Mr. Dugarbandier, as I said, the name change is irrelevant to most people, it's the 'being fair' to ISIS and not wanting to seem to support their opponents which is demented.
Perhaps not demented at all if it includes world service broadcasts. If we consider the world service is there to win "hearts and minds" as the old discredited phrase goes...
Trouble is the "free market" extremists are determined to shut that down along with the rest of the bbc rather than have an international mouthpiece for British values of fairness honesty and so on.
On topic there does have to come a point at which we recognise that the south of England is full and that further development there causes more harm than good? I am not convinced that the report adequately addresses that problem.
It is possible by the time any new runway opens electric cars will be the norm and aircraft will be quieter and more fuel efficient producing less fumes but it would be unwise to count on it, especially the latter. At the moment insufficient attention seems to have been given to the detriments.
Boris Island struck me as the visionary response to this because it effectively creates new space, albeit with knock on consequences. If we had started building it 5 years ago we could be well on the way now. Alternatively the southern conurbation needs to be expanded northwards suggesting Luton or Birmingham as possibilities.
I confess to only having read the executive summary but there is very little strategic vision in the Davies report. It is a solution that is out of date before a shovel even gets in the ground. Having waited so long for this it is difficult for the government to just ignore it and no doubt any other solution will be judicially reviewed if they do in the bizarre way that we like to tie our own hands but it is a disappointment.
I mentioned the BBC4 prog on Grammar Schools A Secret History. I've just watched it and hmm 2/10. I didn't learn anything, all cuddly anecdotes from BBC grammar scholars like David Attenborough and Joan Blinking Bakewell. And old ladies who were teachers. An hour of my life I won't get back.
Apparently there is a part 2 which should be more up to date. Really needed is a programme on the decline of education since the 1970s and the part played by political ideology for the sake of the party and not for the sake of the interests of the children.
Mr. Dugarbandier, you're referring to the opponents of ISIS as extremists. Not sure that necessarily bolsters your argument.
wanting to disband the BBC is a fairly extreme position. but here we are again pissing on about terminology rather than debating anything substantial. political correctness gone mad, i telll you!
I still remain unconvinced that we really need to have the type of hub airport that expansion implies. But it has become identified as Progress, so Labour should back it enthusiastically.
The BBC reports that "The Airports Commission has backed a third Heathrow runway, saying it will add £147bn in economic growth by 2050." Wow - that's a big number!!
But it is a serious misreporting of the Report which says (page 24) "The overall effect COULD be to increase GDP by 0.65-0.75% by 2050, amounting with carbon emissions traded to £131-147 billion in present value terms over the 60 years following expansion. This compares to £89 billion in GDP impacts from expansion at Gatwick."
Note that the increase in GDP is over the 60 years following expansion - say by 2090 not 2050.
If you look at the difference in benefit with Gatwick it is £42b-£58b OVER 60 YEARS! That is less than a £1b a year starting from 2030. And for that Cameron is going to split the cabinet? I don't think so.
Furthermore, the disbenefit to Londoners of the extra noise and pollution is not costed in. Nor, as the independent reviewers point out in their report, is the impact on demand of the recovery of the cost of the scheme from air passengers in increased fares (as it is privately funded). The results are very demand sensitive so this is a serious flaw in the analysis. If it was factored in, it would further reduce the benefits.
If the noise and air pollution costs are not factored in, it's a joke of an analysis.
Mr. Divvie, very witty. Do you support the BBC not wanting to be seen to support ISIS' enemies [which includes us, and everyone else who thinks crucifying children, genocide, and the sexual enslavement of women is wrong]?
Mr. Dugarbandier, as I've said a few times, the issue isn't the name, it's the BBC wanting to avoid being seen to support ISIS' opponents, which includes everyone who isn't a fundamentalist zealot.
Mr. Financier, d'you remember reading about those new airships we're making? Ideal for disaster areas because they can land on water. I forgot if they're capable of VTOL (from memory, they're part airship, part plane, part-helicopter, though their appearance is very much that of an airship).
But does that discount also price in the likelihood of expansion and greater pollution? And why shouldn't people use their political power to achieve betterment?
The discount should price in a probability of expansion, but not the full cost (hence the market value + 25% compensation).
And they are within their rights to try to use political power in their own selfish interests. Just as I am within my rights to point out that is precisely what they are doing.
They are behaving like the Greeks: they've had the benefits up front and now want the country to pay for it (in the form of foregone economic growth)
I don't understand your first sentence. And anyway I asked what the discount did, not what - in your opinion - it ought to have done. You can always answer "I don't know"...
Man, you've got one hell of a chip on your shoulder. If you didn't understand my post you could have asked & I'd have answered when my flight landed (see below). If you want to know "does" go and talk to an economist and get him to do an analysis. I can tell you what, as an investor, the market price reflects but can't put precise numbers on it because I don't invest equity in residential property because my family has such a significant exposure to that asset class (albeit well diversified and with excellent covenants).
The discount should reflect (a) the noise/disruption today plus (b) the increase in noise/disruption in the future adjusted for the probability that noise/disruption occurs
Hence, if today's noise is worth a 10% discount, and future noise is worth a 20% discount, but there is only a 50% probability of future noise occurring then the discount should be: 10% + (10% * 50%) = 15%
Of course, the market price should immediately adjust, in theory, to increase risk of disruption - so people's house values will have fallen based on the Davies report. Hence the need for a market value plus mechanism for compensation as, by the time they measure market value for compensation purposes, it will already have taken into account the increased noise
I doubt people will flock to Labour because it supports the Heathrow expansion. But the more issues the Tories split on the better for Labour.
Early leader for parody post of the day award, SO.
This is a political media frenzy - few people care about airport expansion unless it directly impacts them - very few people travel as regularly as people do on here, for example - and even fewer realise that the Tories are split on the issue. I doubt there are more than 5 seats in it - and given demographics on outskirts of London, there would probably be only a couple of losses.
Personally, my view is if you buy a house near a major airport you leave yourselves open to disruption and compulsory purchase anyway, so shouldn't moan. But I live in Dorset, where we only have one small airport. It is easy for me.
From an economic point of view, a decision should be made, and sensibly it should probably be new runway at Gatwick and a Midland airport. If we're just having one (which would be really short sighted) it should be at Heathrow. There we are Dave, job done. Now, remind me again why we wasted so much money on a NIMBY PR exercise that hasn't really closed down the debate?
Anecdote alert, my reasonably well informed but not nerdish mates always seem to think the 'Tory backbencher' speaking against the Govt on newsnight/QT/any similar talking head programme is Labour.
What people forget is that houses near the airport are significantly discounted in price. For instance, just for amusement value, I once looked round Syon Lodge - you could buy it for £5m because of the noise; it would have been £10m elsewhere and £50m in Kensington.
So residents have made an explicit trade off: a bigger, nicer house in return for accepting noise disruption.
Many of the residents of West London bought before 2003, when Heathrow was loudly proclaiming it would not build a third runway. It even paid for a major advertising campaign saying it would not in the 1990s. So it is utterly unreasonable to criticise residents on this basis.
The route out of this mess for Cameron is to ask the Commission to go away and factor in the air pollution and noise pollution costs in the numbers. When they do that, Gatwick will surely come back as superior.
I presume nobody sensible is paying too much attention to the precise number of billions of pounds of "benefits" decades into the future, bearing in mind the inherent difficulty of economic forecasting. Less so if key disbenefits have not been taken into account...
But aside from the accuracy of the economic numbers, can the shape of the aviation market n 50 years time be correctly predicted? I presume there is a technological horizon of, say, 10-20 years in which there are not going to be any surprises, given the lifespan of legacy aircraft and the time it takes new designs to get through development and into production. I imagine the exact mixture of planes in the sky is harder to predict (e.g. the balance between big and medium jets) as is the closely related question of how much passenger demand is going to be for the "hub and spoke" model and how much is point-to-point.
Do we know if there will be substantial, or even radical, changes to aircraft design in, say, 50 years time? Or a complete transformation of the whole market for other reasons, e.g. new environmental restrictions?
Mr. Divvie, very witty. Do you support the BBC not wanting to be seen to support ISIS' enemies [which includes us, and everyone else who thinks crucifying children, genocide, and the sexual enslavement of women is wrong]?
That somewhat manufactured question floats upon the vast lagoon of things about which I do not give a feck.
Mr. Dugarbandier, as I said, the name change is irrelevant to most people, it's the 'being fair' to ISIS and not wanting to seem to support their opponents which is demented.
Yes. The name thing is a nonsense argument MPs in particular are stirring up which means nothing, I have no issue with the BBC deciding not to accept that 'demand' to stop using IS, as if that would make any amount of difference given the most commonly accepted alternatives. Even accepting that not all enemies of IS would be people the BBC would want to give the impression we support because we too are enemies of IS, the 'being fair' statement, if accurate, is at best very poorly worded.
I find it tragic that people rush to make short term political points on this matter when it requires long term thinking to produce an economic and flexible solution for our small island. The authors of this report have not thought widely or long term enough.
Out of interest Financier - what's your beef with the conclusion? How do you see the relative merits / demerits of the choices available?
It does not look at how our regional airports can take load away from London
I thought the airlines all want a hub/spoke set-up for long haul (otherwise they can't get a broad choice of connecting options - and that's where the market is) vs a very distributed set of point-to-point options for short haul (because that's also where the market is). There may be a market for eg Manchester to Bangkok, but with pitifully few connecting options.
This is what I am trying to get to. Yes airlines want a hub for long haul, but what %age of Heathrow traffic is long haul?
snip
So if we talk about Heathrow as a hub, do we know what % age of passengers arriving at Heathrow will be transit passengers who want a connecting flight either to Europe (but would they not have flown to Paris/Frankfurt etc direct) or a flight to a UK region.
I do not know the answer but I read that 35% of traffic to China goes from Frankfurt with Lufthansa, 3% from Heathrow with BA. Everyone seems obsessed with the growth of China. But given its central position in Europe does it not seem realistic for Frankfurt to have ahead start? London is a major financial hub so clearly it well generate a lot of traffic but is it ever going to match Frankfurt?
Again I point out that Boeing are investing billions in their point to point long range Dreamliner and Airbus have a similar plane, A350. Are 'hubs' so vital? Heathrow is in the wrong place but being realistic it already has a vast infrastructure around it. Simply extend its runway and improve its ability to operate as a hub and build up other runway capacity elsewhere, and improve the Gatwick Heathrow rail link. Offer a longer term plan for a Thames Estuary airport.
OT Have any PBers familiar with Berlin ever seen a raccoon? Been watching a prog about animals turning up in the *wrong* place. Along with hippo colonies in Colombia [escaped from Pablo Escobar's ranch and breeding like rabbits] there are apparently 1m raccoons across Germany after some escaped in WW2 from a fur farm.
Fascinating TV fluff - Animals Unexpected on BBC2.
I doubt people will flock to Labour because it supports the Heathrow expansion. But the more issues the Tories split on the better for Labour.
Early leader for parody post of the day award, SO.
This is a political media frenzy - few people care about airport expansion unless it directly impacts them - very few people travel as regularly as people do on here, for example - and even fewer realise that the Tories are split on the issue. I doubt there are more than 5 seats in it - and given demographics on outskirts of London, there would probably be only a couple of losses.
Personally, my view is if you buy a house near a major airport you leave yourselves open to disruption and compulsory purchase anyway, so shouldn't moan. But I live in Dorset, where we only have one small airport. It is easy for me.
From an economic point of view, a decision should be made, and sensibly it should probably be new runway at Gatwick and a Midland airport. If we're just having one (which would be really short sighted) it should be at Heathrow. There we are Dave, job done. Now, remind me again why we wasted so much money on a NIMBY PR exercise that hasn't really closed down the debate?
Anecdote alert, my reasonably well informed but not nerdish mates always seem to think the 'Tory backbencher' speaking against the Govt on newsnight/QT/any similar talking head programme is Labour.
What people forget is that houses near the airport are significantly discounted in price. For instance, just for amusement value, I once looked round Syon Lodge - you could buy it for £5m because of the noise; it would have been £10m elsewhere and £50m in Kensington.
So residents have made an explicit trade off: a bigger, nicer house in return for accepting noise disruption.
Many of the residents of West London bought before 2003, when Heathrow was loudly proclaiming it would not build a third runway. It even paid for a major advertising campaign saying it would not in the 1990s. So it is utterly unreasonable to criticise residents on this basis.
Heathrow has been telling porky pies to local residents for decades.
'No more expansion after Terminal Four. Ever' 10 years later 'Oh, we must build T5 now'
@Charles: Syon Lodge was also only £5m because it was in the middle of a council estate.
(It was an astonishing house; a mansion near to the Thames, to a park and an easy commute into central London. But it was cavernously big. And you would have felt very lonely there.)
I know - we went to see it for amusement value (and because I've always dreamed of having a banqueting hall with proper balcony for minstrals and everything). But my wife is far more sensible than I am!
I did like the 12C fireplace with the carved knights though
oh and on topic one thing the airport discussion isn't is good for Lab.
Any discussion by them of this airport or that airport = nasty fossil fuels = anti-green = military-industrial complex = not really Lab's home turf = tarred with Nasty polar bear-killing Cons' brush.
OT Have any PBers familiar with Berlin ever seen a raccoon? Been watching a prog about animals turning up in the *wrong* place. Along with hippo colonies in Colombia [escaped from Pablo Escobar's ranch and breeding like rabbits] there are apparently 1m raccoons across Germany after some escaped in WW2 from a fur farm.
Fascinating TV fluff - Animals Unexpected on BBC2.
Not seen any, but have not done much wandering around its green spaces. BTW how are they related (if at all) to your (rac)coon cats?
How is it possible for the police to miss the fact that someone had been shot in the chest and instead believe they had died from natural causes? And to take six days to realise their mistake?
OT Have any PBers familiar with Berlin ever seen a raccoon? Been watching a prog about animals turning up in the *wrong* place. Along with hippo colonies in Colombia [escaped from Pablo Escobar's ranch and breeding like rabbits] there are apparently 1m raccoons across Germany after some escaped in WW2 from a fur farm.
Fascinating TV fluff - Animals Unexpected on BBC2.
Maybe wrong but I think the German farm was mink? Not saying raccoons weren't innocent bystanders of course as per the prog?
Not at all - but because they can have fluffy ringed tails and a similar size - it's a popular myth in Maine - also that they're a mix of bobcat and domestic shorthair.
Apparently there's about 700 raccoons in Berlin alone - and it's their superior IQ [similar to some monkeys] that's allowed them to flourish in an urban setting. They know rubbish collections and time raids on bins to beat them.
EDIT Berliners apparently call them Wash Bears because they wash their food in water.
OT Have any PBers familiar with Berlin ever seen a raccoon? Been watching a prog about animals turning up in the *wrong* place. Along with hippo colonies in Colombia [escaped from Pablo Escobar's ranch and breeding like rabbits] there are apparently 1m raccoons across Germany after some escaped in WW2 from a fur farm.
Fascinating TV fluff - Animals Unexpected on BBC2.
Not seen any, but have not done much wandering around its green spaces. BTW how are they related (if at all) to your (rac)coon cats?
OT Have any PBers familiar with Berlin ever seen a raccoon? Been watching a prog about animals turning up in the *wrong* place. Along with hippo colonies in Colombia [escaped from Pablo Escobar's ranch and breeding like rabbits] there are apparently 1m raccoons across Germany after some escaped in WW2 from a fur farm.
Fascinating TV fluff - Animals Unexpected on BBC2.
Maybe wrong but I think the German farm was mink? Not saying raccoons weren't innocent bystanders of course as per the prog?
I don't think it was meant as an historical fact-finding programme; it was more a wallow in nostalgia for the oldies. On that level, it worked.
I avoid Heathrow and never need to use it. From Manchester, the world is your oyster, and if I want to go to America, Liverpool to Dublin is my first leg.
Yes, Heathrow certainly is a major headache for Cameron. Beyond those mentioned in the press, I know of at least one more cabinet minister who is against the Heathrow option.
However, not making a decision is really not an option, and, given the unambiguous conclusions of the report, it's hard to see how the decision can be anything other than going for Heathrow. It is rare for a report of this kind to be so strongly in favour of one particular option.
As for Labour, the problem is that they are not united on this question either, so it's not going to be completely straightforward to make political capital from it.
My predictions, FWIW are:
- The government will accept the Heathrow recommendation. - This will indeed provoke a major crisis for Cameron including some high-profile resignations - Zac will of course provoke a by-election (but maybe stand again? As an independent?). - Labour will support the government line, but with substantial disagreements of their own. - There will of course be a humongous political, legal, direct-action and planning battle, which will take years and cause a lot of pain for the next and next-but-one PMs after Cameron.
Odds on the Heathrow runaway ever being built? Maybe Evens.
Labour supporting the 3rd runway: Upset voters in London - lose west London seats. Demonstrate to voters in the midlands and north that they are a London party - fail to win marginals here.
Oh, and lose another tranche of voters to the Greens.
Mr. Rentool, given Labour's strength and Conservative weakness in London, would any seats changing hands help the Lib Dems bounce back? Could Greens realistically aspire to winning a seat or two in London?
Mr. Town, hmm. Sounds more like "Slightly enhanced English amendments for English laws, subject to all MPs voting on English laws" to me, although SEEAFELSTAMVOEL is a bit of a long acronym.
As ever the DM are showing why we've ended up in this mess, I'm sure if we went back a couple of years they would be running articles highlighting forces which are now ISIS executing Syrian soldiers. I doubt whether Jaysh Al-Islam, which calls itself the 'Army of Islam', are a group of moderates, for all we know they could be even worse.
I don't think it was meant as an historical fact-finding programme; it was more a wallow in nostalgia for the oldies. On that level, it worked.
I avoid Heathrow and never need to use it. From Manchester, the world is your oyster, and if I want to go to America, Liverpool to Dublin is my first leg.
Anything to avoid Philadelphia.
For me flying almost anywhere in the world my kick off point is Humberside to Schipol. A far better airport than anything we have in the UK.
As ever the DM are showing why we've ended up in this mess, I'm sure if we went back a couple of years they would be running articles highlighting forces which are now ISIS executing Syrian soldiers. I doubt whether Jaysh Al-Islam, which calls itself the 'Army of Islam', are a group of moderates, for all we know they could be even worse.
There are alot of factions and nutjobs out there - IS is the biggest, Iran and Saudi in with alot of proxies too. The Kurds seem like a decent enough bunch, mind.
It's becoming increasingly clear that Heathrow is the only reasonable solution to increasing capacity around London- Boris Island would be a gargantuan outlay and Gatwick doesn't really cut the mustard as Heathrow was chosen above it for the last bout of serious expansion.
Personally though, what wouldn't go amiss is some real forward planning to create a northern hub airport to compete with Heathrow and so we're not here again in 30 years time. Get Manchester expanding, build (or re-build) as fast as possible rail links to Liverpool, Leeds and preferably Sheffield (although that would probably mean tunneling under the Pennines so maybe a no go) and turn it into a genuine 'Northern Powerhouse', rather than Osborne's rather Orwellian use of the term. Along with France, we're fairly rare in terms of developed and developing nations in having only one genuinely international city. You could turn Liverpool and Manchester into 'Twin-cities', and once companies realised they could operate just as well internationally out of there for half the office costs, it would spark huge development and hopefully take some of the strain off the South-East.
I think it's become a tipping point re the BBC - the unhappiness with the telly poll tax in a very competitive market, the criticisms of bias, profligacy over redundancy/payoffs for incompetence, Savile/Hall et al...
It's got momentum. And an unsympathetic HMG. IMO - it's been asking for it for 20yrs and the dam is breaking.
"Perhaps this crisis is not as serious as recent world events in Tunisia or Greece. "
Perhaps? - no, it isn't.
Does anyone who doesn't live in London either care or understand the issues at hand? You might as well talk about tube strikes. Londoncentrik rubbish that people couldn't care less about.
I still remain unconvinced that we really need to have the type of hub airport that expansion implies. But it has become identified as Progress, so Labour should back it enthusiastically.
The BBC reports that "The Airports Commission has backed a third Heathrow runway, saying it will add £147bn in economic growth by 2050." Wow - that's a big number!!
But it is a serious misreporting of the Report which says (page 24) "The overall effect COULD be to increase GDP by 0.65-0.75% by 2050, amounting with carbon emissions traded to £131-147 billion in present value terms over the 60 years following expansion. This compares to £89 billion in GDP impacts from expansion at Gatwick."
Note that the increase in GDP is over the 60 years following expansion - say by 2090 not 2050.
If you look at the difference in benefit with Gatwick it is £42b-£58b OVER 60 YEARS! That is less than a £1b a year starting from 2030. And for that Cameron is going to split the cabinet? I don't think so.
Furthermore, the disbenefit to Londoners of the extra noise and pollution is not costed in. Nor, as the independent reviewers point out in their report, is the impact on demand of the recovery of the cost of the scheme from air passengers in increased fares (as it is privately funded). The results are very demand sensitive so this is a serious flaw in the analysis. If it was factored in, it would further reduce the benefits.
If the noise and air pollution costs are not factored in, it's a joke of an analysis.
Although the disbenefit of noise and air pollution costs to local inhabitants are not factored in, the benefits to passengers of saving time is factored in at £54.98/hour for business passengers and £6.03/hour for leisure.
Mr. Town, hmm. Sounds more like "Slightly enhanced English amendments for English laws, subject to all MPs voting on English laws" to me, although SEEAFELSTAMVOEL is a bit of a long acronym.
Indeed, funny how in a matter of a couple of days the Tories honeymoon period is over. At this rate the Eton mess of Heathrow will no doubt be followed through by another omnishambles budget. Next thing the MSM will realise that the £40 billion hole in Scotland's income is a UK problem on top of the £60 billion cuts etc.
I note earlier someone noted the split of tourist and business flights - business flights were decreasing.
But how can you tell - my colleagues book typically an economy seat, you'd struggle to tell by any sort of statistic that they were business travellers and not tourists. Please don't tell me the metric is being judged by who flies "business" and who flies economy...
Edit:
On ferries it has to be declared, if you're there with a van and some tools you'll get charged twice as much as a tourist and be given the shitty internal cabins !
Mr. Rentool, given Labour's strength and Conservative weakness in London, would any seats changing hands help the Lib Dems bounce back? Could Greens realistically aspire to winning a seat or two in London?
I can only see us losing seats to the Conservatives in London as a result of being pro-Heathrow.
If Zac isn't a candidate for major, and the Conservatives put up a pro-runway candidate against a pro-runway Tessa, then the Greens could get a good vote share and gain an extra seat on the assembly.
On another point - Heathrow is only a hub for One World. There is no reason why Gatwick can't be a hub for Star Alliance and/or SkyTeam. Look at the US - each allaiance has its own set of hubs.
Mr. Town, hmm. Sounds more like "Slightly enhanced English amendments for English laws, subject to all MPs voting on English laws" to me, although SEEAFELSTAMVOEL is a bit of a long acronym.
Indeed, funny how in a matter of a couple of days the Tories honeymoon period is over. At this rate the Eton mess of Heathrow will no doubt be followed through by another omnishambles budget. Next thing the MSM will realise that the £40 billion hole in Scotland's income is a UK problem on top of the £60 billion cuts etc.
The Conservatives should probably go hardest after welfare cuts and any god forbid tax rises they might want in at this point - now is the time to take the unpopular decisions, the electorate won't remember what was happening in July 2015 come 2020.
Ⓑig Ⓑloody Ⓒheek @BBCPropaganda Jeremy Corbyn wants to ban employers making people work in warm places. So that would be an end to coal mining, then. #BBCDP
OT Have any PBers familiar with Berlin ever seen a raccoon? Been watching a prog about animals turning up in the *wrong* place. Along with hippo colonies in Colombia [escaped from Pablo Escobar's ranch and breeding like rabbits] there are apparently 1m raccoons across Germany after some escaped in WW2 from a fur farm.
Fascinating TV fluff - Animals Unexpected on BBC2.
Maybe wrong but I think the German farm was mink? Not saying raccoons weren't innocent bystanders of course as per the prog?
I don't think it was meant as an historical fact-finding programme; it was more a wallow in nostalgia for the oldies. On that level, it worked.
I avoid Heathrow and never need to use it. From Manchester, the world is your oyster, and if I want to go to America, Liverpool to Dublin is my first leg.
Anything to avoid Philadelphia.
For me flying almost anywhere in the world my kick off point is Humberside to Schipol. A far better airport than anything we have in the UK.
Agreed. I do Bristol to Schipol.
I avoid "the hamster cage" though like the plague ( Charles de Gaulle in case anyone was wondering?)
On another point - Heathrow is only a hub for One World. There is no reason why Gatwick can't be a hub for Star Alliance and/or SkyTeam. Look at the US - each allaiance has its own set of hubs.
Terminal 2 is something of a hub for Star Alliance, although serving fewer destinations combined than BA.
Ⓑig Ⓑloody Ⓒheek @BBCPropaganda Jeremy Corbyn wants to ban employers making people work in warm places. So that would be an end to coal mining, then. #BBCDP
How about enforcing current regulations regarding temperature in the workplace (or removing exemptions if they exist)?
As ever the DM are showing why we've ended up in this mess, I'm sure if we went back a couple of years they would be running articles highlighting forces which are now ISIS executing Syrian soldiers. I doubt whether Jaysh Al-Islam, which calls itself the 'Army of Islam', are a group of moderates, for all we know they could be even worse.
There are alot of factions and nutjobs out there - IS is the biggest, Iran and Saudi in with alot of proxies too. The Kurds seem like a decent enough bunch, mind.
The "Arabs" are complaining that their "Western Allies" are not doing enough to fight IS but I don't see their boots on the ground doing the dirty work.
All citizens in Kuwait will be legally required to give a DNA sample to the country's police force in an attempt to make it easier for security services to solve crimes in the country.
The new law, passed through by the Kuwaiti parliament, also includes expatriates living in the small Gulf State.
Anyone who refuses to give a DNA sample could face a year in prison and a hefty fine of as much as $33,000.
Any false samples could also lead to the perpetrator being sentenced for up to seven years in jail. The new law for compulsory DNA samples appears to have come after 26 people were killed in a suicide bomber attack at a Shi'a mosque in Kuwait City
On another point - Heathrow is only a hub for One World. There is no reason why Gatwick can't be a hub for Star Alliance and/or SkyTeam. Look at the US - each allaiance has its own set of hubs.
Terminal 2 is something of a hub for Star Alliance, although serving fewer destinations combined than BA.
Not really a hub, more a case of all of their flights to London being colocated for shared lounge access, baggage services etc. Lufthansa don't encourage passengers to the US to route via Heathrow rather than Frankfurt.
Mr. Calum, there's a risk of so-called EVEL being the worst sort of compromise, that which antagonises both sides and satisfies no-one. It certainly doesn't go far enough from an English perspective (although an English Parliament would be my first choice).
Labour supporting the 3rd runway: Upset voters in London - lose west London seats. Demonstrate to voters in the midlands and north that they are a London party - fail to win marginals here.
Oh, and lose another tranche of voters to the Greens.
When in government the Lib Dems were against a third runway at Heathrow and continue to be so. They have a stronger case to win back Labour voters than the Greens.
The election is out of the way and Cameron isn't standing for re-election in five years time. The time for kicking the can regarding Heathrow is over - just bite the bullet and approve it already.
On another point - Heathrow is only a hub for One World. There is no reason why Gatwick can't be a hub for Star Alliance and/or SkyTeam. Look at the US - each allaiance has its own set of hubs.
Terminal 2 is something of a hub for Star Alliance, although serving fewer destinations combined than BA.
Not really a hub, more a case of all of their flights to London being colocated for shared lounge access, baggage services etc. Lufthansa don't encourage passengers to the US to route via Heathrow rather than Frankfurt.
Well, sounds like a hub to me, and I doubt they'd be too happy about being forced to another airport (would that even be legal?). It is distorted by the fact that there is no UK carrier in Star Alliance, so the hubs of their members are in Europe.
I'm not sure this is such a great policy for Labour. Is there much evidence that the public want Labour to be more pro-business? I'd be more concerned about seeming indifferent to the quality of life of people in middle England.
Miss Plato, worth considering that some people can have multiple DNAs (if one hetereogenous twin [embryo] absorbs another, which does happen, then the resultant human has more than one DNA code).
Rare, but I did about it at university, and later solved a House mystery before he did, a feat which impressed myself so much I'm repeating it now.
All citizens in Kuwait will be legally required to give a DNA sample to the country's police force in an attempt to make it easier for security services to solve crimes in the country.
The new law, passed through by the Kuwaiti parliament, also includes expatriates living in the small Gulf State.
Anyone who refuses to give a DNA sample could face a year in prison and a hefty fine of as much as $33,000.
Any false samples could also lead to the perpetrator being sentenced for up to seven years in jail. The new law for compulsory DNA samples appears to have come after 26 people were killed in a suicide bomber attack at a Shi'a mosque in Kuwait City
Miss Plato, worth considering that some people can have multiple DNAs (if one hetereogenous twin [embryo] absorbs another, which does happen, then the resultant human has more than one DNA code).
Rare, but I did about it at university, and later solved a House mystery before he did, a feat which impressed myself so much I'm repeating it now.
Labour supporting the 3rd runway: Upset voters in London - lose west London seats. Demonstrate to voters in the midlands and north that they are a London party - fail to win marginals here.
Oh, and lose another tranche of voters to the Greens.
There is going to be an interesting test tomorrow in the Hampton Wick by-election in Zac's constituency. Tania Mathias, who defeated Vince Cable, has stood down as a Tory Councillor.
This is a safe Tory seat but I suspect the LibDem will gather tactical votes from Labour and maybe Green and some protesting Tories sending a message. I don't think the LibDem will win but she may give the Tories a big scare.
Fascinating to read the London Evening Standard on this last night as it wobbled around. The paper is pro-Conservative and usually pro-Boris but the editorial backed Osborne and the Davies report as did the City Editor's piece which reported the desire in the business world for there to be "diggers on the ground by 2020".
Nonetheless, Boris got his retaliation in as did Zac Goldsmith who the paper unequivocally and enthusiastically supports to be the next Mayor. I wonder if any of the Conservative London Mayoral candidates will back Heathrow expansion against Goldsmith. It's a fault line that's been as long in the making as the Greek default and the can has been kicked as often down the road.
It will be a test of Cameron's leadership as there is a clear split within the Party and, to be fair, the issue is much more than where to put a runway - managing future transport capacity of all kinds (road and rail as well) for a growing population is as much an issue as managing health care, housing provision, schooling and a whole range of other things.
It's all very well bleating on about building new houses but without recognising and managing the impact on transport and all the other infrastructural aspects, it's a waste of time and effort.
As a complete aside and not working today, I turned for my daily dose of humour to Fox News to see Sean Hannity who has turned in to America's Nigel Farage and is now backing Donald Trump of all people on his anti-immigration message. He was having a huge row with Juan Williams, a sensible american conservative commentator - it's clear the GOP nomination is an overcrowded race revealing significant splits and divisions within the American conservative camp. I wonder if there will be a significant third party runner next year - someone like Trump has the money, like Perot, to run a national campaign if he chose against the Republican nominee and Hillary Clinton.
As ever the DM are showing why we've ended up in this mess, I'm sure if we went back a couple of years they would be running articles highlighting forces which are now ISIS executing Syrian soldiers. I doubt whether Jaysh Al-Islam, which calls itself the 'Army of Islam', are a group of moderates, for all we know they could be even worse.
There are alot of factions and nutjobs out there - IS is the biggest, Iran and Saudi in with alot of proxies too. The Kurds seem like a decent enough bunch, mind.
The "Arabs" are complaining that their "Western Allies" are not doing enough to fight IS but I don't see their boots on the ground doing the dirty work.
Yes, and when we do intervene, everyone is all rainbows and kittens about it. "The West" has just become a whipping boy for all the world's ills. I suppose we've moved on from "colonialism", so that's something.
All citizens in Kuwait will be legally required to give a DNA sample to the country's police force in an attempt to make it easier for security services to solve crimes in the country.
The new law, passed through by the Kuwaiti parliament, also includes expatriates living in the small Gulf State.
Anyone who refuses to give a DNA sample could face a year in prison and a hefty fine of as much as $33,000.
Any false samples could also lead to the perpetrator being sentenced for up to seven years in jail. The new law for compulsory DNA samples appears to have come after 26 people were killed in a suicide bomber attack at a Shi'a mosque in Kuwait City
Not meaning to make light of it but if it was a suicide bombing then surely they already have the DNA they need.
Though the bomber himself may be dead there's a team behind him that need apprehending. For rather obvious reasons talented bomb-makers within terrorist groups rarely act as suicide bombers themselves.
There was a case recently of the Americans capturing a bomb-maker who'd made an IED that had killed American soldiers years ago. They took the IED fragments at the time, got the DNA evidence and years later the suspect (who was linked to multiple IEDs) had his DNA taken for an unrelated matter and got flagged as a terrorist.
Speaking of flying - but tangentially > A while ago, we discussed the mortality rates of U-boat mariners - just seen a great docu on BBC4 Falling Aces about WW1 pilots - of the 14k who died, 8k did so in training. Blimey.
Mr. MJW, if you're after a northern hub airport, then Yorkshire's the only place to do it, because of its central location.
Manchester is probably the only northern airport big enough and far enough along with plans to expand comparatively quickly and cost effectively (there are already major expansion plans on the table). Sheffield lacks an airport (Robin Hood is in Donny), and Leeds/Bradford isn't comparable to Manchester - try to turn that into a major airport and it would make Heathrow look like a picnic. To quote the Leeds airport historian (yes this is a thing): "It’s a feeder airport and we have to accept it will never have big jumbo jets flying in and out every day.”
Plus, Manchester is slap bang in the middle of Liverpool, Leeds and Sheffield, the three largest cities you could connect to form your hub. The problem is at the minute, it takes almost as long to travel from Liverpool to London as it does the 70 miles to Leeds. It takes as long to travel the 75 miles to Sheffield. It's 30-35 miles from each to Manchester and it can take you from 40 minutes to over an hour to get from each to Manchester, with the hell of the M62 as your alternative - or even longer to get to the airport (over an hour from Leeds and Liverpool to the airport). If that was reduced to 20-30 minutes, with a major airport at its centre you'd have a commuter area with huge amounts of cheaper office space and over 2 million people within the commuting distance to London of Woking.
I saw a prog ages ago about something like that - they got the DNA from a phone circuit board that'd been altered - apparently it's very hard to solder/fiddle about with latex gloves on.
All citizens in Kuwait will be legally required to give a DNA sample to the country's police force in an attempt to make it easier for security services to solve crimes in the country.
The new law, passed through by the Kuwaiti parliament, also includes expatriates living in the small Gulf State.
Anyone who refuses to give a DNA sample could face a year in prison and a hefty fine of as much as $33,000.
Any false samples could also lead to the perpetrator being sentenced for up to seven years in jail. The new law for compulsory DNA samples appears to have come after 26 people were killed in a suicide bomber attack at a Shi'a mosque in Kuwait City
Not meaning to make light of it but if it was a suicide bombing then surely they already have the DNA they need.
Though the bomber himself may be dead there's a team behind him that need apprehending. For rather obvious reasons talented bomb-makers within terrorist groups rarely act as suicide bombers themselves.
There was a case recently of the Americans capturing a bomb-maker who'd made an IED that had killed American soldiers years ago. They took the IED fragments at the time, got the DNA evidence and years later the suspect (who was linked to multiple IEDs) had his DNA taken for an unrelated matter and got flagged as a terrorist.
As ever the DM are showing why we've ended up in this mess, I'm sure if we went back a couple of years they would be running articles highlighting forces which are now ISIS executing Syrian soldiers. I doubt whether Jaysh Al-Islam, which calls itself the 'Army of Islam', are a group of moderates, for all we know they could be even worse.
There are alot of factions and nutjobs out there - IS is the biggest, Iran and Saudi in with alot of proxies too. The Kurds seem like a decent enough bunch, mind.
Hmmm, how soon we forget.
A significant force in the various Peshmerga fighting forces are ex-PKK terrorists, who made the IRA look like fluffy bunnies.
I have read media comment to the effect that Labour has abandoned its commitment to restore a top rate of Income Tax of 50%. This seems based on a statement from the stand -in Shadow Chancellor that ‘that debate is over’. Such remarks surely simply reflect the immediate priority to oppose any further reduction in the rate from 45% – rather than being indicative of any policy change. Chris Leslie has no authority to change policy anyway and his misinterpreted comments are at variance with the expressed views of Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper
Labour supporting the 3rd runway: Upset voters in London - lose west London seats. Demonstrate to voters in the midlands and north that they are a London party - fail to win marginals here.
Oh, and lose another tranche of voters to the Greens.
There is going to be an interesting test tomorrow in the Hampton Wick by-election in Zac's constituency. Tania Mathias, who defeated Vince Cable, has stood down as a Tory Councillor.
This is a safe Tory seat but I suspect the LibDem will gather tactical votes from Labour and maybe Green and some protesting Tories sending a message. I don't think the LibDem will win but she may give the Tories a big scare.
Was that not on Tuesday? We had a thread about it. The tories held on with a much reduced majority IIRC.
Speaking of flying - but tangentially > A while ago, we discussed the mortality rates of U-boat mariners - just seen a great docu on BBC4 Falling Aces about WW1 pilots - of the 14k who died, 8k did so in training. Blimey.
Labour supporting the 3rd runway: Upset voters in London - lose west London seats. Demonstrate to voters in the midlands and north that they are a London party - fail to win marginals here.
Oh, and lose another tranche of voters to the Greens.
There is going to be an interesting test tomorrow in the Hampton Wick by-election in Zac's constituency. Tania Mathias, who defeated Vince Cable, has stood down as a Tory Councillor.
This is a safe Tory seat but I suspect the LibDem will gather tactical votes from Labour and maybe Green and some protesting Tories sending a message. I don't think the LibDem will win but she may give the Tories a big scare.
Was that not on Tuesday? We had a thread about it. The tories held on with a much reduced majority IIRC.
That was Cardiff, where the Tories held from a much improved Plaid.
Mr. MJW, if you're after a northern hub airport, then Yorkshire's the only place to do it, because of its central location.
Manchester is probably the only northern airport big enough and far enough along with plans to expand comparatively quickly and cost effectively (there are already major expansion plans on the table).
It makes more strategic sense to develop a major hub in the Midlands at Birmingham as it's close enough to both Manchester and London to be a viable long-haul airport for those cities (with the right rail links).
Heathrow could then become a kind of super City Airport, serving short-haul destinations as well as places like New York, Miami and the Middle East.
Mr. Rentool, given Labour's strength and Conservative weakness in London, would any seats changing hands help the Lib Dems bounce back? Could Greens realistically aspire to winning a seat or two in London?
I can only see us losing seats to the Conservatives in London as a result of being pro-Heathrow.
If Zac isn't a candidate for major, and the Conservatives put up a pro-runway candidate against a pro-runway Tessa, then the Greens could get a good vote share and gain an extra seat on the assembly.
On another point - Heathrow is only a hub for One World. There is no reason why Gatwick can't be a hub for Star Alliance and/or SkyTeam. Look at the US - each allaiance has its own set of hubs.
The report rejects that possibility in the following terms:
"For Gatwick expansion to deliver connectivity benefits closer in scale to those from Heathrow, substantial changes would need to be seen, such as an airline alliance moving to the airport, low-cost carriers making significant incursions into the long-haul sector or the structured use of low-cost networks as ‘feeder’ services for long-haul carriers. None of these is impossible, but they would be a risky basis for any long-term infrastructure decision " Page 22 of the Report.
It would be much less costly and politically divisive to use some of the money saved by expanding at Gatwick to encourage Star Alliance or SkyTeam to use Gatwick as a hub and thereby get similar long-haul benefits to Heathrow. It would dramatically change the analysis but is rejected as "a risky basis for any long-term infrastructure decision"!
This is a joke given the other risky assumptions made in the analysis.
Heathrow: the noise nuisance in the west of London can be gauged right now if you switch on the TV for Wimbledon.
p.s. in the 1960s when watching Rod Laver, John Newcombe et al, the b-w tv screen wobbled every time there was an incoming flight, I would say at around 5 - 10 minute intervals. Nowadays anyone in south west London can see an incoming plane in the sky every moment of the day. My family moved to Kent in large part because of the nuisance.
Mr. MJW, if you're after a northern hub airport, then Yorkshire's the only place to do it, because of its central location.
Manchester is probably the only northern airport big enough and far enough along with plans to expand comparatively quickly and cost effectively (there are already major expansion plans on the table). Sheffield lacks an airport (Robin Hood is in Donny), and Leeds/Bradford isn't comparable to Manchester - try to turn that into a major airport and it would make Heathrow look like a picnic. To quote the Leeds airport historian (yes this is a thing): "It’s a feeder airport and we have to accept it will never have big jumbo jets flying in and out every day.”
Plus, Manchester is slap bang in the middle of Liverpool, Leeds and Sheffield, the three largest cities you could connect to form your hub. The problem is at the minute, it takes almost as long to travel from Liverpool to London as it does the 70 miles to Leeds. It takes as long to travel the 75 miles to Sheffield. It's 30-35 miles from each to Manchester and it can take you from 40 minutes to over an hour to get from each to Manchester, with the hell of the M62 as your alternative - or even longer to get to the airport (over an hour from Leeds and Liverpool to the airport). If that was reduced to 20-30 minutes, with a major airport at its centre you'd have a commuter area with huge amounts of cheaper office space and over 2 million people within the commuting distance to London of Woking.
The problem with Manchester presently is indeed the motorway traffic is horrible sometimes. There's been a start made on that with work starting in the last few months on parts of the M60 to be converted into a "smart motorway" and plans announced yesterday to start work on converting trouble patches of the M6, M62 and M56.
This should help ease parts of the road problems. Expanding Manchester Airport just makes sense too as you said. A few years ago in order to fly to the Dominican Republic we had to fly from Manchester-Gatwick, get a taxi across London (staying in a hotel overnight as we didn't want to risk missing the connection) then on to Heathrow-Dom Rep. Now flights are direct from Manchester. That eases the traffic in both Gatwick and Heathrow and is better for those who live in the north. It just makes all round sense.
Labour supporting the 3rd runway: Upset voters in London - lose west London seats. Demonstrate to voters in the midlands and north that they are a London party - fail to win marginals here.
Oh, and lose another tranche of voters to the Greens.
There is going to be an interesting test tomorrow in the Hampton Wick by-election in Zac's constituency. Tania Mathias, who defeated Vince Cable, has stood down as a Tory Councillor.
This is a safe Tory seat but I suspect the LibDem will gather tactical votes from Labour and maybe Green and some protesting Tories sending a message. I don't think the LibDem will win but she may give the Tories a big scare.
Was that not on Tuesday? We had a thread about it. The tories held on with a much reduced majority IIRC.
No - it's tomorrow. The thread suggested that the Tories would hold on with a much reduced majority. (That was my comment).
Labour supporting the 3rd runway: Upset voters in London - lose west London seats. Demonstrate to voters in the midlands and north that they are a London party - fail to win marginals here.
Oh, and lose another tranche of voters to the Greens.
There is going to be an interesting test tomorrow in the Hampton Wick by-election in Zac's constituency. Tania Mathias, who defeated Vince Cable, has stood down as a Tory Councillor.
This is a safe Tory seat but I suspect the LibDem will gather tactical votes from Labour and maybe Green and some protesting Tories sending a message. I don't think the LibDem will win but she may give the Tories a big scare.
Was that not on Tuesday? We had a thread about it. The tories held on with a much reduced majority IIRC.
That was Cardiff, where the Tories held from a much improved Plaid.
Over in Brussels, the EC’s chief spokesman Margaritis Schinas has confirmed that talks with Athens are now on ice until Greece has voted on its future on Sunday.
Eleni Varvitsiotis @Elbarbie - No further talks till Sunday,we will take into consideration the results of #referendum #Greeks r voting for their future says @MargSchinas
Tsipras appears to be on his own now, having done his best to annoy both Lagarde and Merkel (women issues?) – Doubt we’ll hear much more from the Greek elite, apart from noise, until the Referendum result on Sunday. – Bring on the Bank queues and empty shelves.
The problem right now is that the Conservatives have even backed off from EVfEL, instead preferring Scottish votes for English laws for the second and third readings.
As ever the DM are showing why we've ended up in this mess, I'm sure if we went back a couple of years they would be running articles highlighting forces which are now ISIS executing Syrian soldiers. I doubt whether Jaysh Al-Islam, which calls itself the 'Army of Islam', are a group of moderates, for all we know they could be even worse.
There are alot of factions and nutjobs out there - IS is the biggest, Iran and Saudi in with alot of proxies too. The Kurds seem like a decent enough bunch, mind.
Hmmm, how soon we forget.
A significant force in the various Peshmerga fighting forces are ex-PKK terrorists, who made the IRA look like fluffy bunnies.
Mr. MJW, if you're after a northern hub airport, then Yorkshire's the only place to do it, because of its central location.
Manchester is probably the only northern airport big enough and far enough along with plans to expand comparatively quickly and cost effectively (there are already major expansion plans on the table).
It makes more strategic sense to develop a major hub in the Midlands at Birmingham as it's close enough to both Manchester and London to be a viable long-haul airport for those cities (with the right rail links).
Heathrow could then become a kind of super City Airport, serving short-haul destinations as well as places like New York, Miami and the Middle East.
I agree with the site, but is there room at Brum for a third runway? ISTR the second runway proposal was on the other side of the NECand M42 from the current runway.
Remember, any replacement for Heathrow as a hub would need at least three runways. Manchester is probably the only one where that is particularly doable, but Manchester might be a little too far north.
As ever the DM are showing why we've ended up in this mess, I'm sure if we went back a couple of years they would be running articles highlighting forces which are now ISIS executing Syrian soldiers. I doubt whether Jaysh Al-Islam, which calls itself the 'Army of Islam', are a group of moderates, for all we know they could be even worse.
There are alot of factions and nutjobs out there - IS is the biggest, Iran and Saudi in with alot of proxies too. The Kurds seem like a decent enough bunch, mind.
Hmmm, how soon we forget.
A significant force in the various Peshmerga fighting forces are ex-PKK terrorists, who made the IRA look like fluffy bunnies.
a propos noise nuisance and Wimbledon, why can't the tv commentators be advised to emulate Dan Maskell and only comment when they have something to say? Silence would be golden, or at most a Maskellian "oh my!". What with all this red button stuff there should be an option to choose to view without the commentary but still with the sound of the balls and spectators.
Comments
Trouble is the "free market" extremists are determined to shut that down along with the rest of the bbc rather than have an international mouthpiece for British values of fairness honesty and so on.
It is possible by the time any new runway opens electric cars will be the norm and aircraft will be quieter and more fuel efficient producing less fumes but it would be unwise to count on it, especially the latter. At the moment insufficient attention seems to have been given to the detriments.
Boris Island struck me as the visionary response to this because it effectively creates new space, albeit with knock on consequences. If we had started building it 5 years ago we could be well on the way now. Alternatively the southern conurbation needs to be expanded northwards suggesting Luton or Birmingham as possibilities.
I confess to only having read the executive summary but there is very little strategic vision in the Davies report. It is a solution that is out of date before a shovel even gets in the ground. Having waited so long for this it is difficult for the government to just ignore it and no doubt any other solution will be judicially reviewed if they do in the bizarre way that we like to tie our own hands but it is a disappointment.
Mr. Dugarbandier, as I've said a few times, the issue isn't the name, it's the BBC wanting to avoid being seen to support ISIS' opponents, which includes everyone who isn't a fundamentalist zealot.
The discount should reflect (a) the noise/disruption today plus (b) the increase in noise/disruption in the future adjusted for the probability that noise/disruption occurs
Hence, if today's noise is worth a 10% discount, and future noise is worth a 20% discount, but there is only a 50% probability of future noise occurring then the discount should be: 10% + (10% * 50%) = 15%
Of course, the market price should immediately adjust, in theory, to increase risk of disruption - so people's house values will have fallen based on the Davies report. Hence the need for a market value plus mechanism for compensation as, by the time they measure market value for compensation purposes, it will already have taken into account the increased noise
The competence of our police is under heavy fire today.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11712477/Bungling-police-failed-to-notice-gangster-John-Goldfinger-Palmer-had-been-shot.html
Police in England and Wales have been accused of failing to carry out effective investigations into allegations of child abuse and neglect.
An Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) report looked at 576 cases across eight forces and suggests there was an "inadequate" response in 220 cases.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33357089
The route out of this mess for Cameron is to ask the Commission to go away and factor in the air pollution and noise pollution costs in the numbers. When they do that, Gatwick will surely come back as superior.
But aside from the accuracy of the economic numbers, can the shape of the aviation market n 50 years time be correctly predicted? I presume there is a technological horizon of, say, 10-20 years in which there are not going to be any surprises, given the lifespan of legacy aircraft and the time it takes new designs to get through development and into production. I imagine the exact mixture of planes in the sky is harder to predict (e.g. the balance between big and medium jets) as is the closely related question of how much passenger demand is going to be for the "hub and spoke" model and how much is point-to-point.
Do we know if there will be substantial, or even radical, changes to aircraft design in, say, 50 years time? Or a complete transformation of the whole market for other reasons, e.g. new environmental restrictions?
Again I point out that Boeing are investing billions in their point to point long range Dreamliner and Airbus have a similar plane, A350. Are 'hubs' so vital?
Heathrow is in the wrong place but being realistic it already has a vast infrastructure around it. Simply extend its runway and improve its ability to operate as a hub and build up other runway capacity elsewhere, and improve the Gatwick Heathrow rail link. Offer a longer term plan for a Thames Estuary airport.
Fascinating TV fluff - Animals Unexpected on BBC2.
'No more expansion after Terminal Four. Ever' 10 years later 'Oh, we must build T5 now'
I did like the 12C fireplace with the carved knights though
Any discussion by them of this airport or that airport = nasty fossil fuels = anti-green = military-industrial complex = not really Lab's home turf = tarred with Nasty polar bear-killing Cons' brush.
Syrian rebels turn tables on ISIS fighters by releasing slick execution video of them shooting jihadis while dressed in orange jumpsuits
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3145562/Rival-Syrian-terror-group-turns-tables-ISIS-fighters-releasing-slick-execution-video-executing-jihadis-dressed-orange-jumpsuits.html#ixzz3eiteOOwW
How is it possible for the police to miss the fact that someone had been shot in the chest and instead believe they had died from natural causes? And to take six days to realise their mistake?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11712477/Bungling-police-failed-to-notice-gangster-John-Goldfinger-Palmer-had-been-shot.html
Apparently there's about 700 raccoons in Berlin alone - and it's their superior IQ [similar to some monkeys] that's allowed them to flourish in an urban setting. They know rubbish collections and time raids on bins to beat them.
EDIT Berliners apparently call them Wash Bears because they wash their food in water.
"I've just watched it and hmm 2/10."
I don't think it was meant as an historical fact-finding programme; it was more a wallow in nostalgia for the oldies. On that level, it worked.
I avoid Heathrow and never need to use it. From Manchester, the world is your oyster, and if I want to go to America, Liverpool to Dublin is my first leg.
Anything to avoid Philadelphia.
However, not making a decision is really not an option, and, given the unambiguous conclusions of the report, it's hard to see how the decision can be anything other than going for Heathrow. It is rare for a report of this kind to be so strongly in favour of one particular option.
As for Labour, the problem is that they are not united on this question either, so it's not going to be completely straightforward to make political capital from it.
My predictions, FWIW are:
- The government will accept the Heathrow recommendation.
- This will indeed provoke a major crisis for Cameron including some high-profile resignations
- Zac will of course provoke a by-election (but maybe stand again? As an independent?).
- Labour will support the government line, but with substantial disagreements of their own.
- There will of course be a humongous political, legal, direct-action and planning battle, which will take years and cause a lot of pain for the next and next-but-one PMs after Cameron.
Odds on the Heathrow runaway ever being built? Maybe Evens.
Oh, and lose another tranche of voters to the Greens.
An unexpected increase in the number of households saying they do not watch live television so do not pay for a TV licence is blamed for the downturn.
Many cuts are to come from professional and support areas, while management structures will be streamlined.
