It is clear from what Cameron said at PMQs that he is not serious about resolving the West Lothian Question. What he is proposing is an unprincipled and piecemeal adjunct to Blair's unprincipled and piecemeal devolution settlement. In essence, Bills extending to England and Wales concerning matters devolved to Scotland* will be committed to a committee of English MPs. The whole House will still vote on second reading, on report, and third reading. This means that Cameron is proposing to maintain the Scotch veto over English affairs. Furthermore, it seems an utterly ineffectual proposal, since whatever changes are made in committee can be reversed by the whole House on report. This is a back of a fag packet solution, which ought to be rejected.
*In any event, a fiendishly complicated matter, productive of much recent litigation, which ought not to be determined by an officer of the House of Commons, but by the courts.
He doesn't seem to be able to make up his mind, on the one hand conceding:
" Of course it is the responsibility of teachers to report suspicions of students being groomed by Isis and other jihadis, just as is the case with suspicions of grooming for sexual abuse."
But on the other hand having unarticulated concerns that making "Muslims feel like a fifth column, a potential enemy within, from childhood onwards: this is guaranteed to make British Muslims feel even more besieged and defensive".
He doesn't seem to have any solutions other than getting into a time machine and not invading Iraq or Libya.
He's trying to reach his conclusion through the default progressive filters of the liberal-left: anti-racism, anti-imperialism and anti-homophobia are fighting for supremacy in his head, and he's struggling to reconcile them.
Oh the whole piece is nonsense. The new requirements are entirely sensible. I'm not expecting teachers to issue reports if pupils say that homosexuality is morally wrong - it's a point of view. But if teachers heard pupils aggressively arguing that gay men should be stoned to death, I'd hope that they would think that worthy of report.
I agree. My concern on this is around where teachers draw the line.
In the 1980s, me and my school friends would regularly run around the school playground in primary school. It was quite common to call each other 'gay' for not joining in with enough enthusiasm, or being emotional about something, or for too much playful physical contact.
Was that right? In hindsight, probably not. We used it as an insult, and some of the kids possibly even turned out to be gay. But we were very young kids, and, if adults did intervene, it would be to tell us to calm down, break it up or tell us off for taking it too far.
Now I wonder if under these new rules some would be put on a list by some overzealous teachers and even have the police involved.
He doesn't seem to be able to make up his mind, on the one hand conceding:
" Of course it is the responsibility of teachers to report suspicions of students being groomed by Isis and other jihadis, just as is the case with suspicions of grooming for sexual abuse."
But on the other hand having unarticulated concerns that making "Muslims feel like a fifth column, a potential enemy within, from childhood onwards: this is guaranteed to make British Muslims feel even more besieged and defensive".
He doesn't seem to have any solutions other than getting into a time machine and not invading Iraq or Libya.
He's trying to reach his conclusion through the default progressive filters of the liberal-left: anti-racism, anti-imperialism and anti-homophobia are fighting for supremacy in his head, and he's struggling to reconcile them.
Oh the whole piece is nonsense. The new requirements are entirely sensible. I'm not expecting teachers to issue reports if pupils say that homosexuality is morally wrong - it's a point of view. But if teachers heard pupils aggressively arguing that gay men should be stoned to death, I'd hope that they would think that worthy of report.
I would like to think so, but I have my doubts. Some sort of duty of care is bound to be attached to this requirement, and then it will be like some of the idiotic "abuse" allegations we have had getting to court recently, where a teacher heard something which given the wrong interpretation, and seen through the prism of current events might possibly, in a dim light, if you screw up your eyes, be seen as suggesting the possibility of abuse, and so because of the current events, its reported to the police or social services because its the safe option, rather than risk questions being asked if it turns out to be true. This will be the same, teacher will play it ultra-safe rather than risk that they misunderstood the implications and let a potential extremist slip through their fingers.
Oh the whole piece is nonsense. The new requirements are entirely sensible. I'm not expecting teachers to issue reports if pupils say that homosexuality is morally wrong - it's a point of view. But if teachers heard pupils aggressively arguing that gay men should be stoned to death, I'd hope that they would think that worthy of report.
The notion that advocating changes in the law, no matter how unreasonable they may seem to right-thinking people, ought to be worthy of report to the authorities is inconsistent with a free society. Individuals should be free to advocate that any activity ought to be subject to criminal penalty, and that the nature of that penalty ought to be capital punishment. The advocacy of vigilantism is, of course, a quite different consideration.
Looks like the Greek farce is entering a new and even more farcical phase, with the Eurozone leaders (who were aghast at Tsipras calling the referendum) now keen for it to go ahead, and Tsipras reportedly thinking of cancelling it:
Farcical indeed. The problems of trust seem particularly acute. It always seemed everyone involved was engaged in a mass delusion that the second bailout was a loan rather than a gift, and now they cannot meet the requirements of it, and the government of Greece has been contemptuous of being asked to do so (perhaps because it is genuinely unachievable), they are panicking as they want to do the same again, but given the language flying around and failure to meet previous terms, there's no reason to think any new terms will be met.
I'm sure they'll all pretend for long enough to get to the next crisis.
Let us consider the following hypothetical situation under Cameron's proposal: a majority of English MPs would vote, if they had the chance, to repeal tyrannical Hunting Act 2004, but the majority of the House of Commons would not. Its subject matter is devolved to Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. The 2004 Act would, however, remain in force, because Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs could negative the second or third reading of the Bill. So yes, Cameron is proposing to maintain the Scotch veto over English affairs.
McLoughlin seems to be hinting that the government will accept the Davies recommendations.
This is going to be a very big headache for Cameron.
The economic case for Heathrow is overwhelming. The politics is awful.
There are no easy choices for the government.
I'm not even convinced of the economic case, if you factor in the cost to local residents. If there are a half million extra people badly affected. If the raised noise pollution is equivalent to a few thousand each, that would presumably make a big difference.
Let us consider the following hypothetical situation under Cameron's proposal: a majority of English MPs would vote, if they had the chance, to repeal tyrannical Hunting Act 2004, but the majority of the House of Commons would not. Its subject matter is devolved to Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. The 2004 Act would, however, remain in force, because Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs could negative the second or third reading of the Bill. So yes, Cameron is proposing to maintain the Scotch veto over English affairs.
That's a really good point and easily resolved. Just give the English control over every reading. What's the need in keeping a Scots say over English laws?
And all the time the continent of Europe gets ever smaller on a world stage. They are in danger of recreating an Austro Hungarian Empire for the 21st Century. The architecture's lovely, the wines is great, the cake's are creamy, the hats are feathery, lots of posh high sounding titles (does a Commissioner equal an Archduke?), and all the while fading into sepia tainted somewhat moth eaten irrelevance. Next waltz anyone?
Another excellent post @welshowl. Once again you have managed to express in written form the more general feelings that I have for the subject. I feel though that our EU membership is something worth saving, if we can get the relationship that is best for both us and the EU.
Yeah, I'd like to save it, I really would, in theory. As I said yesterday nobody but nobody wants to return to the world of pre 1945, but it isn't being made easy to like or support.
It might help a huge amount if the advocates of a USE actually spelled out what they want and when. It's a perfectly respectable view to hold, but for decades I have the impression it's been the truth that dare not speak its name, so we have this endless nudge and salami tactics. A veto turns into a QMV, a regulation abolishes a food here (remember Bombay Duck anyone?), a passport turns red, speeding can suddenly collect points in Belgium, a single currency appears without people having a vote on it (I have never met a single German who wanted it. Not a single one. In dozens and dozens of visits to Germany over the years), all in the hope (as far as I can see) that we all one day wake up in a USE without ever quite working out how we got there let alone if we wanted it. And therein lies the rub: if you don't take the people with you, you will get trouble eventually. It just won't work, no matter how many institutions, you create, or "euro" prefixes you attach, or meaningless commissioner jobs in charge of root vegetable quotas you dream up for some obscure Baltic country's representative, because we've got to pretend they matter as much as France, or Spain, or Poland.
An apology from those in influence who advocated us joining the Euro would be a start. How on earth are we supposed to take much seriously from these people (in all parties) when they got the biggest economic call of the past generation bang wrong? A mea culpa and start again properly if you want a USE would be a beginning, not some weasly rubbish about it was "the convergence criteria" that were wrong with the Euro.
Let us consider the following hypothetical situation under Cameron's proposal: a majority of English MPs would vote, if they had the chance, to DO SOMETHING, but the majority of the House of Commons would not.
59 Scottish MP's cannot overrule 591 others, whatever the scenario
In 1997, Bombay Duck was banned by the European Commission (EC) of the European Union. The EC admitted that it had no "sanitary" evidence against the product and the UK Public Health Laboratory Service confirmed that there are no recorded cases of food poisoning, or bacterial contamination, associated with Bombay Duck. It was banned because the EC only allows fish imports from India from approved freezing and canning factories. Bombay Duck is not produced in factories.
According to "The Save Bombay Duck campaign" [1], the Indian High Commission approached the European Commission about the ban. The EC adjusted the regulations so that the fish can still be dried in the open air but has to be packed in an "EC approved" packing station. Now a Birmingham wholesale merchant has found a packing source in Mumbai/Bombay and the product is again available.
