnmountyouknowitma

kessense
wrote:
Canvey would be Ideal, as it has large areas of waste lands in the West
It is below sea level and is on a flood plain.

Why don't you have it going through your garden?

You NIMBYs are all the same, full of ideas of what should be done, when, where and how but not if it inconveniences you.

I see you've got your playmates on here thumbs upping your comments today.

The rest of the time everybody else just sees through you. Always have to be deliberately controversial.

This proposal has been on the table before and has been vetoed so obviously those making the big decisions know a lot more than you.

You are so full of ideas and BS you really ought to be in politics yourself but coming out from behind the safety of your keyboard and pseudonym and actually DOING something wouldn't really be an option would it?

Like the other curtain twitching pot-shotters on here, you're only fit for sounding off on a website.

I bet you have never campaigned against anything in your life, never stood for election, never held public office and never got off your butt to do anything useful, given the amount of time you spend here. Oh and I have done all of the above - and more.

At least I'm working between the times I get on here, or doing something else useful.

Get yourself elected and get involved with the whole process, do some research and learn something instead of just speculating and repeating sound bites and bits of cockeyed information you cobble together from your barmy mates and rubbish websites..

Too much trouble? Thought so!
At I have a garden, Kim. Unlike yourself, living in that flat of your rentage....
[quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]carnmountyouknowitma kessense[/bold] wrote: Canvey would be Ideal, as it has large areas of waste lands in the West[/p][/quote]It is below sea level and is on a flood plain. Why don't you have it going through your garden? You NIMBYs are all the same, full of ideas of what should be done, when, where and how but not if it inconveniences you. I see you've got your playmates on here thumbs upping your comments today. The rest of the time everybody else just sees through you. Always have to be deliberately controversial. This proposal has been on the table before and has been vetoed so obviously those making the big decisions know a lot more than you. You are so full of ideas and BS you really ought to be in politics yourself but coming out from behind the safety of your keyboard and pseudonym and actually DOING something wouldn't really be an option would it? Like the other curtain twitching pot-shotters on here, you're only fit for sounding off on a website. I bet you have never campaigned against anything in your life, never stood for election, never held public office and never got off your butt to do anything useful, given the amount of time you spend here. Oh and I have done all of the above - and more. At least I'm working between the times I get on here, or doing something else useful. Get yourself elected and get involved with the whole process, do some research and learn something instead of just speculating and repeating sound bites and bits of cockeyed information you cobble together from your barmy mates and rubbish websites.. Too much trouble? Thought so![/p][/quote]At I have a garden, Kim. Unlike yourself, living in that flat of your rentage.... carnmountyouknowitmakessense
  • Score: -3

7:35pm Thu 3 Apr 14

Chris12 says...

I'd have thought a crossing as far east of the existing one made sense but why stick to just a road crossing ? Why not add rail capability too and link not only the roads north and south of the Thames but also the train lines. They keep hammering on about getting people off the roads but often give us no other choice.

Of course, it would cost more and need politicians who think beyond the the next election so it would never happen....
I'd have thought a crossing as far east of the existing one made sense but why stick to just a road crossing ? Why not add rail capability too and link not only the roads north and south of the Thames but also the train lines. They keep hammering on about getting people off the roads but often give us no other choice. Of course, it would cost more and need politicians who think beyond the the next election so it would never happen.... Chris12
  • Score: 4

11:21pm Thu 3 Apr 14

poortaxpayer says...

Chris12 wrote:
I'd have thought a crossing as far east of the existing one made sense but why stick to just a road crossing ? Why not add rail capability too and link not only the roads north and south of the Thames but also the train lines. They keep hammering on about getting people off the roads but often give us no other choice.

Of course, it would cost more and need politicians who think beyond the the next election so it would never happen....
There is already a rail link under the Thames at the Dartford crossing but it is for the high speed Euro tunnel trains only. Another train tunnel linking Essex and Kent would be a great idea, would take traffic off the roads.
[quote][p][bold]Chris12[/bold] wrote: I'd have thought a crossing as far east of the existing one made sense but why stick to just a road crossing ? Why not add rail capability too and link not only the roads north and south of the Thames but also the train lines. They keep hammering on about getting people off the roads but often give us no other choice. Of course, it would cost more and need politicians who think beyond the the next election so it would never happen....[/p][/quote]There is already a rail link under the Thames at the Dartford crossing but it is for the high speed Euro tunnel trains only. Another train tunnel linking Essex and Kent would be a great idea, would take traffic off the roads. poortaxpayer
  • Score: 2

12:20am Fri 4 Apr 14

The Hog says...

Tilbury approach road needs to be lengthened. Then tunnel under Thames following the garvesend ferry route straight across at the narrowest point. A227 to the A2.....this was a route that was put forward many years ago but just chucked in the bin. No new roads need be laid,only widening. no need to tunnel to deep and a bridge will have nice long run up for lorry's.This plan was drawn up in 1992 and a study of lorries leaving Tilbury port,showed a high % would use this route...Gravesend will suffer a large increase of heavy traffic...the only down side to this......
Tilbury approach road needs to be lengthened. Then tunnel under Thames following the garvesend ferry route straight across at the narrowest point. A227 to the A2.....this was a route that was put forward many years ago but just chucked in the bin. No new roads need be laid,only widening. no need to tunnel to deep and a bridge will have nice long run up for lorry's.This plan was drawn up in 1992 and a study of lorries leaving Tilbury port,showed a high % would use this route...Gravesend will suffer a large increase of heavy traffic...the only down side to this...... The Hog
  • Score: -1

1:20pm Fri 4 Apr 14

Jb66 says...