The BBC's media correspondent, David Sillito says this will save around £50m so more cuts will come.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-33363225
Personally though, what wouldn't go amiss is some real forward planning to create a northern hub airport to compete with Heathrow and so we're not here again in 30 years time. Get Manchester expanding, build (or re-build) as fast as possible rail links to Liverpool, Leeds and preferably Sheffield (although that would probably mean tunneling under the Pennines so maybe a no go) and turn it into a genuine 'Northern Powerhouse', rather than Osborne's rather Orwellian use of the term. Along with France, we're fairly rare in terms of developed and developing nations in having only one genuinely international city. You could turn Liverpool and Manchester into 'Twin-cities', and once companies realised they could operate just as well internationally out of there for half the office costs, it would spark huge development and hopefully take some of the strain off the South-East.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-33363938
When my elder son cried through most of his first year, only Val D on TV would soothe him.
It's got momentum. And an unsympathetic HMG. IMO - it's been asking for it for 20yrs and the dam is breaking.
Page 16 table 3.1 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/439169/economy-updated-transport-economic-efficiency-impacts.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UebJ4IWXT84
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lzS8yW8INA
But how can you tell - my colleagues book typically an economy seat, you'd struggle to tell by any sort of statistic that they were business travellers and not tourists. Please don't tell me the metric is being judged by who flies "business" and who flies economy...
Edit:
On ferries it has to be declared, if you're there with a van and some tools you'll get charged twice as much as a tourist and be given the shitty internal cabins !
http://youtu.be/CY_BgnZdwko
If Zac isn't a candidate for major, and the Conservatives put up a pro-runway candidate against a pro-runway Tessa, then the Greens could get a good vote share and gain an extra seat on the assembly.
On another point - Heathrow is only a hub for One World. There is no reason why Gatwick can't be a hub for Star Alliance and/or SkyTeam. Look at the US - each allaiance has its own set of hubs.
Ⓑig Ⓑloody Ⓒheek @BBCPropaganda
Jeremy Corbyn wants to ban employers making people work in warm places. So that would be an end to coal mining, then. #BBCDP
Oh, not so innocent then...
Agreed. I do Bristol to Schipol.
I avoid "the hamster cage" though like the plague ( Charles de Gaulle in case anyone was wondering?)
When in government the Lib Dems were against a third runway at Heathrow and continue to be so. They have a stronger case to win back Labour voters than the Greens.
Rare, but I did about it at university, and later solved a House mystery before he did, a feat which impressed myself so much I'm repeating it now.
"Entertainment Live: Val Doonican dies; BBC cuts 1,000 jobs"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/entertainment-arts-33216605
This is a safe Tory seat but I suspect the LibDem will gather tactical votes from Labour and maybe Green and some protesting Tories sending a message. I don't think the LibDem will win but she may give the Tories a big scare.
Fascinating to read the London Evening Standard on this last night as it wobbled around. The paper is pro-Conservative and usually pro-Boris but the editorial backed Osborne and the Davies report as did the City Editor's piece which reported the desire in the business world for there to be "diggers on the ground by 2020".
Nonetheless, Boris got his retaliation in as did Zac Goldsmith who the paper unequivocally and enthusiastically supports to be the next Mayor. I wonder if any of the Conservative London Mayoral candidates will back Heathrow expansion against Goldsmith. It's a fault line that's been as long in the making as the Greek default and the can has been kicked as often down the road.
It will be a test of Cameron's leadership as there is a clear split within the Party and, to be fair, the issue is much more than where to put a runway - managing future transport capacity of all kinds (road and rail as well) for a growing population is as much an issue as managing health care, housing provision, schooling and a whole range of other things.
It's all very well bleating on about building new houses but without recognising and managing the impact on transport and all the other infrastructural aspects, it's a waste of time and effort.
As a complete aside and not working today, I turned for my daily dose of humour to Fox News to see Sean Hannity who has turned in to America's Nigel Farage and is now backing Donald Trump of all people on his anti-immigration message. He was having a huge row with Juan Williams, a sensible american conservative commentator - it's clear the GOP nomination is an overcrowded race revealing significant splits and divisions within the American conservative camp. I wonder if there will be a significant third party runner next year - someone like Trump has the money, like Perot, to run a national campaign if he chose against the Republican nominee and Hillary Clinton.
Though the bomber himself may be dead there's a team behind him that need apprehending. For rather obvious reasons talented bomb-makers within terrorist groups rarely act as suicide bombers themselves.
There was a case recently of the Americans capturing a bomb-maker who'd made an IED that had killed American soldiers years ago. They took the IED fragments at the time, got the DNA evidence and years later the suspect (who was linked to multiple IEDs) had his DNA taken for an unrelated matter and got flagged as a terrorist.
Plus, Manchester is slap bang in the middle of Liverpool, Leeds and Sheffield, the three largest cities you could connect to form your hub. The problem is at the minute, it takes almost as long to travel from Liverpool to London as it does the 70 miles to Leeds. It takes as long to travel the 75 miles to Sheffield. It's 30-35 miles from each to Manchester and it can take you from 40 minutes to over an hour to get from each to Manchester, with the hell of the M62 as your alternative - or even longer to get to the airport (over an hour from Leeds and Liverpool to the airport). If that was reduced to 20-30 minutes, with a major airport at its centre you'd have a commuter area with huge amounts of cheaper office space and over 2 million people within the commuting distance to London of Woking.
There was a case recently of the Americans capturing a bomb-maker who'd made an IED that had killed American soldiers years ago. They took the IED fragments at the time, got the DNA evidence and years later the suspect (who was linked to multiple IEDs) had his DNA taken for an unrelated matter and got flagged as a terrorist.
A significant force in the various Peshmerga fighting forces are ex-PKK terrorists, who made the IRA look like fluffy bunnies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey–PKK_conflict
It's a real mess over there. It's a shame we didn't act when we could.
Heathrow could then become a kind of super City Airport, serving short-haul destinations as well as places like New York, Miami and the Middle East.
"For Gatwick expansion to deliver connectivity benefits closer in scale to those from
Heathrow, substantial changes would need to be seen, such as an airline alliance moving
to the airport, low-cost carriers making significant incursions into the long-haul sector or
the structured use of low-cost networks as ‘feeder’ services for long-haul carriers. None of
these is impossible, but they would be a risky basis for any long-term infrastructure
decision " Page 22 of the Report.
It would be much less costly and politically divisive to use some of the money saved by expanding at Gatwick to encourage Star Alliance or SkyTeam to use Gatwick as a hub and thereby get similar long-haul benefits to Heathrow. It would dramatically change the analysis but is rejected as "a risky basis for any long-term infrastructure decision"!
This is a joke given the other risky assumptions made in the analysis.
This should help ease parts of the road problems. Expanding Manchester Airport just makes sense too as you said. A few years ago in order to fly to the Dominican Republic we had to fly from Manchester-Gatwick, get a taxi across London (staying in a hotel overnight as we didn't want to risk missing the connection) then on to Heathrow-Dom Rep. Now flights are direct from Manchester. That eases the traffic in both Gatwick and Heathrow and is better for those who live in the north. It just makes all round sense.
Eleni Varvitsiotis @Elbarbie - No further talks till Sunday,we will take into consideration the results of #referendum #Greeks r voting for their future says @MargSchinas
Tsipras appears to be on his own now, having done his best to annoy both Lagarde and Merkel (women issues?) – Doubt we’ll hear much more from the Greek elite, apart from noise, until the Referendum result on Sunday. – Bring on the Bank queues and empty shelves.
The problem right now is that the Conservatives have even backed off from EVfEL, instead preferring Scottish votes for English laws for the second and third readings.
Remember, any replacement for Heathrow as a hub would need at least three runways. Manchester is probably the only one where that is particularly doable, but Manchester might be a little too far north.
Birmingham needs a little more love
What with all this red button stuff there should be an option to choose to view without the commentary but still with the sound of the balls and spectators.