The BBC notes that consumption in the United Kingdom prior to the ban was over 13 tonnes per year.
Bombay Duck is available fresh in Canada in cities with large Indian populations, such as Toronto and Montreal and is generally known as bumla. Although mainly popular with Indians from southern Gujarat, it is increasingly consumed by the other South Asian populations. Source(s): From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia prodigious 1 · 7 years ago
I would like to think so, but I have my doubts. Some sort of duty of care is bound to be attached to this requirement, and then it will be like some of the idiotic "abuse" allegations we have had getting to court recently, where a teacher heard something which given the wrong interpretation, and seen through the prism of current events might possibly, in a dim light, if you screw up your eyes, be seen as suggesting the possibility of abuse, and so because of the current events, its reported to the police or social services because its the safe option, rather than risk questions being asked if it turns out to be true. This will be the same, teacher will play it ultra-safe rather than risk that they misunderstood the implications and let a potential extremist slip through their fingers.
The new duty is on public authorities in public law only. It is not one that would create a duty of care sounding in damages at common law (Gorringe v Calderdale MBC [2004] 1 WLR 1057 (HL)). In any event, the statute explicitly removes the possibility of a duty of care arising in private law (see s. 34 of the 2015 Act). Quite independently of the 2015 Act, however, is the duty on the state, said to arise under article 3 ECHR, to do all that could reasonably be expected of it to prevent the infliction by third parties of inhuman or degrading treatment on identified individuals once it has actual or constructive knowledge of the existence of that risk (E v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2009] 1 AC 536 (HL)). It is likely therefore that a failure by the police to prevent a child travelling to Syria, for example, could give rise to a cause of action under sections 7 & 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Let us consider the following hypothetical situation under Cameron's proposal: a majority of English MPs would vote, if they had the chance, to DO SOMETHING, but the majority of the House of Commons would not.
59 Scottish MP's cannot overrule 591 others, whatever the scenario
So yes, Cameron is proposing to maintain the Scotch veto over English affairs.
So, no, he really isn't.
Yes he really is.
What happens if the English MPs are split 440 vs 451 and the 59 Scottish MPs side with the 440 in the third reading on the floor of the house ? They just overruled the will of the majority of English MPs on a matter pertaining only to England.
Oh the whole piece is nonsense. The new requirements are entirely sensible. I'm not expecting teachers to issue reports if pupils say that homosexuality is morally wrong - it's a point of view. But if teachers heard pupils aggressively arguing that gay men should be stoned to death, I'd hope that they would think that worthy of report.
The notion that advocating changes in the law, no matter how unreasonable they may seem to right-thinking people, ought to be worthy of report to the authorities is inconsistent with a free society. Individuals should be free to advocate that any activity ought to be subject to criminal penalty, and that the nature of that penalty ought to be capital punishment. The advocacy of vigilantism is, of course, a quite different consideration.
It's certainly asking teachers to make some very fine distinctions.
I think that "draining the swamp" is futile. I'd prefer simply to ensure that the existing criminal law is enforced, without regard for worrying about good community relations, and that immigration from dysfunctional societies came to an end.
59 Scottish MP's cannot overrule 591 others, whatever the scenario ... So, no, he really isn't.
Sorry, I should have been clearer. Cameron is proposing to maintain the ability of a minority of English MPs to call in Scottish MPs to defeat a majority of English MPs on an English-only matter. The West Lothian Question therefore remains entirely unanswered.
Very. Maybe it was a bit tasteless for some people, but that's not the same as actually being offensive.
I still don't understand how we've got to the point where we need a government agency to consider whether a fit and healthy human body is 'toxic'.
There is an odd strand of thought that if an advert provokes negative feelings in someone, reasonably or not, then it should just not be shown, rather than people ignoring it or criticising it if they don't like it (without demanding it be removed to spare their feelings). Given the product's market of people wanting to lose weight, perhaps to get beach body ready, it would seem to me to be a bit unfair to not permit that tack of advertising because some people are not beach body ready, or have no wish to be asked if they are beach body ready even if they are ready, and so the slogan and image doesn't work on them. Lots of slogans don't work on me, some provoke the exact opposite reaction they are aiming for, but so what?
Planes, trains and helicopters; transport is almost up there with Europe as an issue through which Tory disloyalty might eventually crystallise.
I see a remake coming on with Boris as John Candy, Zak as Steve Martin, David Cameron as the thanksgiving turkey and, given Boris, the almost inevitable involvement of a polka band at some stage.
'Ooohhh deear... we are in government. Noooo no no.... We have to make decisions. Mummy it hurts!'
Do grow up Pro Rata (et al). Haven't you learned anything at all over the last 5 years. This is what we have governments for. This is why we have politicians to navigate their way through them.
It's certainly asking teachers to make some very fine distinctions.
I think that "draining the swamp" is futile. I'd prefer simply to ensure that the existing criminal law is enforced, without regard for worrying about good community relations, and that immigration from dysfunctional societies came to an end.
This is ultimately a debate about ideas and religion. It cannot be won by force of arms or by passing new laws. Of course, we should enforce the criminal law against those who have committed genuine offences. The way to combat "extremism", i.e. ideas which are particularly disagreeable to the majority of the population, is to debate its proponents relentlessly, and expose them for the religious fanatics they are, rather than curtailing the liberty of the general population and placing meaningless, costly and political duties on public authorities.
And all the time the continent of Europe gets ever smaller on a world stage. They are in danger of recreating an Austro Hungarian Empire for the 21st Century. The architecture's lovely, the wines is great, the cake's are creamy, the hats are feathery, lots of posh high sounding titles (does a Commissioner equal an Archduke?), and all the while fading into sepia tainted somewhat moth eaten irrelevance. Next waltz anyone?
Another excellent post @welshowl. Once again you have managed to express in written form the more general feelings that I have for the subject. I feel though that our EU membership is something worth saving, if we can get the relationship that is best for both us and the EU.
Yeah, I'd like to save it, I really would, in theory. As I said yesterday nobody but nobody wants to return to the world of pre 1945, but it isn't being made easy to like or support.
It might help a huge amount if the advocates of a USE actually spelled out what they want and when. It's a perfectly respectable view to hold, but for decades I have the impression it's been the truth that dare not speak its name, so we have this endless nudge and salami tactics.
Let us consider the following hypothetical situation under Cameron's proposal: a majority of English MPs would vote, if they had the chance, to repeal tyrannical Hunting Act 2004, but the majority of the House of Commons would not. Its subject matter is devolved to Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. The 2004 Act would, however, remain in force, because Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs could negative the second or third reading of the Bill. So yes, Cameron is proposing to maintain the Scotch veto over English affairs.
That's a really good point and easily resolved. Just give the English control over every reading. What's the need in keeping a Scots say over English laws?
Need to make sure that any EVEL bill is drafted carefully - don't want to end up with Scottish folks in English seats don't end up being disenfranchised - Fox, Gove etc - I'd keep an eye on that Salmond chap !!
And all the time the continent of Europe gets ever smaller on a world stage. They are in danger of recreating an Austro Hungarian Empire for the 21st Century. The architecture's lovely, the wines is great, the cake's are creamy, the hats are feathery, lots of posh high sounding titles (does a Commissioner equal an Archduke?), and all the while fading into sepia tainted somewhat moth eaten irrelevance. Next waltz anyone?
Another excellent post @welshowl. Once again you have managed to express in written form the more general feelings that I have for the subject. I feel though that our EU membership is something worth saving, if we can get the relationship that is best for both us and the EU.
Yeah, I'd like to save it, I really would, in theory. As I said yesterday nobody but nobody wants to return to the world of pre 1945, but it isn't being made easy to like or support.
It might help a huge amount if the advocates of a USE actually spelled out what they want and when. It's a perfectly respectable view to hold, but for decades I have the impression it's been the truth that dare not speak its name, so we have this endless nudge and salami tactics.
Very well said.
Every large political project has an element of this.
The UK just elected a government to do £12bn welfare cuts without saying what, or when.
The thing with Heathrow I don't get is that to the south and west there are a number of reservoirs. Could they not fill these in and build new reservoirs further away from London. They could then move the M25 further west and build a new runway/and/or terminal in the freed up land
Let us consider the following hypothetical situation under Cameron's proposal: a majority of English MPs would vote, if they had the chance, to DO SOMETHING, but the majority of the House of Commons would not.
59 Scottish MP's cannot overrule 591 others, whatever the scenario
So yes, Cameron is proposing to maintain the Scotch veto over English affairs.
So, no, he really isn't.
Yes he really is.
What happens if the English MPs are split 440 vs 451 and the 59 Scottish MPs side with the 440 in the third reading on the floor of the house ? They just overruled the will of the majority of English MPs on a matter pertaining only to England.
Unlikely given that would mean there were 950 MPs in Parliament. :-)
Britain is crap at making decisions on infrastructure, this should have been done at least a decade ago. .
I used to be quite NIMBY sympathetic, until I attended a few planning inquiries. Now. I'm instinctively in favour of most develops big or small, unless there's some really good reasons not to be, rather than starting from a position of skepticism.
What about Boris Island? That wouldn't be putting anyone out.