Kim Gandy wrote:
carnmountyouknowitma

kessense
wrote:
Canvey would be Ideal, as it has large areas of waste lands in the West
It is below sea level and is on a flood plain.

Why don't you have it going through your garden?

You NIMBYs are all the same, full of ideas of what should be done, when, where and how but not if it inconveniences you.

I see you've got your playmates on here thumbs upping your comments today.

The rest of the time everybody else just sees through you. Always have to be deliberately controversial.

This proposal has been on the table before and has been vetoed so obviously those making the big decisions know a lot more than you.

You are so full of ideas and BS you really ought to be in politics yourself but coming out from behind the safety of your keyboard and pseudonym and actually DOING something wouldn't really be an option would it?

Like the other curtain twitching pot-shotters on here, you're only fit for sounding off on a website.

I bet you have never campaigned against anything in your life, never stood for election, never held public office and never got off your butt to do anything useful, given the amount of time you spend here. Oh and I have done all of the above - and more.

At least I'm working between the times I get on here, or doing something else useful.

Get yourself elected and get involved with the whole process, do some research and learn something instead of just speculating and repeating sound bites and bits of cockeyed information you cobble together from your barmy mates and rubbish websites..

Too much trouble? Thought so!
http://www.kim-gandy
-thrown-out-of-ukip - you certainly got involved didn't you Kim, just Googled you, obviously looking for a new cause. Some of your FB posts leave a lot to be desired as does the language.
[quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]carnmountyouknowitma kessense[/bold] wrote: Canvey would be Ideal, as it has large areas of waste lands in the West[/p][/quote]It is below sea level and is on a flood plain. Why don't you have it going through your garden? You NIMBYs are all the same, full of ideas of what should be done, when, where and how but not if it inconveniences you. I see you've got your playmates on here thumbs upping your comments today. The rest of the time everybody else just sees through you. Always have to be deliberately controversial. This proposal has been on the table before and has been vetoed so obviously those making the big decisions know a lot more than you. You are so full of ideas and BS you really ought to be in politics yourself but coming out from behind the safety of your keyboard and pseudonym and actually DOING something wouldn't really be an option would it? Like the other curtain twitching pot-shotters on here, you're only fit for sounding off on a website. I bet you have never campaigned against anything in your life, never stood for election, never held public office and never got off your butt to do anything useful, given the amount of time you spend here. Oh and I have done all of the above - and more. At least I'm working between the times I get on here, or doing something else useful. Get yourself elected and get involved with the whole process, do some research and learn something instead of just speculating and repeating sound bites and bits of cockeyed information you cobble together from your barmy mates and rubbish websites.. Too much trouble? Thought so![/p][/quote]http://www.kim-gandy -thrown-out-of-ukip - you certainly got involved didn't you Kim, just Googled you, obviously looking for a new cause. Some of your FB posts leave a lot to be desired as does the language. Jb66
  • Score: 4

12:51pm Mon 7 Apr 14

triple j says...

Jackie Doyle Price elected M.P. for the people of Thurrock nearly 4 years ago repeat 4 YEARS AGO !!!!!!!!!! should remember she should represent the voice of the people. Instead in the last year regarding a new crossing across he Thames she has flip flopped from one opinion to another. She has tried to pass the buck by suggesting the people of Thurrock should have been more vocal and that it is all the fault of the Labour Council. Well Ms Price the last time I looked this is a Tory lead coalition lead by your boss David Cameron and if she was to have a poll of the people Thurrock I think most would vote a tunnel. Nearly a Billion pounds has been paid from tolls in the last 23 years since the last bridge was built. Only an Idiot would want another bridge with the changeable weather we have, shut down 2 bridges what a great idea ???? So less of the NOT ME GOV campaign JDP and sound bites. Photo calls don't impress anyone.
Jackie Doyle Price elected M.P. for the people of Thurrock nearly 4 years ago repeat 4 YEARS AGO !!!!!!!!!! should remember she should represent the voice of the people. Instead in the last year regarding a new crossing across he Thames she has flip flopped from one opinion to another. She has tried to pass the buck by suggesting the people of Thurrock should have been more vocal and that it is all the fault of the Labour Council. Well Ms Price the last time I looked this is a Tory lead coalition lead by your boss David Cameron and if she was to have a poll of the people Thurrock I think most would vote a tunnel. Nearly a Billion pounds has been paid from tolls in the last 23 years since the last bridge was built. Only an Idiot would want another bridge with the changeable weather we have, shut down 2 bridges what a great idea ???? So less of the NOT ME GOV campaign JDP and sound bites. Photo calls don't impress anyone. triple j
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree