politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Mayoral elections are so much more about the popularity of

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Mayoral elections are so much more about the popularity of individual candidates than their parties

This was a postal ballot of members of the Conservative Party in London plus others who had been prepared to stump up £1 for a vote. The turnout of 9.277 was a disappointment and compares unfavourably with the votes that Sadiq Khan chalked up in the LAB selection three weeks ago.

Read the full story here

Moses_

First on the button unlike Corby

Speedy

I think the demographics favour Khan, unless Goldsmith gets to ride a wave of anti-Heathrow sentiment.

kle4

Both seen disappointingly normal compared to Ken and Boris. Not that they are normal, of course, but they seem pretty normal on the face of it. Zac doesn't seem easy to paint as a typical evil Tory though, but on the other hand as long as Khan doesn't put off too many fired up Labour voters I'd have thought he should win, so Zac perhaps appealing more than a typical Tory might not be enough.

rcs1000

Curse of the new thread:

JEO said:

The problem with Heathrow is that hundreds of thousands of people are affected by noise pollution. Once you assign a price to that in terms of lost welfare, the economics of expansion don't work.

If we built a new airport somewhere else, we would also free up a lot of land to solve London's housing crisis.

Yes, I agree with that.

The problem is that building a new airport somewhere else involves one of three painful choices:

(1) Building it away from population centres to minimise disruption and noise pollution - while unfortunately also making it a long way away from the people who want to use it, and needing to build lots of new infrastructure (roads, railways, freight forwarding centres, maintenance facilities, hotels.) Oh yes, and if it's a long way from people, then it'll be difficult to get the 10s of thousands of people who need to work there and in the necessary support businesses.

(2) Building it somewhere more convenient, but paying to move affected people which given Heathrow is already roughly the size of London inside the Circle Line, is going to be ruiniously expensive, unless you build it in the Thames Estuary (which would be my first choice.)

(3) Screwing over people who bought houses where there was no existing airport and now have to deal with the noise from an airport even larger than Heathrow (as well as associated disruption associated with all the activity that surrounds an airport). (And if there aren't many of these people it's because of (1), and if there are, then it's (2) all over again.)

This is a classic example of something where this no perfect option. All the alternatives have costs. I think "Boris Island" is the best idea; it will bring economic renewal to somewhere that needs it, the land would be cheap, and it would be convenient for business in London. But if that isn't going to fly (sorry), then Heathrow expansion is probably the best option. Not least because most people who bought property there did so in full knowledge that there was an airport there, and there is excellent transport (Heathrow Express, Tube, M25, M4, Crossrail).

kle4

FPT

Roger said:

A London bus driver's son V Anglo-French billionaires son

Round 1 to bus driver's son.

It is on the face of it more appealing a narrative, certainly, though I think Khan needs to be careful pushing it too hard, as Zac doesn't seem a terrible sort, and it could come across as unnecessary character attacks if he focused on it.

But Zac surely needs something pretty big to swing it for him - as the thread points out, party labels are less relevant in these contests, as history has shown, but they are not irrelevant either, should a candidate be lacking, and so the Labour advantage in the capital, all else being equal, would see Khan win.

MTimT

rcs1000 said:

Curse of the new thread:

JEO said:

The problem with Heathrow is that hundreds of thousands of people are affected by noise pollution. Once you assign a price to that in terms of lost welfare, the economics of expansion don't work.

If we built a new airport somewhere else, we would also free up a lot of land to solve London's housing crisis.

Yes, I agree with that.

The problem is that building a new airport somewhere else involves one of three painful choices:

(1) Building it away from population centres to minimise disruption and noise pollution - while unfortunately also making it a long way away from the people who want to use it, and needing to build lots of new infrastructure (roads, railways, freight forwarding centres, maintenance facilities, hotels.) Oh yes, and if it's a long way from people, then it'll be difficult to get the 10s of thousands of people who need to work there and in the necessary support businesses.

(2) Building it somewhere more convenient, but paying to move affected people which given Heathrow is already roughly the size of London inside the Circle Line, is going to be ruiniously expensive, unless you build it in the Thames Estuary (which would be my first choice.)

(3) Screwing over people who bought houses where there was no existing airport and now have to deal with the noise from an airport even larger than Heathrow (as well as associated disruption associated with all the activity that surrounds an airport). (And if there aren't many of these people it's because of (1), and if there are, then it's (2) all over again.)

This is a classic example of something where this no perfect option. All the alternatives have costs. I think "Boris Island" is the best idea; it will bring economic renewal to somewhere that needs it, the land would be cheap, and it would be convenient for business in London. But if that isn't going to fly (sorry), then Heathrow expansion is probably the best option. Not least because most people who bought property there did so in full knowledge that there was an airport there, and there is excellent transport (Heathrow Express, Tube, M25, M4, Crossrail).

Presumably also a large portion of the housing stock around Heathrow was built after the airport was operational (even if on a smaller scale than now), and some of it was built precisely because it is close to Heathrow. Why should people who built or bought knowing about the noise pollution factor so much into the equation particularly as it is not an option to get rid of the noise pollution, just to impose it on some other people?

JosiasJessop

rcs1000 said:

Curse of the new thread:
Yes, I agree with that.

The problem is that building a new airport somewhere else involves one of three painful choices:

(1) Building it away from population centres to minimise disruption and noise pollution - while unfortunately also making it a long way away from the people who want to use it, and needing to build lots of new infrastructure (roads, railways, freight forwarding centres, maintenance facilities, hotels.) Oh yes, and if it's a long way from people, then it'll be difficult to get the 10s of thousands of people who need to work there and in the necessary support businesses.

(2) Building it somewhere more convenient, but paying to move affected people which given Heathrow is already roughly the size of London inside the Circle Line, is going to be ruiniously expensive, unless you build it in the Thames Estuary (which would be my first choice.)

(3) Screwing over people who bought houses where there was no existing airport and now have to deal with the noise from an airport even larger than Heathrow (as well as associated disruption associated with all the activity that surrounds an airport). (And if there aren't many of these people it's because of (1), and if there are, then it's (2) all over again.)

This is a classic example of something where this no perfect option. All the alternatives have costs. I think "Boris Island" is the best idea; it will bring economic renewal to somewhere that needs it, the land would be cheap, and it would be convenient for business in London. But if that isn't going to fly (sorry), then Heathrow expansion is probably the best option. Not least because most people who bought property there did so in full knowledge that there was an airport there, and there is excellent transport (Heathrow Express, Tube, M25, M4, Crossrail).

Good post.

As people may just have noticed I'm in favour of BI, but went with the Davies Report because an imperfect solution (Heathrow) is better than yet more delays. Yet it looks as though we're going to get further delays anyway if Zac sticks his oar in.

There are precedents for BI, most notably Hong Kong's Chek Lap Kok Airport, which was built on an artificial island in under ten years, including massive support infrastructure including a railway line and road that required a magnificent double-decked suspension bridge.

We (and it was mainly the UK) did it under twenty years ago at a cost of around $20 billion. We can do it again if only we were forward-looking and ambitious, rather than backward-looking and penny-pinching.

We can do it. We should do it. Particularly if it is part of a national infrastructure plan that tries to meet the country's needs for the next fifty years, as far as they can be foretold.