The concept of BI is a good one, taking a clean site rather than trying to expand the existing one. Problems would be: 1. Construction timescale - 15-20 years 2. Birds in the estuary - aeroplane engines don't like them too much. 3. Transport links to the airport, especially from W London and M3/M4 corridor, much of which relys on LHR being where it is. 4. LHR would have to close and be sold off to make the maths work on the cost - positives and negatives on that one. 5. The curve ball - USS Montgomery, a partially sunken WWII battleship packed with explosives, conveniently resting close to the proposed site. 6. Our archaic planning problems alluded to earlier, meaning it would take a decade for all the public enquiries to take place. 7. Cost - about 100Bn, would have to be underwritten by govt.
A great idea, but a non-starter as far as the current need for a new runway goes. Maybe if they'd started on it 20 years ago it might have had legs as a proposal. The only way it could still be in play is in conjunction with a Gatwick expansion, with both starting now.
Thanks @Sandpit for this excellent comprehensive response.
Let us consider the following hypothetical situation under Cameron's proposal: a majority of English MPs would vote, if they had the chance, to DO SOMETHING, but the majority of the House of Commons would not.
59 Scottish MP's cannot overrule 591 others, whatever the scenario
McLoughlin seems to be hinting that the government will accept the Davies recommendations.
This is going to be a very big headache for Cameron.
The economic case for Heathrow is overwhelming. The politics is awful.
There are no easy choices for the government.
I'm not even convinced of the economic case, if you factor in the cost to local residents. If there are a half million extra people badly affected. If the raised noise pollution is equivalent to a few thousand each, that would presumably make a big difference.
A hub airport allows you to operate routes to parts of the globe that wouldn't otherwise be economically viable for the airline on a point-to-point basis due to the add-on from transfer traffic. That in turn allows quick direct communications from the UK to all sorts of parts of the world, increasing our global connectivity, and encouraging more and more business to locate here and grow here.
You don't get that if Heathrow loses its hub status and, in fact, the economics could go backwards to some degree if airlines reschedule and relocate. It's worth tens of billions.
The thing with Heathrow I don't get is that to the south and west there are a number of reservoirs. Could they not fill these in and build new reservoirs further away from London. They could then move the M25 further west and build a new runway/and/or terminal in the freed up land
There was an earlier proposal along those lines that was rejected. The issue is the village of Stanwell (directly south of the 09R threshold, SW corner of the existing airfield boundary) would be obliterated by building anything south of the existing runways. The accepted proposal has the fewest houses needing to be demolished. http://www.heathrowairport.com/static/HeathrowAboutUs/Downloads/PDF/a_new_approach_2014.pdf
McLoughlin seems to be hinting that the government will accept the Davies recommendations.
This is going to be a very big headache for Cameron.
The economic case for Heathrow is overwhelming. The politics is awful.
There are no easy choices for the government.
I'm not even convinced of the economic case, if you factor in the cost to local residents. If there are a half million extra people badly affected. If the raised noise pollution is equivalent to a few thousand each, that would presumably make a big difference.
A hub airport allows you to operate routes to parts of the globe that wouldn't otherwise be economically viable for the airline on a point-to-point basis due to the add-on from transfer traffic. That in turn allows quick direct communications from the UK to all sorts of parts of the world, increasing our global connectivity, and encouraging more and more business to locate here and grow here.
You don't get that if Heathrow loses its hub status and, in fact, the economics could go backwards to some degree if airlines reschedule and relocate. It's worth tens of billions.
How would Heathrow lose its hub status? I am not advocating Heathrow be reduced in size, merely to upgrade another airport to the same size. If Heathrow counts as a 'hub' right now, then it would do with expansion at Gatwick. We would just go from one hub to two.
The thing with Heathrow I don't get is that to the south and west there are a number of reservoirs. Could they not fill these in and build new reservoirs further away from London. They could then move the M25 further west and build a new runway/and/or terminal in the freed up land
There was an earlier proposal along those lines that was rejected. The issue is the village of Stanwell (directly south of the 09R threshold, SW corner of the existing airfield boundary) would be obliterated by building anything south of the existing runways. The accepted proposal has the fewest houses needing to be demolished. http://www.heathrowairport.com/static/HeathrowAboutUs/Downloads/PDF/a_new_approach_2014.pdf
Would the 3rd runway have to definitely be E-W? Could you not fit in a N-S runway where King George VI reservoir currently is?
Very. Maybe it was a bit tasteless for some people, but that's not the same as actually being offensive.
What is 'offensive'?
As far as I can tell, it's when someone disagrees with you and, rather than just expressing their opinion, gets very upset about it and demands you shut up, apologise and (sometimes) tries to ruin you as well.
McLoughlin seems to be hinting that the government will accept the Davies recommendations.
This is going to be a very big headache for Cameron.
The economic case for Heathrow is overwhelming. The politics is awful.
There are no easy choices for the government.
I'm not even convinced of the economic case, if you factor in the cost to local residents. If there are a half million extra people badly affected. If the raised noise pollution is equivalent to a few thousand each, that would presumably make a big difference.
A hub airport allows you to operate routes to parts of the globe that wouldn't otherwise be economically viable for the airline on a point-to-point basis due to the add-on from transfer traffic. That in turn allows quick direct communications from the UK to all sorts of parts of the world, increasing our global connectivity, and encouraging more and more business to locate here and grow here.
You don't get that if Heathrow loses its hub status and, in fact, the economics could go backwards to some degree if airlines reschedule and relocate. It's worth tens of billions.
NY, Tokyo, LA, Moscow don't have a hub airport. If you wish to go to South America you fly via Madrid, East via Dubai. With modern communication technology the need for direct flights is limited and anyway Airlines will provide the flights if there is demand. No other country in the world would tolerate the noise pollution Heathrow generates.
The thing with Heathrow I don't get is that to the south and west there are a number of reservoirs. Could they not fill these in and build new reservoirs further away from London. They could then move the M25 further west and build a new runway/and/or terminal in the freed up land
There was an earlier proposal along those lines that was rejected. The issue is the village of Stanwell (directly south of the 09R threshold, SW corner of the existing airfield boundary) would be obliterated by building anything south of the existing runways. The accepted proposal has the fewest houses needing to be demolished. http://www.heathrowairport.com/static/HeathrowAboutUs/Downloads/PDF/a_new_approach_2014.pdf
Would the 3rd runway have to definitely be E-W? Could you not fit in a N-S runway where King George VI reservoir currently is?
Runways are built east-west due to the prevailing wind being from the west.
Britain is crap at making decisions on infrastructure, this should have been done at least a decade ago. .
I used to be quite NIMBY sympathetic, until I attended a few planning inquiries. Now. I'm instinctively in favour of most develops big or small, unless there's some really good reasons not to be, rather than starting from a position of skepticism.
What about Boris Island? That wouldn't be putting anyone out.
The concept of BI is a good one, taking a clean site rather than trying to expand the existing one. Problems would be: 1. Construction timescale - 15-20 years 2. Birds in the estuary - aeroplane engines don't like them too much. 3. Transport links to the airport, especially from W London and M3/M4 corridor, much of which relys on LHR being where it is. 4. LHR would have to close and be sold off to make the maths work on the cost - positives and negatives on that one. 5. The curve ball - USS Montgomery, a partially sunken WWII battleship packed with explosives, conveniently resting close to the proposed site. 6. Our archaic planning problems alluded to earlier, meaning it would take a decade for all the public enquiries to take place. 7. Cost - about 100Bn, would have to be underwritten by govt.
A great idea, but a non-starter as far as the current need for a new runway goes. Maybe if they'd started on it 20 years ago it might have had legs as a proposal. The only way it could still be in play is in conjunction with a Gatwick expansion, with both starting now.
Thanks @Sandpit for this excellent comprehensive response.
On the other hand, if you site it in the right place BI gives you ultimate expandability (as they have done in HK); you can build half the infrastructure now, and expand easily later.
It would also release vast amounts of very valuable land at Heathrow.
A third runway will not be built in 15-20 years, unless they can really expedite the planning process.
Something needs doing about the Montgomery anyway.
Let us consider the following hypothetical situation under Cameron's proposal: a majority of English MPs would vote, if they had the chance, to DO SOMETHING, but the majority of the House of Commons would not.
59 Scottish MP's cannot overrule 591 others, whatever the scenario
So yes, Cameron is proposing to maintain the Scotch veto over English affairs.
So, no, he really isn't.
Yes he really is.
What happens if the English MPs are split 440 vs 451 and the 59 Scottish MPs side with the 440 in the third reading on the floor of the house ? They just overruled the will of the majority of English MPs on a matter pertaining only to England.
Unlikely given that would mean there were 950 MPs in Parliament. :-)
Sigh The bane of PB, trying to get a detailed answer out before so many posts have happened that people have moved on to something else and the context is lost!
290/301 with 59 SNP siding with the 290 then, the basic point stands
Let us consider the following hypothetical situation under Cameron's proposal: a majority of English MPs would vote, if they had the chance, to DO SOMETHING, but the majority of the House of Commons would not.
59 Scottish MP's cannot overrule 591 others, whatever the scenario
Very. Maybe it was a bit tasteless for some people, but that's not the same as actually being offensive.
What is 'offensive'?
As far as I can tell, it's when someone disagrees with you and, rather than just expressing their opinion, gets very upset about it and demands you shut up, apologise and (sometimes) tries to ruin you as well.
The concept of BI is a good one, taking a clean site rather than trying to expand the existing one. Problems would be: 1. Construction timescale - 15-20 years 2. Birds in the estuary - aeroplane engines don't like them too much. 3. Transport links to the airport, especially from W London and M3/M4 corridor, much of which relys on LHR being where it is. 4. LHR would have to close and be sold off to make the maths work on the cost - positives and negatives on that one. 5. The curve ball - USS Montgomery, a partially sunken WWII battleship packed with explosives, conveniently resting close to the proposed site. 6. Our archaic planning problems alluded to earlier, meaning it would take a decade for all the public enquiries to take place. 7. Cost - about 100Bn, would have to be underwritten by govt.
A great idea, but a non-starter as far as the current need for a new runway goes. Maybe if they'd started on it 20 years ago it might have had legs as a proposal. The only way it could still be in play is in conjunction with a Gatwick expansion, with both starting now.
Thanks @Sandpit for this excellent comprehensive response.
Except its not.
1.There is absolutely no need for it to take 15-20 years. As has already been pointed out a number of similar projects have been completed in far shorter timescale.
2. This applies to many other airports around the world in similar settings.
3. Transport links for Heathrow are bloody awful unless you happen to live in London or the South. Anyone travelling to Heathrow by train from the north has to make transfers - in the case of the whole Eastern side of the country through central London. I travel overseas regularly and stay away from Heathrow or Gatwick completely. I much prefer to fly from a regional airport to Schipol and then on to the rest of the world. The M25 is a disaster and public transport links are crap. A new airport with new dedicated transport links built from scratch would be vastly better.
4. There would not be a need for LHR to close. There are a number of ways in which flights could be split between the two, the simplest being to use Heathrow for freight and Boris Island for passengers.
5. The time has come to deal with the Montgomery anyway. It is a hazard to shipping, to Canvey Island and to the gas terminal. It should have been dealt with years ago. Use the project as an opportunity to do so now.
6. The planning issues remain whether you are building on BI or at Heathrow. This is a red herring.
7. The Government is already underwriting large transport infrastructure projects which will bring a fraction of the benefits that the new airport would bring. Again a red herring.
McLoughlin seems to be hinting that the government will accept the Davies recommendations.
This is going to be a very big headache for Cameron.
The economic case for Heathrow is overwhelming. The politics is awful.
There are no easy choices for the government.
I'm not even convinced of the economic case, if you factor in the cost to local residents. If there are a half million extra people badly affected. If the raised noise pollution is equivalent to a few thousand each, that would presumably make a big difference.
A hub airport allows you to operate routes to parts of the globe that wouldn't otherwise be economically viable for the airline on a point-to-point basis due to the add-on from transfer traffic. That in turn allows quick direct communications from the UK to all sorts of parts of the world, increasing our global connectivity, and encouraging more and more business to locate here and grow here.
You don't get that if Heathrow loses its hub status and, in fact, the economics could go backwards to some degree if airlines reschedule and relocate. It's worth tens of billions.
I broadly agree with the points you are making. However airliners like the Boeing Dreamliner are designed and sold as point to point aircraft. As I posted earlier I think we should expand both Gatwick and Stansted and lengthen one of the Heathrow runways.
Let us consider the following hypothetical situation under Cameron's proposal: a majority of English MPs would vote, if they had the chance, to DO SOMETHING, but the majority of the House of Commons would not.
59 Scottish MP's cannot overrule 591 others, whatever the scenario
So yes, Cameron is proposing to maintain the Scotch veto over English affairs.
So, no, he really isn't.
Yes he really is.
What happens if the English MPs are split 440 vs 451 and the 59 Scottish MPs side with the 440 in the third reading on the floor of the house ? They just overruled the will of the majority of English MPs on a matter pertaining only to England.
Unlikely given that would mean there were 950 MPs in Parliament. :-)
Sigh The bane of PB, trying to get a detailed answer out before so many posts have happened that people have moved on to something else and the context is lost!
290/301 with 59 SNP siding with the 290 then, the basic point stands
Let us consider the following hypothetical situation under Cameron's proposal: a majority of English MPs would vote, if they had the chance, to DO SOMETHING, but the majority of the House of Commons would not.
59 Scottish MP's cannot overrule 591 others, whatever the scenario
Let us consider the following hypothetical situation under Cameron's proposal: a majority of English MPs would vote, if they had the chance, to repeal tyrannical Hunting Act 2004, but the majority of the House of Commons would not. Its subject matter is devolved to Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. The 2004 Act would, however, remain in force, because Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs could negative the second or third reading of the Bill. So yes, Cameron is proposing to maintain the Scotch veto over English affairs.
That's a really good point and easily resolved. Just give the English control over every reading. What's the need in keeping a Scots say over English laws?
Need to make sure that any EVEL bill is drafted carefully - don't want to end up with Scottish folks in English seats don't end up being disenfranchised - Fox, Gove etc - I'd keep an eye on that Salmond chap !!
Devolution is a curse, given that the Scots voted against independence.
6. The planning issues remain whether you are building on BI or at Heathrow. This is a red herring.
Time for an Act though parliament authorising this "hero project" in the national interest and sweeping aside any planning procedures and other administrative delaying tactics
The thing with Heathrow I don't get is that to the south and west there are a number of reservoirs. Could they not fill these in and build new reservoirs further away from London. They could then move the M25 further west and build a new runway/and/or terminal in the freed up land
There was an earlier proposal along those lines that was rejected. The issue is the village of Stanwell (directly south of the 09R threshold, SW corner of the existing airfield boundary) would be obliterated by building anything south of the existing runways. The accepted proposal has the fewest houses needing to be demolished. http://www.heathrowairport.com/static/HeathrowAboutUs/Downloads/PDF/a_new_approach_2014.pdf
Would the 3rd runway have to definitely be E-W? Could you not fit in a N-S runway where King George VI reservoir currently is?
Parallel runways are significantly more efficient, a cross runway would require much more space between planes to make sure they stay away from each other. Also the winds are generally E-W and planes prefer to take off into the wind.
There were some ideas not on the table which have been discussed on aviation forums. One was to use the almost parallel runway at RAF Northolt, 5 miles N of LHR alongside the A40, with a tunnel between the two fields. Another would be to have an airside maglev train like Shanghai connecting LHR, LGW and STN, moving passengers and baggage between the airports in only a few minutes. Both of these would be considerably cheaper and cause less disruption than a new runway, but only put the problem off for a few more years.
As it is, the forecast increase in traffic says that we need to start planning the runway after this one already. A couple of silver linings for those affected by today's decisions though - one is that each new plane design is a load quieter than what it replaces, the other is that with 3 runways a particular spot is overflown by 1/3 of the landings, rather than 1/2 as at present.
And all the time the continent of Europe gets ever smaller on a world stage. They are in danger of recreating an Austro Hungarian Empire for the 21st Century. The architecture's lovely, the wines is great, the cake's are creamy, the hats are feathery, lots of posh high sounding titles (does a Commissioner equal an Archduke?), and all the while fading into sepia tainted somewhat moth eaten irrelevance. Next waltz anyone?
Another excellent post @welshowl. Once again you have managed to express in written form the more general feelings that I have for the subject. I feel though that our EU membership is something worth saving, if we can get the relationship that is best for both us and the EU.
Yeah, I'd like to save it, I really would, in theory. As I said yesterday nobody but nobody wants to return to the world of pre 1945, but it isn't being made easy to like or support.
It might help a huge amount if the advocates of a USE actually spelled out what they want and when. It's a perfectly respectable view to hold, but for decades I have the impression it's been the truth that dare not speak its name, so we have this endless nudge and salami tactics.
Very well said.
Every large political project has an element of this.
The UK just elected a government to do £12bn welfare cuts without saying what, or when.
True, but I'm on record on a thread about three weeks before the election castigating the Tories for not being more specific as I felt £12Bn was a bit of a big figure to fill in details on later. Now it's not reasonable to expect them to have said "child benefit will be £20.12p per week" or whatever, but some indication that say "50% of it is from tax credits, 20% from child benefit, and a chunk from raising the pension age more aggressively" would've been more honest.
I also castigated Labour for pretending that mansions, non doms, and 50p tax was all that was on offer as specifics on tax and a vast gaping silence prevailed over the other 98% of us.
It wouldn't be unreasonable to say "look we're going to take a federal structure as per Canada or Germany as a model, same sort of tax raising powers per state on local taxes, with universal European VAT, united armed forces, same welfare spending per capita across Europe, and we aim to have everyone educated in English and their local language so in 50 years time we can all talk to each other and have a sort of "demos" and a proper universal job market. Starting in 2020. Yes/No?
IDS appears to be announcing the end to 'relative poverty' as the key child poverty measure. Halleluja!
Hooray! Working most days with people who are in real poverty (nett income less than $5/day) I find the definition used in the UK as highly insulting to these people. "Less well off than some" or "only a little bit affluent" would be more appropriate for most.
6. The planning issues remain whether you are building on BI or at Heathrow. This is a red herring.
Time for an Act though parliament authorising this "hero project" in the national interest and sweeping aside any planning procedures and other administrative delaying tactics
I've proposed that in the past: for any project deemed as massively of the national interest, the scheme should be designed and put to a national referendum. The T5 inquiry cost £80 million in 1999; the AV referendum cost was $75 million.
It would be cheaper, quicker, and more democratic.
Can YOU think of any "dysfunctional societies" from which we should not accept immigrants right now? -----------
Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Sudan, Eritrea, Libya, Yemen, Iraq and Somalia. That's for a start.
Apart from the fact that it would set UK race relations back many years (to put it mildly), what happens to people already in the UK from those countries? Do you "repatriate" them?
McLoughlin seems to be hinting that the government will accept the Davies recommendations.
This is going to be a very big headache for Cameron.
The economic case for Heathrow is overwhelming. The politics is awful.
There are no easy choices for the government.
I'm not even convinced of the economic case, if you factor in the cost to local residents. If there are a half million extra people badly affected. If the raised noise pollution is equivalent to a few thousand each, that would presumably make a big difference.
A hub airport allows you to operate routes to parts of the globe that wouldn't otherwise be economically viable for the airline on a point-to-point basis due to the add-on from transfer traffic. That in turn allows quick direct communications from the UK to all sorts of parts of the world, increasing our global connectivity, and encouraging more and more business to locate here and grow here.
You don't get that if Heathrow loses its hub status and, in fact, the economics could go backwards to some degree if airlines reschedule and relocate. It's worth tens of billions.
I broadly agree with the points you are making. However airliners like the Boeing Dreamliner are designed and sold as point to point aircraft. As I posted earlier I think we should expand both Gatwick and Stansted and lengthen one of the Heathrow runways.
AIUI (IANAE), a problem with point-to-point is that you need more, smaller planes in the air, and the capacity of the air routes in the UK and Europe is getting filled up. Mainly because the military controls a vast amount of the airspace.
So we need an HS2 for the skies to improve capacity! Either that or get the military to lend some to the civils!
The concept of BI is a good one, taking a clean site rather than trying to expand the existing one. Problems would be: 1. Construction timescale - 15-20 years 2. Birds in the estuary - aeroplane engines don't like them too much. 3. Transport links to the airport, especially from W London and M3/M4 corridor, much of which relys on LHR being where it is. 4. LHR would have to close and be sold off to make the maths work on the cost - positives and negatives on that one. 5. The curve ball - USS Montgomery, a partially sunken WWII battleship packed with explosives, conveniently resting close to the proposed site. 6. Our archaic planning problems alluded to earlier, meaning it would take a decade for all the public enquiries to take place. 7. Cost - about 100Bn, would have to be underwritten by govt.
A great idea, but a non-starter as far as the current need for a new runway goes. Maybe if they'd started on it 20 years ago it might have had legs as a proposal. The only way it could still be in play is in conjunction with a Gatwick expansion, with both starting now.
Thanks @Sandpit for this excellent comprehensive response.
Except its not.
1.There is absolutely no need for it to take 15-20 years. As has already been pointed out a number of similar projects have been completed in far shorter timescale.
2. This applies to many other airports around the world in similar settings.
3. Transport links for Heathrow are bloody awful unless you happen to live in London or the South. Anyone travelling to Heathrow by train from the north has to make transfers - in the case of the whole Eastern side of the country through central London. I travel overseas regularly and stay away from Heathrow or Gatwick completely. I much prefer to fly from a regional airport to Schipol and then on to the rest of the world. The M25 is a disaster and public transport links are crap. A new airport with new dedicated transport links built from scratch would be vastly better.
4. There would not be a need for LHR to close. There are a number of ways in which flights could be split between the two, the simplest being to use Heathrow for freight and Boris Island for passengers.
5. The time has come to deal with the Montgomery anyway. It is a hazard to shipping, to Canvey Island and to the gas terminal. It should have been dealt with years ago. Use the project as an opportunity to do so now.
6. The planning issues remain whether you are building on BI or at Heathrow. This is a red herring.
7. The Government is already underwriting large transport infrastructure projects which will bring a fraction of the benefits that the new airport would bring. Again a red herring.
Very. Maybe it was a bit tasteless for some people, but that's not the same as actually being offensive.
What is 'offensive'?
As far as I can tell, it's when someone disagrees with you and, rather than just expressing their opinion, gets very upset about it and demands you shut up, apologise and (sometimes) tries to ruin you as well.
Thanks @Sandpit for this excellent comprehensive response.
Except its not.
1.There is absolutely no need for it to take 15-20 years. As has already been pointed out a number of similar projects have been completed in far shorter timescale.
2. This applies to many other airports around the world in similar settings.
3. Transport links for Heathrow are bloody awful unless you happen to live in London or the South. Anyone travelling to Heathrow by train from the north has to make transfers - in the case of the whole Eastern side of the country through central London. I travel overseas regularly and stay away from Heathrow or Gatwick completely. I much prefer to fly from a regional airport to Schipol and then on to the rest of the world. The M25 is a disaster and public transport links are crap. A new airport with new dedicated transport links built from scratch would be vastly better.
4. There would not be a need for LHR to close. There are a number of ways in which flights could be split between the two, the simplest being to use Heathrow for freight and Boris Island for passengers.
5. The time has come to deal with the Montgomery anyway. It is a hazard to shipping, to Canvey Island and to the gas terminal. It should have been dealt with years ago. Use the project as an opportunity to do so now.
6. The planning issues remain whether you are building on BI or at Heathrow. This is a red herring.
7. The Government is already underwriting large transport infrastructure projects which will bring a fraction of the benefits that the new airport would bring. Again a red herring.
Mr Tyndall, we will have to agree to disagree on this one I'm afraid. It might have been a starter if we had put it on the table 20 years back but there's no chance of it now due to the procrastination of a number of successive governments.
Very. Maybe it was a bit tasteless for some people, but that's not the same as actually being offensive.
What is 'offensive'?
As far as I can tell, it's when someone disagrees with you and, rather than just expressing their opinion, gets very upset about it and demands you shut up, apologise and (sometimes) tries to ruin you as well.
Very. Maybe it was a bit tasteless for some people, but that's not the same as actually being offensive.
What is 'offensive'?
As far as I can tell, it's when someone disagrees with you and, rather than just expressing their opinion, gets very upset about it and demands you shut up, apologise and (sometimes) tries to ruin you as well.
At its worst. A lot of people seem to think that anything that someone finds personally offensive should therefore be unavailable to anyone else, as if there is a universal right not to be offended by things, which given personal tastes, morals and shifting cultural patterns, would be impossible to secure. Better to possibly get people upset than constantly try to figure out where the line is (the obvious, massive lines only ever get crossed by accident)
@Plato I wonder if that error was better or worse than the image issue on a piece of facial recognition software from HP which just didn't see black people at all. The very funny show Better of Ted had a plot onthe same thing before it happened I think.
6. The planning issues remain whether you are building on BI or at Heathrow. This is a red herring.
Time for an Act though parliament authorising this "hero project" in the national interest and sweeping aside any planning procedures and other administrative delaying tactics
Honestly, if something would speed the process up I'd consider anything worthwhile. I'm already sick of Heathrow and Gatwick bickering.
Just as a matter of interest for now, Does anyone recall the BBC saying that in Brown's era if Brown said XYZ then they reported it as the Chancellor/PM CLAIMED rather than said.
I have noted of late that the BBC have started to use the CLAIM word (recently re G Osborne and the better than expected GDP figures) rather than report what was said .... eg the Chancellor claimed rather than the Chancellor said..
Slight change but it conveys a completely different meaning.
Can YOU think of any "dysfunctional societies" from which we should not accept immigrants right now? -----------
Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Sudan, Eritrea, Libya, Yemen, Iraq and Somalia. That's for a start.
Apart from the fact that it would set UK race relations back many years (to put it mildly), what happens to people already in the UK from those countries? Do you "repatriate" them?
If someone is lawfully resident in this country, then they can't be expelled. If they are unlawfully resident here, then they should certainly be expelled.
Let us consider the following hypothetical situation under Cameron's proposal: a majority of English MPs would vote, if they had the chance, to repeal tyrannical Hunting Act 2004, but the majority of the House of Commons would not. Its subject matter is devolved to Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. The 2004 Act would, however, remain in force, because Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs could negative the second or third reading of the Bill. So yes, Cameron is proposing to maintain the Scotch veto over English affairs.
Look up clause 1 page 1 on 'Definition of a Veto'. A veto is where one voter can over rule everyone else and block a proposal. That said... 59 Scottish MPs can vote on non Scottish only matters which they have no responsibility for and also for which they have no responsibility for back in their own devolved constituencies. This is wrong. Its not a veto, but its wrong.
IDS appears to be announcing the end to 'relative poverty' as the key child poverty measure. Halleluja!
Hooray! Working most days with people who are in real poverty (nett income less than $5/day) I find the definition used in the UK as highly insulting to these people. "Less well off than some" or "only a little bit affluent" would be more appropriate for most.
Things are more expensive in the UK than in the third world.
And that's still a relative definition of poverty. If China and Africa were to become much richer, it would mean British people would become "poorer".
We know Britain can produce a standard of living superior to say Pakistan due to its superior economic and political institutions, so European poverty denial by using a globally-relativist reference category is just a different kind of queering the pitch.
'Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Sudan, Eritrea, Libya, Yemen, Iraq and Somalia. That's for a start.
Apart from the fact that it would set UK race relations back many years (to put it mildly), what happens to people already in the UK from those countries? Do you "repatriate" them?'
Some people will always want to play the race card but the majority would surely see it as putting the safety & security of UK citizens first.
What's the point in allowing immigration to continue from such high risk countries both in terms of terrorist threat and other criminal behavior.
True, but I'm on record on a thread about three weeks before the election castigating the Tories for not being more specific as I felt £12Bn was a bit of a big figure to fill in details on later. Now it's not reasonable to expect them to have said "child benefit will be £20.12p per week" or whatever, but some indication that say "50% of it is from tax credits, 20% from child benefit, and a chunk from raising the pension age more aggressively" would've been more honest.
I also castigated Labour for pretending that mansions, non doms, and 50p tax was all that was on offer as specifics on tax and a vast gaping silence prevailed over the other 98% of us.
It wouldn't be unreasonable to say "look we're going to take a federal structure as per Canada or Germany as a model, same sort of tax raising powers per state on local taxes, with universal European VAT, united armed forces, same welfare spending per capita across Europe, and we aim to have everyone educated in English and their local language so in 50 years time we can all talk to each other and have a sort of "demos" and a proper universal job market. Starting in 2020. Yes/No?
The reason they don't do that is because they know it would drive too many people into the arms of their opponents not just in Britain but in many other parts of Europe. Hence the reason they go for the salami slice principle whilst all the while denying that federation is an eventual aim.
Just as a matter of interest for now, Does anyone recall the BBC saying that in Brown's era if Brown said XYZ then they reported it as the Chancellor/PM CLAIMED rather than said.
I have noted of late that the BBC have started to use the CLAIM word (recently re G Osborne and the better than expected GDP figures) rather than report what was said .... eg the Chancellor claimed rather than the Chancellor said..
Slight change but it conveys a completely different meaning.
I do remember that during that era they would repeat Number 11 spin as being the view of 'the Treasury'.
Dave confirms he will reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600
Any rebellion likely on this?
Yes.
I like your straight answers. It doesn't have to be a large rebellion either.
Any chance the SNP will back 600 to shaft Labour? If they believe their own rhetoric the number of Westminster MPs will soon be an irrelevance anyway as they go it alone on some arc of deep-fried prosperity so why help your main opponent?
McLoughlin seems to be hinting that the government will accept the Davies recommendations.
This is going to be a very big headache for Cameron.
The economic case for Heathrow is overwhelming. The politics is awful.
There are no easy choices for the government.
I'm not even convinced of the economic case, if you factor in the cost to local residents. If there are a half million extra people badly affected. If the raised noise pollution is equivalent to a few thousand each, that would presumably make a big difference.
A hub airport allows you to operate routes to parts of the globe that wouldn't otherwise be economically viable for the airline on a point-to-point basis due to the add-on from transfer traffic. That in turn allows quick direct communications from the UK to all sorts of parts of the world, increasing our global connectivity, and encouraging more and more business to locate here and grow here.
You don't get that if Heathrow loses its hub status and, in fact, the economics could go backwards to some degree if airlines reschedule and relocate. It's worth tens of billions.
I broadly agree with the points you are making. However airliners like the Boeing Dreamliner are designed and sold as point to point aircraft. As I posted earlier I think we should expand both Gatwick and Stansted and lengthen one of the Heathrow runways.
AIUI (IANAE), a problem with point-to-point is that you need more, smaller planes in the air, and the capacity of the air routes in the UK and Europe is getting filled up. Mainly because the military controls a vast amount of the airspace.
So we need an HS2 for the skies to improve capacity! Either that or get the military to lend some to the civils!
Maybe ... but that does not take away from Boeing and Airbus building point to point long range aircraft. I have to say I would have thought 'hub - type' systems would generate more journeys but thats only my observation.
Just as a matter of interest for now, Does anyone recall the BBC saying that in Brown's era if Brown said XYZ then they reported it as the Chancellor/PM CLAIMED rather than said.
I have noted of late that the BBC have started to use the CLAIM word (recently re G Osborne and the better than expected GDP figures) rather than report what was said .... eg the Chancellor claimed rather than the Chancellor said..
Slight change but it conveys a completely different meaning.
There was a run of The Government said, The Opposition claimed.
Dave confirms he will reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600
Any rebellion likely on this?
Yes.
I like your straight answers. It doesn't have to be a large rebellion either.
Any chance the SNP will back 600 to shaft Labour? If they believe their own rhetoric the number of Westminster MPs will soon be an irrelevance anyway as they go it alone on some arc of deep-fried prosperity so why help your main opponent?
But they'll soon be entrenched in the hated "Westminster", with the salaries, staff allowances for family, unrivalled pension, transport and accommodation expenses. All paid for by the nasty "English".
True, but I'm on record on a thread about three weeks before the election castigating the Tories for not being more specific as I felt £12Bn was a bit of a big figure to fill in details on later. Now it's not reasonable to expect them to have said "child benefit will be £20.12p per week" or whatever, but some indication that say "50% of it is from tax credits, 20% from child benefit, and a chunk from raising the pension age more aggressively" would've been more honest.
I also castigated Labour for pretending that mansions, non doms, and 50p tax was all that was on offer as specifics on tax and a vast gaping silence prevailed over the other 98% of us.
It wouldn't be unreasonable to say "look we're going to take a federal structure as per Canada or Germany as a model, same sort of tax raising powers per state on local taxes, with universal European VAT, united armed forces, same welfare spending per capita across Europe, and we aim to have everyone educated in English and their local language so in 50 years time we can all talk to each other and have a sort of "demos" and a proper universal job market. Starting in 2020. Yes/No?
The reason they don't do that is because they know it would drive too many people into the arms of their opponents not just in Britain but in many other parts of Europe. Hence the reason they go for the salami slice principle whilst all the while denying that federation is an eventual aim.
Yes. Exactly. Faced with a real stated aim people would go "no thanks", and there's the raison d'etre for a whole gravy train industry to vanish. It might then get replaced hopefully (in my view) with something less utopian, more collaborative, and trade based with some limited things done on a supra level (some environmental things?), leaving defence to Nato and the wider West. We could always bolt on mutual health insurance for limited stays, and other bits and bobs without the whole Gormanghast panoply of European institutions I'm sure. We could call it a simple "Common Market". (Couldn't resist)
Dave confirms he will reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600
Any rebellion likely on this?
Yes.
I like your straight answers. It doesn't have to be a large rebellion either.
Any chance the SNP will back 600 to shaft Labour? If they believe their own rhetoric the number of Westminster MPs will soon be an irrelevance anyway as they go it alone on some arc of deep-fried prosperity so why help your main opponent?
The reduction to 600 seats will reduce Scotland's influence in Westminster from 9.1% of the seats to something like 8.7% of the seats. On the other hand, a reduction in seat count tightens the grip of a dominant party on the remaining seats, so it would make it harder for Labour to make a comeback in Scotland. That said, the SNP is already so dominant in Scotland that last point scarcely seems like a consideration.
Can YOU think of any "dysfunctional societies" from which we should not accept immigrants right now? -----------
Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Sudan, Eritrea, Libya, Yemen, Iraq and Somalia. That's for a start.
Apart from the fact that it would set UK race relations back many years (to put it mildly), what happens to people already in the UK from those countries? Do you "repatriate" them?
It's absolutely nothing to do with race. It is to do with nation of origin. In all sorts of policy discussions, there is a deliberate effort by some to conflate race with nationality, religion, culture and all sorts of other things. It is a very ugly tactic.
Islamic State militants have launched a wave of attacks on the security forces in Egypt's restive Sinai Peninsula.
The military said 10 soldiers had been killed or wounded along with 39 "terrorists" in near-simultaneous raids on checkpoints near Sheikh Zuweid.
But security and medical sources said as many as 50 soldiers had died.
Clashes are continuing in the area, with militants reportedly roaming the streets of Sheikh Zuweid and besieging the town's main police station.
Islamic State's local affiliate, Sinai Province, said in a statement posted online that it had targeted 15 security sites and carried out three suicide attacks.
The assault is one of the biggest since jihadists based in Sinai stepped up their attacks after the military overthrew Islamist President Mohammed Morsi two years ago. At least 600 police and armed forces personnel have since been killed.
Wednesday's attacks came two days after the assassination of Egypt's public prosecutor, Hisham Barakat, in the capital Cairo.
McLoughlin seems to be hinting that the government will accept the Davies recommendations.
This is going to be a very big headache for Cameron.
The economic case for Heathrow is overwhelming. The politics is awful.
There are no easy choices for the government.
I'm not even convinced of the economic case, if you factor in the cost to local residents. If there are a half million extra people badly affected. If the raised noise pollution is equivalent to a few thousand each, that would presumably make a big difference.