Barnesian

MTimT said:

rcs1000 said:

Curse of the new thread:

JEO said:

The problem with Heathrow is that hundreds of thousands of people are affected by noise pollution. Once you assign a price to that in terms of lost welfare, the economics of expansion don't work.

If we built a new airport somewhere else, we would also free up a lot of land to solve London's housing crisis.

Yes, I agree with that.

The problem is that building a new airport somewhere else involves one of three painful choices:

This is a classic example of something where this no perfect option. All the alternatives have costs. I think "Boris Island" is the best idea; it will bring economic renewal to somewhere that needs it, the land would be cheap, and it would be convenient for business in London. But if that isn't going to fly (sorry), then Heathrow expansion is probably the best option. Not least because most people who bought property there did so in full knowledge that there was an airport there, and there is excellent transport (Heathrow Express, Tube, M25, M4, Crossrail).

Presumably also a large portion of the housing stock around Heathrow was built after the airport was operational (even if on a smaller scale than now), and some of it was built precisely because it is close to Heathrow. Why should people who built or bought knowing about the noise pollution factor so much into the equation particularly as it is not an option to get rid of the noise pollution, just to impose it on some other people?

It's not a small area around Heathrow. It's the whole of west London. The expansion will significantly worsen the noise and pollution. Gatwick affects far fewer people.

In any case I suspect that the Heathrow authorities will be unwilling or unable to meet the conditions laid down in the Davies Commission's report. It will be Gatwick.

Malmesbury

kle4 said:

FPT

Roger said:

A London bus driver's son V Anglo-French billionaires son

Round 1 to bus driver's son.

It is on the face of it more appealing a narrative, certainly, though I think Khan needs to be careful pushing it too hard, as Zac doesn't seem a terrible sort, and it could come across as unnecessary character attacks if he focused on it.

But Zac surely needs something pretty big to swing it for him - as the thread points out, party labels are less relevant in these contests, as history has shown, but they are not irrelevant either, should a candidate be lacking, and so the Labour advantage in the capital, all else being equal, would see Khan win.

Labour loves the "posh" attack. Even though it doesn't ever seem to have actually worked.

Zac has some interesting background - he may well be endorsed by some leading Greens... if not an outright endorsement by them for second preference votes. It's my understanding that some furious talking is going on behind the scenes by Labour/various lefties to try and stop anything official being said.

JosiasJessop

MTimT said:

Presumably also a large portion of the housing stock around Heathrow was built after the airport was operational (even if on a smaller scale than now), and some of it was built precisely because it is close to Heathrow. Why should people who built or bought knowing about the noise pollution factor so much into the equation particularly as it is not an option to get rid of the noise pollution, just to impose it on some other people?

It's not just regular users of Heathrow, but also workers at Heathrow. Certainly an ex of mine bought her house six miles away because it was convenient for her workplace at the airport.

But a redeveloped Heathrow (along with the redevelopment of Old Oak Common) should make for plenty of employment opportunities.

rcs1000

I have a radical idea WRT Heathrow.

The reason noise pollution is such a big problem at Heathrow is because it is to the West of London, and the runways run East-West. Therefore, aircraft either take-off over densely populated areas, or have their landing approach over them.

Why not reorient the runways so they go North-South? We'd get to re-use all the (incredibly expensive) infrastructure that's already in place. But we'd have flight going over the M25 and the lakes and not over Barnes.

Sure, it would be expensive and difficult, and we'd need to build two runways to the West of the M25 before we did anything else. But it seems it would be a better option than almost anything else suggested.

TOPPING

Malmesbury said:

kle4 said:

FPT

Roger said:

A London bus driver's son V Anglo-French billionaires son

Round 1 to bus driver's son.

It is on the face of it more appealing a narrative, certainly, though I think Khan needs to be careful pushing it too hard, as Zac doesn't seem a terrible sort, and it could come across as unnecessary character attacks if he focused on it.

But Zac surely needs something pretty big to swing it for him - as the thread points out, party labels are less relevant in these contests, as history has shown, but they are not irrelevant either, should a candidate be lacking, and so the Labour advantage in the capital, all else being equal, would see Khan win.

Labour loves the "posh" attack. Even though it doesn't ever seem to have actually worked.

Zac has some interesting background - he may well be endorsed by some leading Greens... if not an outright endorsement by them for second preference votes. It's my understanding that some furious talking is going on behind the scenes by Labour/various lefties to try and stop anything official being said.

I don't want Zac. I wanted Shaun Bailey, ideally. Most irritatingly he didn't run. I continue to think he will achieve great things.

As has been pointed out, London is purposefully obtuse, not to say downright awkward, when it comes to the mayor as whatever his political stripe he comes quickly to be seen as "a Londoner". And a totemic Londoner at that.

A priveleged, OE with oodles of cash jumping on various green bandwagons is, IMO, not the person to manage hard-nosed London or look out for it. It might have to be Sadiq for me. Unassumingly, I imagine I am not the only Tory with a vote who thinks thusly.

Zac would do much better and fit in more comfortably as, say, editor of The Guardian.

rcs1000

rcs1000 said:

I have a radical idea WRT Heathrow.

The reason noise pollution is such a big problem at Heathrow is because it is to the West of London, and the runways run East-West. Therefore, aircraft either take-off over densely populated areas, or have their landing approach over them.

Why not reorient the runways so they go North-South? We'd get to re-use all the (incredibly expensive) infrastructure that's already in place. But we'd have flight going over the M25 and the lakes and not over Barnes.

Sure, it would be expensive and difficult, and we'd need to build two runways to the West of the M25 before we did anything else. But it seems it would be a better option than almost anything else suggested.

Looking at the map, the only person who would *really* hate this plan would be my friend, the MP for Spelthorne.

Barnesian

Malmesbury said:

kle4 said:

FPT

Roger said:

A London bus driver's son V Anglo-French billionaires son

Round 1 to bus driver's son.

It is on the face of it more appealing a narrative, certainly, though I think Khan needs to be careful pushing it too hard, as Zac doesn't seem a terrible sort, and it could come across as unnecessary character attacks if he focused on it.

But Zac surely needs something pretty big to swing it for him - as the thread points out, party labels are less relevant in these contests, as history has shown, but they are not irrelevant either, should a candidate be lacking, and so the Labour advantage in the capital, all else being equal, would see Khan win.

Labour loves the "posh" attack. Even though it doesn't ever seem to have actually worked.

Zac has some interesting background - he may well be endorsed by some leading Greens... if not an outright endorsement by them for second preference votes. It's my understanding that some furious talking is going on behind the scenes by Labour/various lefties to try and stop anything official being said.

The London result at the General Election was Lab 43.7%, Con 34.9%, LD 7.7%, UKIP 8.1% Green 4.9%.

Clearly Khan will win on first preferences but nowhere near 50%. Zac is a green Eurosceptic. I think most of the 2nd preferences of Green, UKIP and LD (including mine) will go to Zac. Do the maths. Khan also has a big problem with how to handle the issue of whether he supports Corbyn or not. He'll upset some potential Labour supporters whichever way he handles it.

JosiasJessop

rcs1000 said:

I have a radical idea WRT Heathrow.

The reason noise pollution is such a big problem at Heathrow is because it is to the West of London, and the runways run East-West. Therefore, aircraft either take-off over densely populated areas, or have their landing approach over them.

Why not reorient the runways so they go North-South? We'd get to re-use all the (incredibly expensive) infrastructure that's already in place. But we'd have flight going over the M25 and the lakes and not over Barnes.

Sure, it would be expensive and difficult, and we'd need to build two runways to the West of the M25 before we did anything else. But it seems it would be a better option than almost anything else suggested.

AIUI wind is the problem there. Our prevailing wind are from the SW, and less often from the south. Planes prefer to land or take-off into or away from the wind, and they hate crosswinds. Gatwick also has W-E runways, and I think Luton does as well. Stansted is SW-NE.

(as an aside, military airfields in WW2 often got around this problem by having runways in a triangle, meaning planes could land on whichever one the winds favoured).

rcs1000

JosiasJessop said:

rcs1000 said:

I have a radical idea WRT Heathrow.

The reason noise pollution is such a big problem at Heathrow is because it is to the West of London, and the runways run East-West. Therefore, aircraft either take-off over densely populated areas, or have their landing approach over them.

Why not reorient the runways so they go North-South? We'd get to re-use all the (incredibly expensive) infrastructure that's already in place. But we'd have flight going over the M25 and the lakes and not over Barnes.

Sure, it would be expensive and difficult, and we'd need to build two runways to the West of the M25 before we did anything else. But it seems it would be a better option than almost anything else suggested.

AIUI wind is the problem there. Our prevailing wind are from the SW, and less often from the south. Planes prefer to land or take-off into or away from the wind, and they hate crosswinds. Gatwick also has W-E runways, and I think Luton does as well. Stansted is SW-NE.

(as an aside, military airfields in WW2 often got around this problem by having runways in a triangle, meaning planes could land on whichever one the winds favoured).

Because of the rotation of the earth (I assume), prevailing winds are almost always East-West, and as a man with 20 odd hours of flying time, I am aware of the advantages of taking off and landing into the wind.

Nevertheless, there are quite a lot of major airports with North-South Runways. Syndey, IIRC, is North-South.

JEO

TOPPING said:

Malmesbury said:

kle4 said:

FPT

Roger said:

A London bus driver's son V Anglo-French billionaires son

Round 1 to bus driver's son.

It is on the face of it more appealing a narrative, certainly, though I think Khan needs to be careful pushing it too hard, as Zac doesn't seem a terrible sort, and it could come across as unnecessary character attacks if he focused on it.

But Zac surely needs something pretty big to swing it for him - as the thread points out, party labels are less relevant in these contests, as history has shown, but they are not irrelevant either, should a candidate be lacking, and so the Labour advantage in the capital, all else being equal, would see Khan win.

Labour loves the "posh" attack. Even though it doesn't ever seem to have actually worked.

Zac has some interesting background - he may well be endorsed by some leading Greens... if not an outright endorsement by them for second preference votes. It's my understanding that some furious talking is going on behind the scenes by Labour/various lefties to try and stop anything official being said.

I don't want Zac. I wanted Shaun Bailey, ideally. Most irritatingly he didn't run. I continue to think he will achieve great things.

As has been pointed out, London is purposefully obtuse, not to say downright awkward, when it comes to the mayor as whatever his political stripe he comes quickly to be seen as "a Londoner". And a totemic Londoner at that.

A priveleged, OE with oodles of cash jumping on various green bandwagons is, IMO, not the person to manage hard-nosed London or look out for it. It might have to be Sadiq for me. Unassumingly, I imagine I am not the only Tory with a vote who thinks thusly.

Zac would do much better and fit in more comfortably as, say, editor of The Guardian.

I think you're judging him based on his family background rather than his actual record here. Goldsmith has been very willing to stand-up to his party, including directly challenging the Prime Minister, on plenty of occasions. Khan on the other hand, has always followed the party line as a career politician. Goldsmith is a polite and decent man, but underneath he is a tough independent politician and thinker. That's a winning combination in my book.

rcs1000

rcs1000 said:

JosiasJessop said:

rcs1000 said:

I have a radical idea WRT Heathrow.

The reason noise pollution is such a big problem at Heathrow is because it is to the West of London, and the runways run East-West. Therefore, aircraft either take-off over densely populated areas, or have their landing approach over them.

Why not reorient the runways so they go North-South? We'd get to re-use all the (incredibly expensive) infrastructure that's already in place. But we'd have flight going over the M25 and the lakes and not over Barnes.

Sure, it would be expensive and difficult, and we'd need to build two runways to the West of the M25 before we did anything else. But it seems it would be a better option than almost anything else suggested.

AIUI wind is the problem there. Our prevailing wind are from the SW, and less often from the south. Planes prefer to land or take-off into or away from the wind, and they hate crosswinds. Gatwick also has W-E runways, and I think Luton does as well. Stansted is SW-NE.

(as an aside, military airfields in WW2 often got around this problem by having runways in a triangle, meaning planes could land on whichever one the winds favoured).

Because of the rotation of the earth (I assume), prevailing winds are almost always East-West, and as a man with 20 odd hours of flying time, I am aware of the advantages of taking off and landing into the wind.

Nevertheless, there are quite a lot of major airports with North-South Runways. Syndey, IIRC, is North-South.

Newark, one of the busiest airports in the US, is North-South too.

Beverley_C

FPT:

BigRich said:

Beverley_C said:

MaxPB said:

How's this for hypocrisy. My girlfriend has been applying for internships at think tanks and whatnot over the last few months. Unbelievably none on the left offer pay beyond expenses, those on the right offer either the national minimum wage or even the London living wage. There are some exceptions of course but that is the current pattern.

Not politics but... my daughter was looking at doing a year out in a science based industry and was told that places were available but she had to fund her own costs - there would be no wages or allowances. I told her to skip it and go straight to her final year as only a fool works for nothing.

When I was a student the year out wages were enough to cover rent, food and bus fares. We lived three or four to a flat and survived on low cost shopping but it made the year doable.

The problems with the minimum wage law!!! If you are doing something largely for your own training/experience, then you will likely be only be contributing marginally to the organisation, therefor likely to only be paid very little, when you make paying very little illegal, you are left with nothing, i.e. unpaid internships.

You can not gait paid more than the value you create (at least not in the long run)

But government can stop you getting paid at all!! (by stopping you create value)

I have to disagree. When I did a year out I was a productive team member, in fact I was better than some of the paid staff and often sorted out the problems that they made.

Year out students can be given work that is productive. When I was a line manager I often had students under my wing and by the end of their time with us they were fully productive team members. It is an organisational attitude.

Treating people like slaves is not the way to go

Charles

rcs1000 said:

I have a radical idea WRT Heathrow.

The reason noise pollution is such a big problem at Heathrow is because it is to the West of London, and the runways run East-West. Therefore, aircraft either take-off over densely populated areas, or have their landing approach over them.

Why not reorient the runways so they go North-South? We'd get to re-use all the (incredibly expensive) infrastructure that's already in place. But we'd have flight going over the M25 and the lakes and not over Barnes.

Sure, it would be expensive and difficult, and we'd need to build two runways to the West of the M25 before we did anything else. But it seems it would be a better option than almost anything else suggested.

Wind.

(And that's a reference to the prevailing weather patterns rather than a comment on the quality of your post )

JEO

MTimT said:

rcs1000 said:

Curse of the new thread:

JEO said:

The problem with Heathrow is that hundreds of thousands of people are affected by noise pollution. Once you assign a price to that in terms of lost welfare, the economics of expansion don't work.

If we built a new airport somewhere else, we would also free up a lot of land to solve London's housing crisis.

Yes, I agree with that.

The problem is that building a new airport somewhere else involves one of three painful choices:

(1) Building it away from population centres to minimise disruption and noise pollution - while unfortunately also making it a long way away from the people who want to use it, and needing to build lots of new infrastructure (roads, railways, freight forwarding centres, maintenance facilities, hotels.) Oh yes, and if it's a long way from people, then it'll be difficult to get the 10s of thousands of people who need to work there and in the necessary support businesses.

(2) Building it somewhere more convenient, but paying to move affected people which given Heathrow is already roughly the size of London inside the Circle Line, is going to be ruiniously expensive, unless you build it in the Thames Estuary (which would be my first choice.)

(3) Screwing over people who bought houses where there was no existing airport and now have to deal with the noise from an airport even larger than Heathrow (as well as associated disruption associated with all the activity that surrounds an airport). (And if there aren't many of these people it's because of (1), and if there are, then it's (2) all over again.)

This is a classic example of something where this no perfect option. All the alternatives have costs. I think "Boris Island" is the best idea; it will bring economic renewal to somewhere that needs it, the land would be cheap, and it would be convenient for business in London. But if that isn't going to fly (sorry), then Heathrow expansion is probably the best option. Not least because most people who bought property there did so in full knowledge that there was an airport there, and there is excellent transport (Heathrow Express, Tube, M25, M4, Crossrail).

Presumably also a large portion of the housing stock around Heathrow was built after the airport was operational (even if on a smaller scale than now), and some of it was built precisely because it is close to Heathrow. Why should people who built or bought knowing about the noise pollution factor so much into the equation particularly as it is not an option to get rid of the noise pollution, just to impose it on some other people?

Because Heathrow repeatedly promised over a number of years that there would be no third runway.

TOPPING

JEO said:

TOPPING said:

Malmesbury said:

kle4 said:

FPT

Roger said:

A London bus driver's son V Anglo-French billionaires son

Round 1 to bus driver's son.

It is on the face of it more appealing a narrative, certainly, though I think Khan needs to be careful pushing it too hard, as Zac doesn't seem a terrible sort, and it could come across as unnecessary character attacks if he focused on it.

But Zac surely needs something pretty big to swing it for him - as the thread points out, party labels are less relevant in these contests, as history has shown, but they are not irrelevant either, should a candidate be lacking, and so the Labour advantage in the capital, all else being equal, would see Khan win.

Labour loves the "posh" attack. Even though it doesn't ever seem to have actually worked.

Zac has some interesting background - he may well be endorsed by some leading Greens... if not an outright endorsement by them for second preference votes. It's my understanding that some furious talking is going on behind the scenes by Labour/various lefties to try and stop anything official being said.

I don't want Zac. I wanted Shaun Bailey, ideally. Most irritatingly he didn't run. I continue to think he will achieve great things.

As has been pointed out, London is purposefully obtuse, not to say downright awkward, when it comes to the mayor as whatever his political stripe he comes quickly to be seen as "a Londoner". And a totemic Londoner at that.

A priveleged, OE with oodles of cash jumping on various green bandwagons is, IMO, not the person to manage hard-nosed London or look out for it. It might have to be Sadiq for me. Unassumingly, I imagine I am not the only Tory with a vote who thinks thusly.

Zac would do much better and fit in more comfortably as, say, editor of The Guardian.

I think you're judging him based on his family background rather than his actual record here. Goldsmith has been very willing to stand-up to his party, including directly challenging the Prime Minister, on plenty of occasions. Khan on the other hand, has always followed the party line as a career politician. Goldsmith is a polite and decent man, but underneath he is a tough independent politician and thinker. That's a winning combination in my book.

Yes I'm sure but it's his priveleged position to be able to do all that instead of work hard, grind out a career, fight for what he believes in when the stakes are not academic but real.

That's what he's never done, despite his supposed rebelliousness.

JosiasJessop

rcs1000 said:

JosiasJessop said:

rcs1000 said:

I have a radical idea WRT Heathrow.

The reason noise pollution is such a big problem at Heathrow is because it is to the West of London, and the runways run East-West. Therefore, aircraft either take-off over densely populated areas, or have their landing approach over them.

Why not reorient the runways so they go North-South? We'd get to re-use all the (incredibly expensive) infrastructure that's already in place. But we'd have flight going over the M25 and the lakes and not over Barnes.

Sure, it would be expensive and difficult, and we'd need to build two runways to the West of the M25 before we did anything else. But it seems it would be a better option than almost anything else suggested.

AIUI wind is the problem there. Our prevailing wind are from the SW, and less often from the south. Planes prefer to land or take-off into or away from the wind, and they hate crosswinds. Gatwick also has W-E runways, and I think Luton does as well. Stansted is SW-NE.

(as an aside, military airfields in WW2 often got around this problem by having runways in a triangle, meaning planes could land on whichever one the winds favoured).

Because of the rotation of the earth (I assume), prevailing winds are almost always East-West, and as a man with 20 odd hours of flying time, I am aware of the advantages of taking off and landing into the wind.

Nevertheless, there are quite a lot of major airports with North-South Runways. Syndey, IIRC, is North-South.

I'm not sure you can assume Sydney's prevailing winds are from the west. From vague memory of school, prevailing winds are much more complex than that.

Edit: it appears southerly winds are predominant at Sydney airport:
http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/144089/130620_CSPC_ITEM04_ATTACHMENTA17.PDF
http://www.windfinder.com/windstatistics/botany_bay_sydney

Jonathan

The scale of Labours membership is quite impressive. Not only did Lammy beat Zac.

Note also that Khan got twice the vote of Farron nationally.

rcs1000

JosiasJessop said:

rcs1000 said:

JosiasJessop said:

rcs1000 said:

I have a radical idea WRT Heathrow.

The reason noise pollution is such a big problem at Heathrow is because it is to the West of London, and the runways run East-West. Therefore, aircraft either take-off over densely populated areas, or have their landing approach over them.

Why not reorient the runways so they go North-South? We'd get to re-use all the (incredibly expensive) infrastructure that's already in place. But we'd have flight going over the M25 and the lakes and not over Barnes.

Sure, it would be expensive and difficult, and we'd need to build two runways to the West of the M25 before we did anything else. But it seems it would be a better option than almost anything else suggested.

AIUI wind is the problem there. Our prevailing wind are from the SW, and less often from the south. Planes prefer to land or take-off into or away from the wind, and they hate crosswinds. Gatwick also has W-E runways, and I think Luton does as well. Stansted is SW-NE.

(as an aside, military airfields in WW2 often got around this problem by having runways in a triangle, meaning planes could land on whichever one the winds favoured).

Because of the rotation of the earth (I assume), prevailing winds are almost always East-West, and as a man with 20 odd hours of flying time, I am aware of the advantages of taking off and landing into the wind.

Nevertheless, there are quite a lot of major airports with North-South Runways. Syndey, IIRC, is North-South.

I'm not sure you can assume Sydney's prevailing winds are from the west. From vague memory of school, prevailing winds are much more complex than that.

Nevertheless, in the New York area, JFK is East-West, and Newark is North-South. Although that may be a consequence of no meaningful prevailing winds.

Jonathan

Wondering who Cameron wants to win.

JEO

TOPPING said:

Yes I'm sure but it's his priveleged position to be able to do all that instead of work hard, grind out a career, fight for what he believes in when the stakes are not academic but real.

That's what he's never done, despite his supposed rebelliousness.

Since when did people from privileged backgrounds not work hard and grind out careers? Lawyers, management consultants, investment bankers and CEOs are dominated by the upper class but are some of the hardest working people out there. By all accounts he is a hard working constituency MP and canvasser, in addition to being the deputy chairman of a policy group and campaigning on London-wide issues. And given by how quickly he has put together a very quality website, it looks like he has been putting in the time on his mayoral campaign too. You don't do all that through coasting on your money and name.

rcs1000

OK. I've solved the problem of Heathrow and I dare anyone to find any problems with my solution.

Beverley_C

JosiasJessop said:

rcs1000 said:

I have a radical idea WRT Heathrow.

The reason noise pollution is such a big problem at Heathrow is because it is to the West of London, and the runways run East-West. Therefore, aircraft either take-off over densely populated areas, or have their landing approach over them.

Why not reorient the runways so they go North-South? We'd get to re-use all the (incredibly expensive) infrastructure that's already in place. But we'd have flight going over the M25 and the lakes and not over Barnes.

Sure, it would be expensive and difficult, and we'd need to build two runways to the West of the M25 before we did anything else. But it seems it would be a better option than almost anything else suggested.

AIUI wind is the problem there. Our prevailing wind are from the SW, and less often from the south. Planes prefer to land or take-off into or away from the wind, and they hate crosswinds. Gatwick also has W-E runways, and I think Luton does as well. Stansted is SW-NE.

You are, in essence, correct. It is not that aircraft prefer to land or take off into the wind, it is an essential safety requirement to reduce landing or take off speed (relative to the ground) and thus reduce errors in landing. The other option is much, much longer runways due to much longer (and faster) landing/take-off runs.

Crosswinds exert a force proportional to the Sine of the angle of the crosswind and the runway centreline. In an aircraft like the 737, with its oversize tail, that can lead to weathercocking where the nose of the aircraft cannot be prevented from turning into the wind. Generally speaking, crosswinds with a cross runway component of 20 to 25 knots is usually enough to suspend takeoffs.

Most runways in the UK are between compass headings 240 and 300 (it varies from place to place depending on local geography)

JEO

Jonathan said:

The scale of Labours membership is quite impressive. Not only did Lammy beat Zac.

Note also that Khan got twice the vote of Farron nationally.

That might be more of a curse than a blessing, considering they are predominantly hardline left wingers.

rcs1000

JosiasJessop said:

rcs1000 said:

JosiasJessop said:

rcs1000 said:

I have a radical idea WRT Heathrow.

The reason noise pollution is such a big problem at Heathrow is because it is to the West of London, and the runways run East-West. Therefore, aircraft either take-off over densely populated areas, or have their landing approach over them.

Why not reorient the runways so they go North-South? We'd get to re-use all the (incredibly expensive) infrastructure that's already in place. But we'd have flight going over the M25 and the lakes and not over Barnes.

Sure, it would be expensive and difficult, and we'd need to build two runways to the West of the M25 before we did anything else. But it seems it would be a better option than almost anything else suggested.

AIUI wind is the problem there. Our prevailing wind are from the SW, and less often from the south. Planes prefer to land or take-off into or away from the wind, and they hate crosswinds. Gatwick also has W-E runways, and I think Luton does as well. Stansted is SW-NE.

(as an aside, military airfields in WW2 often got around this problem by having runways in a triangle, meaning planes could land on whichever one the winds favoured).

Because of the rotation of the earth (I assume), prevailing winds are almost always East-West, and as a man with 20 odd hours of flying time, I am aware of the advantages of taking off and landing into the wind.

Nevertheless, there are quite a lot of major airports with North-South Runways. Syndey, IIRC, is North-South.

I'm not sure you can assume Sydney's prevailing winds are from the west. From vague memory of school, prevailing winds are much more complex than that.

Edit: it appears southerly winds are predominant at Sydney airport:
http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/144089/130620_CSPC_ITEM04_ATTACHMENTA17.PDF
http://www.windfinder.com/windstatistics/botany_bay_sydney

This is what I love about PB. I get slapped down by someone with actual knowledge, not just by someone spouting nonsense. :-)

rcs1000

http://www.windfinder.com/windstatistics/brooklyn_bay_ridge?fspot=new_york_sea_gate

New York's wind is all over the place :-)

Danny565

One wonders if Boris is regretting not going for a 3rd term.

foxinsoxuk

Surely pro-3rd runway voters should vote Khan. He can accept it as an imposition from an opposing government in a way that Zac cannot. Though it is a pisspoor choice from the big 2 parties.

Even though it is the wrong side of London for us midlanders, I find Gatwick better than Heathrow. Of course developing either Birmingham or Manchester as a hub would do the country far more good.

Jonathan

JEO said:

Jonathan said:

The scale of Labours membership is quite impressive. Not only did Lammy beat Zac.

Note also that Khan got twice the vote of Farron nationally.

That might be more of a curse than a blessing, considering they are predominantly hardline left wingers.

They're not hardliners that's just spin.

chestnut

Jonathan said:

The scale of Labours membership is quite impressive.

It suggests Labour people are prone to making an excessive amount of noise, and being 'active'.

When push comes to shove, they finish two million down.

MarkHopkins

rcs1000 said:

OK. I've solved the problem of Heathrow and I dare anyone to find any problems with my solution.

"I dare anyone to find any problems with my solution"

Your link doesn't work...

Beverley_C

rcs1000 said:

OK. I've solved the problem of Heathrow and I dare anyone to find any problems with my solution.

As they say in parliament... I refer the honourable gentleman to my earlier answer

JEO

Jonathan said:

JEO said:

Jonathan said:

The scale of Labours membership is quite impressive. Not only did Lammy beat Zac.

Note also that Khan got twice the vote of Farron nationally.

That might be more of a curse than a blessing, considering they are predominantly hardline left wingers.

They're not hardliners that's just spin.

They voted for Corbyn in a four-way choice. Of course they're hardliners.

rcs1000

rcs1000 said:

OK. I've solved the problem of Heathrow and I dare anyone to find any problems with my solution.

Link now works

Jonathan

JEO said:

Jonathan said:

JEO said:

Jonathan said:

The scale of Labours membership is quite impressive. Not only did Lammy beat Zac.

Note also that Khan got twice the vote of Farron nationally.

That might be more of a curse than a blessing, considering they are predominantly hardline left wingers.

They're not hardliners that's just spin.

They voted for Corbyn in a four-way choice. Of course they're hardliners.

FWIW you're deluding yourself. Please carry on.

JEO

Are there actually fewer people north and south of Heathrow than there are east and west? North and south is still London whereas west is out into the countryside.

Beverley_C

MarkHopkins said:

rcs1000 said:

OK. I've solved the problem of Heathrow and I dare anyone to find any problems with my solution.

"I dare anyone to find any problems with my solution"

Your link doesn't work...

Neither does the solution. It is obvious that Mr RCS has never tried to steer an aircraft during its take-off roll or landing run..

Moses_

rcs1000 said:

I have a radical idea WRT Heathrow.

The reason noise pollution is such a big problem at Heathrow is because it is to the West of London, and the runways run East-West. Therefore, aircraft either take-off over densely populated areas, or have their landing approach over them.

Why not reorient the runways so they go North-South? We'd get to re-use all the (incredibly expensive) infrastructure that's already in place. But we'd have flight going over the M25 and the lakes and not over Barnes.

Sure, it would be expensive and difficult, and we'd need to build two runways to the West of the M25 before we did anything else. But it seems it would be a better option than almost anything else suggested.

They are East west for a good reason. The prevailing winds are from the west or actually South west. The orientation allows aircraft taking off to gain additional lift into the wind and landing aircraft additional lift as they slow for landing. We do get, winds from the north and indeed South but these are rare compares to the normal prevailing winds over the UK .

Other countries have slightly different orientations perhaps even North South but I don't recollect landing at a northerly southerly runway but I am sure they are around somewhere.

Edit - I see BevC beat me to it.

felix

kle4 said:

FPT

Roger said:

A London bus driver's son V Anglo-French billionaires son

Round 1 to bus driver's son.

It is on the face of it more appealing a narrative, certainly, though I think Khan needs to be careful pushing it too hard, as Zac doesn't seem a terrible sort, and it could come across as unnecessary character attacks if he focused on it.

But Zac surely needs something pretty big to swing it for him - as the thread points out, party labels are less relevant in these contests, as history has shown, but they are not irrelevant either, should a candidate be lacking, and so the Labour advantage in the capital, all else being equal, would see Khan win.

I think you need to consider the electorate more carefully - it all depends on whether outer London can outvote inner - that is entirely possible.

JEO

Jonathan said:

JEO said:

Jonathan said:

JEO said:

Jonathan said:

The scale of Labours membership is quite impressive. Not only did Lammy beat Zac.

Note also that Khan got twice the vote of Farron nationally.

That might be more of a curse than a blessing, considering they are predominantly hardline left wingers.

They're not hardliners that's just spin.

They voted for Corbyn in a four-way choice. Of course they're hardliners.

FWIW you're deluding yourself. Please carry on.

There isn't much to engage with unless you provide a counter-argument.

Dixie

One of the reasons for low turnout for Tory mayoral race was that Zac was massive favourite to win. He will surprise lots of Londoners. He's a good down to earth lad. And the Assembly Member group of Tories are good, honest working class people too. I'm the candidate in Merton & Wandsworth and I look forward to the hustings with the left. They can't out working class us!

JosiasJessop

rcs1000 said:

JosiasJessop said:

rcs1000 said:

JosiasJessop said:

rcs1000 said:

I have a radical idea WRT Heathrow.

The reason noise pollution is such a big problem at Heathrow is because it is to the West of London, and the runways run East-West. Therefore, aircraft either take-off over densely populated areas, or have their landing approach over them.

Why not reorient the runways so they go North-South? We'd get to re-use all the (incredibly expensive) infrastructure that's already in place. But we'd have flight going over the M25 and the lakes and not over Barnes.

Sure, it would be expensive and difficult, and we'd need to build two runways to the West of the M25 before we did anything else. But it seems it would be a better option than almost anything else suggested.

AIUI wind is the problem there. Our prevailing wind are from the SW, and less often from the south. Planes prefer to land or take-off into or away from the wind, and they hate crosswinds. Gatwick also has W-E runways, and I think Luton does as well. Stansted is SW-NE.

(as an aside, military airfields in WW2 often got around this problem by having runways in a triangle, meaning planes could land on whichever one the winds favoured).

Because of the rotation of the earth (I assume), prevailing winds are almost always East-West, and as a man with 20 odd hours of flying time, I am aware of the advantages of taking off and landing into the wind.

Nevertheless, there are quite a lot of major airports with North-South Runways. Syndey, IIRC, is North-South.

I'm not sure you can assume Sydney's prevailing winds are from the west. From vague memory of school, prevailing winds are much more complex than that.

Edit: it appears southerly winds are predominant at Sydney airport:
http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/144089/130620_CSPC_ITEM04_ATTACHMENTA17.PDF
http://www.windfinder.com/windstatistics/botany_bay_sydney

This is what I love about PB. I get slapped down by someone with actual knowledge, not just by someone spouting nonsense. :-)

I have no actual knowledge on this, just vague memories of studying meteorology at school (adiabatic lapse rate anyone?) coupled with a rather worrying knowledge of the layout of some of the UK's airports. Too much time studying maps whilst dreaming of walks, methinks ...

rcs1000

JEO said:

Are there actually fewer people north and south of Heathrow than there are east and west? North and south is still London whereas west is out into the countryside.

I was assuming the new runways would be to the West of the M25, and would run between the M4 and the M3.

If you look at the map, you'd see this would mean that the aircraft would be most over non-populated areas.

However, as I've been thoroughly shot down on this topic, I think it's fair to say as an idea it's not going to fly.

HYUFD

Zac v Khan is ideal territory for an Alan Sugar independent bid

Scott_P

@ZoraSuleman: FIFA sponsors Coca-Cola and McDonalds have both issued statements calling for president Sepp Blatter to step down from his post immediately.

rcs1000

Beverley_C said:

MarkHopkins said:

rcs1000 said:

OK. I've solved the problem of Heathrow and I dare anyone to find any problems with my solution.

"I dare anyone to find any problems with my solution"

Your link doesn't work...

Neither does the solution. It is obvious that Mr RCS has never tried to steer an aircraft during its take-off roll or landing run..

Actually, I've done 22 hours in PA-28s, but that was some time ago. Still I have no excuse for my ignorance.

Beverley_C

Moses_ said:

rcs1000 said:

I have a radical idea WRT Heathrow.

The reason noise pollution is such a big problem at Heathrow is because it is to the West of London, and the runways run East-West. Therefore, aircraft either take-off over densely populated areas, or have their landing approach over them.

Why not reorient the runways so they go North-South? We'd get to re-use all the (incredibly expensive) infrastructure that's already in place. But we'd have flight going over the M25 and the lakes and not over Barnes.

Sure, it would be expensive and difficult, and we'd need to build two runways to the West of the M25 before we did anything else. But it seems it would be a better option than almost anything else suggested.

They are East west for a good reason. The prevailing winds are from the west or actually South west. The orientation allows aircraft taking off to gain additional lift into the wind and landing aircraft additional lift as they slow for landing. We do get, winds from the north and indeed South but these are rare compares to the normal prevailing winds over the UK .

Other countries have slightly different orientations perhaps even North South but I don't recollect landing at a northerly southerly runway but I am sure they are around somewhere.

Edit - I see BevC beat me to it.

First!

HYUFD

Trump and Carson down in Iowa, Ted Cruz rises to take third place

Trump – 18.8% (32)
Carson – 14.1% (16)
Cruz – 10.6% (7)
Fiorina – 9.7% (5)
Rubio – 8.9% (6)
Bush – 6.9% (4)
Kasich – 2.6% (1)
Paul – 2.4% (1)
Graham – 1.8% (*)
Huckabee – 1.8% (3)
Jindal – 1.7% (5)
Christie – 1.4% (2)
Santorum – 1.3% (*)
Pataki – * (*)
Undecided – 17.9% (11)
http://www.oann.com/polliowa/

Moses_

Landed at Newark many times and now I come to think of it it is at mentioned up thread closer to North South.

Jonathan

JEO said:

Jonathan said:

JEO said:

Jonathan said:

JEO said:

Jonathan said:

The scale of Labours membership is quite impressive. Not only did Lammy beat Zac.

Note also that Khan got twice the vote of Farron nationally.

That might be more of a curse than a blessing, considering they are predominantly hardline left wingers.

They're not hardliners that's just spin.

They voted for Corbyn in a four-way choice. Of course they're hardliners.

FWIW you're deluding yourself. Please carry on.

There isn't much to engage with unless you provide a counter-argument.

I don't need to. Was happy to see perfectly normal membership at local CLP. People voted for Corbyn for many reasons. Chief amongst those was change. That does not make you hardline.

HYUFD

Gravis South Carolina

Trump 29% (34)
Carson 16% (11)
Fiorina 11% (2)
Cruz 8% (3)
Rubio 8% (6)
Bush 6% (11)
Kasich 4% (3)
Huckabee 3% (6)
Graham 2% (5)
Christie 1% (3)
Jindal * (1)
Pataki * (1)
Paul – * (1)
Santorum – * (1)

http://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/the-buzz/article37207539.html

MaxPB

rcs1000 said:

JosiasJessop said:

rcs1000 said:

JosiasJessop said:

rcs1000 said:

I have a radical idea WRT Heathrow.

The reason noise pollution is such a big problem at Heathrow is because it is to the West of London, and the runways run East-West. Therefore, aircraft either take-off over densely populated areas, or have their landing approach over them.

Why not reorient the runways so they go North-South? We'd get to re-use all the (incredibly expensive) infrastructure that's already in place. But we'd have flight going over the M25 and the lakes and not over Barnes.

Sure, it would be expensive and difficult, and we'd need to build two runways to the West of the M25 before we did anything else. But it seems it would be a better option than almost anything else suggested.

AIUI wind is the problem there. Our prevailing wind are from the SW, and less often from the south. Planes prefer to land or take-off into or away from the wind, and they hate crosswinds. Gatwick also has W-E runways, and I think Luton does as well. Stansted is SW-NE.

(as an aside, military airfields in WW2 often got around this problem by having runways in a triangle, meaning planes could land on whichever one the winds favoured).

Because of the rotation of the earth (I assume), prevailing winds are almost always East-West, and as a man with 20 odd hours of flying time, I am aware of the advantages of taking off and landing into the wind.

Nevertheless, there are quite a lot of major airports with North-South Runways. Syndey, IIRC, is North-South.

I'm not sure you can assume Sydney's prevailing winds are from the west. From vague memory of school, prevailing winds are much more complex than that.

Edit: it appears southerly winds are predominant at Sydney airport:
http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/144089/130620_CSPC_ITEM04_ATTACHMENTA17.PDF
http://www.windfinder.com/windstatistics/botany_bay_sydney

This is what I love about PB. I get slapped down by someone with actual knowledge, not just by someone spouting nonsense. :-)

It's like the world's greatest pub quiz team!

JEO

rcs1000 said:

JEO said:

Are there actually fewer people north and south of Heathrow than there are east and west? North and south is still London whereas west is out into the countryside.

I was assuming the new runways would be to the West of the M25, and would run between the M4 and the M3.

If you look at the map, you'd see this would mean that the aircraft would be most over non-populated areas.

However, as I've been thoroughly shot down on this topic, I think it's fair to say as an idea it's not going to fly.

If you want to place a big new hub airport near London that doesn't affect many people, then Stansted is the right option. Just upgrade the A14 so its better connected to Birmingham and the North, and put in a fast rail line to London.

JosiasJessop

rcs1000 said:

OK. I've solved the problem of Heathrow and I dare anyone to find any problems with my solution.

If we're getting into blue-sky thinking, I've got a solution I'm willing to patent: double-deck runways. It should be easy to build a third and fourth runways directly above the two we've already got. 100 feet should be enough to fit a large plane under.

I dare anyone to find any problems with my solution...

HYUFD

Today's Yougov has the Tories just 1% behind Labour in London which will provide something of a boost to Zac Goldsmith on the day he was picked as nominee
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/pjr713es5o/SunResults_150930_Corbyn_Website.pdf

Scott_P

@BBCBreaking: Major Fifa sponsors Coca-Cola and McDonalds call for Sepp Blatter to step down immediately as president http://t.co/BXeKxJKnKF

MaxPB

Jonathan said:

JEO said:

Jonathan said:

The scale of Labours membership is quite impressive. Not only did Lammy beat Zac.

Note also that Khan got twice the vote of Farron nationally.

That might be more of a curse than a blessing, considering they are predominantly hardline left wingers.

They're not hardliners that's just spin.

A first round win for Corbyn shows otherwise, though I will grant that the members are less hardline than the entryists who voted overwhelmingly in favour of Corbyn.

GIN1138

Scott_P said:

@BBCBreaking: Major Fifa sponsors Coca-Cola and McDonalds call for Sepp Blatter to step down immediately as president http://t.co/BXeKxJKnKF

Once the Sponsors start pulling the plug, that really IS the end.

Beverley_C

rcs1000 said:

Beverley_C said:

MarkHopkins said:

rcs1000 said:

OK. I've solved the problem of Heathrow and I dare anyone to find any problems with my solution.

"I dare anyone to find any problems with my solution"

Your link doesn't work...

Neither does the solution. It is obvious that Mr RCS has never tried to steer an aircraft during its take-off roll or landing run..

Actually, I've done 22 hours in PA-28s, but that was some time ago. Still I have no excuse for my ignorance.

Absolutely!!!

You might recall then that turning an aircraft is achieved by dropping a wing into the turn so a circular runway means landing or taking off without wings level and that is even before I get started on the dangers of stalled wings caused by rotor or tail winds.

Tut tut Mr RCS. Next you will be telling me that you have forgotten the environment lapse rate... but no, surely not....

Plato_Says

@Telegraph cartoon. #RugbyWorldCup #ConservativeConference #Corbyn http://t.co/6fwKM1XFox

Scott_P

@BBCBreaking: Sepp Blatter will not resign as Fifa president, his lawyer says after Coca-Cola and McDonalds urge him to step down http://t.co/qQPMk5xB2U

Beverley_C

Plato_Says said:

@Telegraph cartoon. #RugbyWorldCup #ConservativeConference #Corbyn http://t.co/6fwKM1XFox

A good one! Thank you

HYUFD

Voters approve of cooperating with Russia against ISIS by 59% to 20%. They approve of co-operating with President Assad by 38% to 31%
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/5xu6yg85x7/Internal_Results_150930_Syria_Website.pdf

Jonathan

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

JEO said:

Jonathan said:

The scale of Labours membership is quite impressive. Not only did Lammy beat Zac.

Note also that Khan got twice the vote of Farron nationally.

That might be more of a curse than a blessing, considering they are predominantly hardline left wingers.

They're not hardliners that's just spin.

A first round win for Corbyn shows otherwise, though I will grant that the members are less hardline than the entryists who voted overwhelmingly in favour of Corbyn.

Well most of the new members I've met are perfectly reasonable. Many are ex members who left over Iraq. No massive swing to the left. Whilst no doubt some far left wingers joined to say that they are the majority is simply mistaken.

I offer that in good faith to punters. Don't get carried away with all the hype.

david_herdson

GIN1138 said:

Scott_P said:

@BBCBreaking: Major Fifa sponsors Coca-Cola and McDonalds call for Sepp Blatter to step down immediately as president http://t.co/BXeKxJKnKF

Once the Sponsors start pulling the plug, that really IS the end.