A hub airport allows you to operate routes to parts of the globe that wouldn't otherwise be economically viable for the airline on a point-to-point basis due to the add-on from transfer traffic. That in turn allows quick direct communications from the UK to all sorts of parts of the world, increasing our global connectivity, and encouraging more and more business to locate here and grow here.
You don't get that if Heathrow loses its hub status and, in fact, the economics could go backwards to some degree if airlines reschedule and relocate. It's worth tens of billions.
I broadly agree with the points you are making. However airliners like the Boeing Dreamliner are designed and sold as point to point aircraft. As I posted earlier I think we should expand both Gatwick and Stansted and lengthen one of the Heathrow runways.
AIUI (IANAE), a problem with point-to-point is that you need more, smaller planes in the air, and the capacity of the air routes in the UK and Europe is getting filled up. Mainly because the military controls a vast amount of the airspace.
So we need an HS2 for the skies to improve capacity! Either that or get the military to lend some to the civils!
Maybe ... but that does not take away from Boeing and Airbus building point to point long range aircraft. I have to say I would have thought 'hub - type' systems would generate more journeys but thats only my observation.
Dave confirms he will reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600
Any rebellion likely on this?
Yes.
I like your straight answers. It doesn't have to be a large rebellion either.
Any chance the SNP will back 600 to shaft Labour? If they believe their own rhetoric the number of Westminster MPs will soon be an irrelevance anyway as they go it alone on some arc of deep-fried prosperity so why help your main opponent?
The reduction to 600 seats will reduce Scotland's influence in Westminster from 9.1% of the seats to something like 8.7% of the seats. On the other hand, a reduction in seat count tightens the grip of a dominant party on the remaining seats, so it would make it harder for Labour to make a comeback in Scotland. That said, the SNP is already so dominant in Scotland that last point scarcely seems like a consideration.
Won't it depend on which register is used for the 'map' as to exactly how many seats the SNP lose ?
I think if I were the SNP I'd back a move to 600 so long as the most up to date register is used, as that would most likely give Scotland proportionately a decent amount of seats ?
Mr. Financier, Turkey's got the second biggest army in NATO. ISIS won't have a serious military crack at Turkey, I would guess, but they will try soft infiltration and influencing the country to encourage its move to Islamism.
Dave confirms he will reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600
Any rebellion likely on this?
Yes.
I like your straight answers. It doesn't have to be a large rebellion either.
Any chance the SNP will back 600 to shaft Labour? If they believe their own rhetoric the number of Westminster MPs will soon be an irrelevance anyway as they go it alone on some arc of deep-fried prosperity so why help your main opponent?
The reduction to 600 seats will reduce Scotland's influence in Westminster from 9.1% of the seats to something like 8.7% of the seats. On the other hand, a reduction in seat count tightens the grip of a dominant party on the remaining seats, so it would make it harder for Labour to make a comeback in Scotland. That said, the SNP is already so dominant in Scotland that last point scarcely seems like a consideration.
Won't it depend on which register is used for the 'map' as to exactly how many seats the SNP lose ?
I think if I were the SNP I'd back a move to 600 so long as the most up to date register is used, as that would most likely give Scotland proportionately a decent amount of seats ?
It will depend on which register was used. We have the register of registered voters at the general election, which is as good a hint as we can get at the moment:
There's a complicated (broadly proportional) basis for allocating seats but this depends on the precise numbers, which will be set in December. On a strictly proportional basis, the general election registered voters would give a seat allocation as follows:
Northern Ireland: roughly 16 seats Wales: roughly 30 seats Scotland: 52 or 53 seats England: 501 or 502 seats
Bloody hope not, I'm in Dubai for the next few weeks! It's pretty quiet here at the moment as it's Ramadan and really hot (45C today, and humid!). The concern would have to be over the Eid holiday in two weeks' time when a LOT of tourists will turn up for what is a three-day holiday across most of the region. I for one will be staying away from the big malls, bars and tourist areas during the holiday period.
It is clear from what Cameron said at PMQs that he is not serious about resolving the West Lothian Question. ...In essence, Bills extending to England and Wales concerning matters devolved to Scotland* will be committed to a committee of English MPs. The whole House will still vote on second reading, on report, and third reading. This means that Cameron is proposing to maintain the Scotch veto over English affairs. Furthermore, it seems an utterly ineffectual proposal, since whatever changes are made in committee can be reversed by the whole House on report. This is a back of a fag packet solution, which ought to be rejected.
*In any event, a fiendishly complicated matter, productive of much recent litigation, which ought not to be determined by an officer of the House of Commons, but by the courts.
Technical point in Cameron's favour to a modest extent: at report stage, issues already voted on in Committee do not usually (possibly never) get considered again. So the English amendments at Committee stage could get nixed by the full House at Third Reading, but not (I think) reversed at Report. It's therefore possible that minor amendments that weren't enough to provoke rejection of the whole Bill could get through.
JEO, obviously, if the ability to read emails is then misused by blackmail or other abuse, that is a criminal offence. The right to do something legally for purposes construed by Parliament as appropriate is a separate issue from misusing it for private (or political) purposes.
No, it's the same issue. If you give someone a tool, you have to think about how it may be used.
What British people don't fully understand about civil liberties is that they are a security measure. This is much more obvious to people in Germany, where they have a very clear an unambiguous historical example of law enforcement tools being used for evil, but the calculation should be the same everywhere.
If you're trying to enhance security with measure x, you need to do a proper security analysis on it. What are the threats it protects you from, and what are the threats that it makes worse? In recent European history by far the largest security threat to the population has tended to be their own governments or the governments of neighbouring countries, so this is not an academic issue.
I've never heard anyone present any kind of convincing defence of the security trade-offs of large, secretive government surveillance programs. I think they must be like having a loaded gun in your home: It might make you feel safer if you feel scared, but in practice it's much more likely to take your life than to save it.
Time for an Act though parliament authorising this "hero project" in the national interest and sweeping aside any planning procedures and other administrative delaying tactics
That won't actually help very much, for two reasons. (1) An airport would have to be authorised by hybrid bill, which is by far the lengthiest form of parliamentary process. The Crossrail Bill took something like four years to pass. (2) Authorising a project by enactment won't save it from challenge for incompatibility with EU environmental law.
Mr. Financier, Turkey's got the second biggest army in NATO. ISIS won't have a serious military crack at Turkey, I would guess, but they will try soft infiltration and influencing the country to encourage its move to Islamism.
Yes but even a large army, will not be able to stop a sea landing at a resort (and there are a lot of non-town resorts in Turkey) and hit a tourist spot hard. After all, ISIS just wants economic and political destabilisation for a start before mobilising the stricter and more fundamental Muslims in Turkey.
The long grass beckons for the Heathrow proposals methinks. Still, nice work for all those people who sat on the committee and were paid to help it out. Round two in another ten years' time?
Islamic State militants have launched a wave of attacks on the security forces in Egypt's restive Sinai Peninsula.
The military said 10 soldiers had been killed or wounded along with 39 "terrorists" in near-simultaneous raids on checkpoints near Sheikh Zuweid.
But security and medical sources said as many as 50 soldiers had died.
Clashes are continuing in the area, with militants reportedly roaming the streets of Sheikh Zuweid and besieging the town's main police station.
Islamic State's local affiliate, Sinai Province, said in a statement posted online that it had targeted 15 security sites and carried out three suicide attacks.
The assault is one of the biggest since jihadists based in Sinai stepped up their attacks after the military overthrew Islamist President Mohammed Morsi two years ago. At least 600 police and armed forces personnel have since been killed.
Wednesday's attacks came two days after the assassination of Egypt's public prosecutor, Hisham Barakat, in the capital Cairo.
Islamic terrorists have been active in the Sinai for a very long time. That's a very long way away from UAE and Saudi Arabia, which do not have anything like the same local operational bases.
Comments
*In any event, a fiendishly complicated matter, productive of much recent litigation, which ought not to be determined by an officer of the House of Commons, but by the courts.
In the 1980s, me and my school friends would regularly run around the school playground in primary school. It was quite common to call each other 'gay' for not joining in with enough enthusiasm, or being emotional about something, or for too much playful physical contact.
Was that right? In hindsight, probably not. We used it as an insult, and some of the kids possibly even turned out to be gay. But we were very young kids, and, if adults did intervene, it would be to tell us to calm down, break it up or tell us off for taking it too far.
Now I wonder if under these new rules some would be put on a list by some overzealous teachers and even have the police involved.
There are no easy choices for the government.
I'm sure they'll all pretend for long enough to get to the next crisis.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4484270.ece
"Green Fascists and NIMBYs want to hold the country/economy back"
It might help a huge amount if the advocates of a USE actually spelled out what they want and when. It's a perfectly respectable view to hold, but for decades I have the impression it's been the truth that dare not speak its name, so we have this endless nudge and salami tactics. A veto turns into a QMV, a regulation abolishes a food here (remember Bombay Duck anyone?), a passport turns red, speeding can suddenly collect points in Belgium, a single currency appears without people having a vote on it (I have never met a single German who wanted it. Not a single one. In dozens and dozens of visits to Germany over the years), all in the hope (as far as I can see) that we all one day wake up in a USE without ever quite working out how we got there let alone if we wanted it. And therein lies the rub: if you don't take the people with you, you will get trouble eventually. It just won't work, no matter how many institutions, you create, or "euro" prefixes you attach, or meaningless commissioner jobs in charge of root vegetable quotas you dream up for some obscure Baltic country's representative, because we've got to pretend they matter as much as France, or Spain, or Poland.
An apology from those in influence who advocated us joining the Euro would be a start. How on earth are we supposed to take much seriously from these people (in all parties) when they got the biggest economic call of the past generation bang wrong? A mea culpa and start again properly if you want a USE would be a beginning, not some weasly rubbish about it was "the convergence criteria" that were wrong with the Euro.
What happens if the English MPs are split 440 vs 451 and the 59 Scottish MPs side with the 440 in the third reading on the floor of the house ? They just overruled the will of the majority of English MPs on a matter pertaining only to England.
I think that "draining the swamp" is futile. I'd prefer simply to ensure that the existing criminal law is enforced, without regard for worrying about good community relations, and that immigration from dysfunctional societies came to an end.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_International_Airport
Do grow up Pro Rata (et al). Haven't you learned anything at all over the last 5 years. This is what we have governments for. This is why we have politicians to navigate their way through them.
The UK just elected a government to do £12bn welfare cuts without saying what, or when.
Who, or what organization/government department/minister, would be tasked with deciding which societies were "dysfunctional"?
What criteria would be used, and how frequently would the decision be reviewed?
What about people already in the UK from these "dysfunctional societies". Would they have the right to stay?
Can YOU think of any "dysfunctional societies" from which we should not accept immigrants right now?
You don't get that if Heathrow loses its hub status and, in fact, the economics could go backwards to some degree if airlines reschedule and relocate. It's worth tens of billions.
http://www.heathrowairport.com/static/HeathrowAboutUs/Downloads/PDF/a_new_approach_2014.pdf
As far as I can tell, it's when someone disagrees with you and, rather than just expressing their opinion, gets very upset about it and demands you shut up, apologise and (sometimes) tries to ruin you as well.
It would also release vast amounts of very valuable land at Heathrow.
A third runway will not be built in 15-20 years, unless they can really expedite the planning process.
Something needs doing about the Montgomery anyway.
I say: sod it, let's do it!
290/301 with 59 SNP siding with the 290 then, the basic point stands
1.There is absolutely no need for it to take 15-20 years. As has already been pointed out a number of similar projects have been completed in far shorter timescale.
2. This applies to many other airports around the world in similar settings.
3. Transport links for Heathrow are bloody awful unless you happen to live in London or the South. Anyone travelling to Heathrow by train from the north has to make transfers - in the case of the whole Eastern side of the country through central London. I travel overseas regularly and stay away from Heathrow or Gatwick completely. I much prefer to fly from a regional airport to Schipol and then on to the rest of the world. The M25 is a disaster and public transport links are crap. A new airport with new dedicated transport links built from scratch would be vastly better.
4. There would not be a need for LHR to close. There are a number of ways in which flights could be split between the two, the simplest being to use Heathrow for freight and Boris Island for passengers.
5. The time has come to deal with the Montgomery anyway. It is a hazard to shipping, to Canvey Island and to the gas terminal. It should have been dealt with years ago. Use the project as an opportunity to do so now.
6. The planning issues remain whether you are building on BI or at Heathrow. This is a red herring.
7. The Government is already underwriting large transport infrastructure projects which will bring a fraction of the benefits that the new airport would bring. Again a red herring.
As I posted earlier I think we should expand both Gatwick and Stansted and lengthen one of the Heathrow runways.
Also the winds are generally E-W and planes prefer to take off into the wind.
There were some ideas not on the table which have been discussed on aviation forums. One was to use the almost parallel runway at RAF Northolt, 5 miles N of LHR alongside the A40, with a tunnel between the two fields. Another would be to have an airside maglev train like Shanghai connecting LHR, LGW and STN, moving passengers and baggage between the airports in only a few minutes. Both of these would be considerably cheaper and cause less disruption than a new runway, but only put the problem off for a few more years.
As it is, the forecast increase in traffic says that we need to start planning the runway after this one already. A couple of silver linings for those affected by today's decisions though - one is that each new plane design is a load quieter than what it replaces, the other is that with 3 runways a particular spot is overflown by 1/3 of the landings, rather than 1/2 as at present.
I also castigated Labour for pretending that mansions, non doms, and 50p tax was all that was on offer as specifics on tax and a vast gaping silence prevailed over the other 98% of us.
It wouldn't be unreasonable to say "look we're going to take a federal structure as per Canada or Germany as a model, same sort of tax raising powers per state on local taxes, with universal European VAT, united armed forces, same welfare spending per capita across Europe, and we aim to have everyone educated in English and their local language so in 50 years time we can all talk to each other and have a sort of "demos" and a proper universal job market. Starting in 2020. Yes/No?
It would be cheaper, quicker, and more democratic.
So we need an HS2 for the skies to improve capacity! Either that or get the military to lend some to the civils!
For those interested in further reading, the Wiki page has several thousand words of the arguments in favour and against the island airport.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Estuary_Airport
Bit sweltering, but at least there's cloud cover, and it'll be cooler, though still warm, tomorrow. Much prefer cold weather.
@Plato I wonder if that error was better or worse than the image issue on a piece of facial recognition software from HP which just didn't see black people at all. The very funny show Better of Ted had a plot onthe same thing before it happened I think. Honestly, if something would speed the process up I'd consider anything worthwhile. I'm already sick of Heathrow and Gatwick bickering.
Just as a matter of interest for now, Does anyone recall the BBC saying that in Brown's era if Brown said XYZ then they reported it as the Chancellor/PM CLAIMED rather than said.
I have noted of late that the BBC have started to use the CLAIM word (recently re G Osborne and the better than expected GDP figures) rather than report what was said .... eg the Chancellor claimed rather than the Chancellor said..
Slight change but it conveys a completely different meaning.
A veto is where one voter can over rule everyone else and block a proposal.
That said...
59 Scottish MPs can vote on non Scottish only matters which they have no responsibility for and also for which they have no responsibility for back in their own devolved constituencies. This is wrong. Its not a veto, but its wrong.
And that's still a relative definition of poverty. If China and Africa were to become much richer, it would mean British people would become "poorer".
We know Britain can produce a standard of living superior to say Pakistan due to its superior economic and political institutions, so European poverty denial by using a globally-relativist reference category is just a different kind of queering the pitch.
'Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Sudan, Eritrea, Libya, Yemen, Iraq and Somalia. That's for a start.
Apart from the fact that it would set UK race relations back many years (to put it mildly), what happens to people already in the UK from those countries? Do you "repatriate" them?'
Some people will always want to play the race card but the majority would surely see it as putting the safety & security of UK citizens first.
What's the point in allowing immigration to continue from such high risk countries both in terms of terrorist threat and other criminal behavior.
Irregular verb?
The turkeys won't vote for Christmas.
http://www.accuweather.com/en/gb/heathrow/tw6-2/weather-forecast/2532706
Islamic State militants have launched a wave of attacks on the security forces in Egypt's restive Sinai Peninsula.
The military said 10 soldiers had been killed or wounded along with 39 "terrorists" in near-simultaneous raids on checkpoints near Sheikh Zuweid.
But security and medical sources said as many as 50 soldiers had died.
Clashes are continuing in the area, with militants reportedly roaming the streets of Sheikh Zuweid and besieging the town's main police station.
Islamic State's local affiliate, Sinai Province, said in a statement posted online that it had targeted 15 security sites and carried out three suicide attacks.
The assault is one of the biggest since jihadists based in Sinai stepped up their attacks after the military overthrew Islamist President Mohammed Morsi two years ago. At least 600 police and armed forces personnel have since been killed.
Wednesday's attacks came two days after the assassination of Egypt's public prosecutor, Hisham Barakat, in the capital Cairo.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-33340458
I think if I were the SNP I'd back a move to 600 so long as the most up to date register is used, as that would most likely give Scotland proportionately a decent amount of seats ?
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/excel_doc/0011/189623/2015-UK-General-election-data-collated-results-WEB.xlsx
From these we can derive the following totals of registered voters:
Northern Ireland:1,236,683
Wales: 2,282,297
Scotland: 4,094,784
England: 38,811,712
There's a complicated (broadly proportional) basis for allocating seats but this depends on the precise numbers, which will be set in December. On a strictly proportional basis, the general election registered voters would give a seat allocation as follows:
Northern Ireland: roughly 16 seats
Wales: roughly 30 seats
Scotland: 52 or 53 seats
England: 501 or 502 seats
It's pretty quiet here at the moment as it's Ramadan and really hot (45C today, and humid!). The concern would have to be over the Eid holiday in two weeks' time when a LOT of tourists will turn up for what is a three-day holiday across most of the region. I for one will be staying away from the big malls, bars and tourist areas during the holiday period.
New Thread
space travelhot weather!http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/01/hillary-clinton-lobbied-by-cherie-blair-qatari-royal-emails