What is telling is that the two sponsors look to be co-ordinating their call.

MTimT

JEO said:

Because Heathrow repeatedly promised over a number of years that there would be no third runway.

So what we are talking about in terms of equity is the loss in value (to house price/quality of living) due to the incremental increase in noise pollution of those who were there before the decision to add the third runway was announced.

But it still brings you back to the question, why not there rather than somewhere else? Unless you are arguing that UK plc's airport capacity should be permanently capped at current levels.

For me, the answer to that question would include a component that at least pretty much everyone living near Heathrow chose to live there knowing there would be noise pollution at some level, so it is less of an imposition to build up capacity there than in another location where there currently is no noise pollution and presumably the absence of noise pollution played into purchase decisions and house prices.

rcs1000

Beverley_C said:

rcs1000 said:

Beverley_C said:

MarkHopkins said:

rcs1000 said:

OK. I've solved the problem of Heathrow and I dare anyone to find any problems with my solution.

"I dare anyone to find any problems with my solution"

Your link doesn't work...

Neither does the solution. It is obvious that Mr RCS has never tried to steer an aircraft during its take-off roll or landing run..

Actually, I've done 22 hours in PA-28s, but that was some time ago. Still I have no excuse for my ignorance.

Absolutely!!!

You might recall then that turning an aircraft is achieved by dropping a wing into the turn so a circular runway means landing or taking off without wings level and that is even before I get started on the dangers of stalled wings caused by rotor or tail winds.

Tut tut Mr RCS. Next you will be telling me that you have forgotten the environment lapse rate... but no, surely not....

Is that how temperature changes with height?

GIN1138

On Topic: The fact Corbyn is the most unpopular LOTO since at least The Corn Laws has got to be a drag on Sadiq surely?

Beverley_C

rcs1000 said:

Beverley_C said:

rcs1000 said:

Beverley_C said:

MarkHopkins said:

rcs1000 said:

OK. I've solved the problem of Heathrow and I dare anyone to find any problems with my solution.

"I dare anyone to find any problems with my solution"

Your link doesn't work...

Neither does the solution. It is obvious that Mr RCS has never tried to steer an aircraft during its take-off roll or landing run..

Actually, I've done 22 hours in PA-28s, but that was some time ago. Still I have no excuse for my ignorance.

Absolutely!!!

You might recall then that turning an aircraft is achieved by dropping a wing into the turn so a circular runway means landing or taking off without wings level and that is even before I get started on the dangers of stalled wings caused by rotor or tail winds.

Tut tut Mr RCS. Next you will be telling me that you have forgotten the environment lapse rate... but no, surely not....

Is that how temperature changes with height?

Congrats! 3C per 1,000 feet. The difference between ambient temp and dew point gives a rule of thumb to the height of cloudbase of fairweather cumulus.

We will make a pilot of you yet

Charles

JosiasJessop said:

rcs1000 said:

OK. I've solved the problem of Heathrow and I dare anyone to find any problems with my solution.

If we're getting into blue-sky thinking, I've got a solution I'm willing to patent: double-deck runways. It should be easy to build a third and fourth runways directly above the two we've already got. 100 feet should be enough to fit a large plane under.

I dare anyone to find any problems with my solution...

Emergency go-abouts might be tricky...

Roger

HYUFD

"Voters approve of cooperating with Russia against ISIS by 59% to 20%. They approve of co-operating with President Assad by 38% to 31%

http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/5xu6yg85x7/Internal_Results_150930_Syria_Website.pdf"

That is so self evidently the sensible solution one wonders how our politicians can be so out of step-

MaxPB

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

JEO said:

Jonathan said:

The scale of Labours membership is quite impressive. Not only did Lammy beat Zac.

Note also that Khan got twice the vote of Farron nationally.

That might be more of a curse than a blessing, considering they are predominantly hardline left wingers.

They're not hardliners that's just spin.

A first round win for Corbyn shows otherwise, though I will grant that the members are less hardline than the entryists who voted overwhelmingly in favour of Corbyn.

Well most of the new members I've met are perfectly reasonable. Many are ex members who left over Iraq. No massive swing to the left. Whilst no doubt some far left wingers joined to say that they are the majority is simply mistaken.

I offer that in good faith to punters. Don't get carried away with all the hype.

Apologies in advance but like many of Nick's musings and canvas returns I'm going t take this with a massive grain of salt. The polls, unreliable as they are, showed a decisive leftwards move in the Labour selectorate since 2010.

MarqueeMark

Beverley_C said:

JosiasJessop said:

rcs1000 said:

I have a radical idea WRT Heathrow.

The reason noise pollution is such a big problem at Heathrow is because it is to the West of London, and the runways run East-West. Therefore, aircraft either take-off over densely populated areas, or have their landing approach over them.

Why not reorient the runways so they go North-South? We'd get to re-use all the (incredibly expensive) infrastructure that's already in place. But we'd have flight going over the M25 and the lakes and not over Barnes.

Sure, it would be expensive and difficult, and we'd need to build two runways to the West of the M25 before we did anything else. But it seems it would be a better option than almost anything else suggested.

AIUI wind is the problem there. Our prevailing wind are from the SW, and less often from the south. Planes prefer to land or take-off into or away from the wind, and they hate crosswinds. Gatwick also has W-E runways, and I think Luton does as well. Stansted is SW-NE.

You are, in essence, correct. It is not that aircraft prefer to land or take off into the wind, it is an essential safety requirement to reduce landing or take off speed (relative to the ground) and thus reduce errors in landing. The other option is much, much longer runways due to much longer (and faster) landing/take-off runs.

Crosswinds exert a force proportional to the Sine of the angle of the crosswind and the runway centreline. In an aircraft like the 737, with its oversize tail, that can lead to weathercocking where the nose of the aircraft cannot be prevented from turning into the wind. Generally speaking, crosswinds with a cross runway component of 20 to 25 knots is usually enough to suspend takeoffs.

Most runways in the UK are between compass headings 240 and 300 (it varies from place to place depending on local geography)

More than just pretty shoes then?

JosiasJessop

Charles said:

JosiasJessop said:

rcs1000 said:

OK. I've solved the problem of Heathrow and I dare anyone to find any problems with my solution.

If we're getting into blue-sky thinking, I've got a solution I'm willing to patent: double-deck runways. It should be easy to build a third and fourth runways directly above the two we've already got. 100 feet should be enough to fit a large plane under.

I dare anyone to find any problems with my solution...

Emergency go-abouts might be tricky...

Bah! There's always someone backward nincompoop to poo-poo the ideas of a genius!

Double-deck runways are a no-brainer!

Jonathan

GIN1138 said:

On Topic: The fact Corbyn is the most unpopular LOTO since at least The Corn Laws has got to be a drag on Sadiq surely?

Curious to mention the Corn Laws, which divided the Tories and brought a Liberal LOTO to power.

HYUFD

Roger said:

HYUFD

"Voters approve of cooperating with Russia against ISIS by 59% to 20%. They approve of co-operating with President Assad by 38% to 31%

http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/5xu6yg85x7/Internal_Results_150930_Syria_Website.pdf"

That is so self evidently the sensible solution one wonders how our politicians can be so out of step-

Well they are not going to be able to do anything against Assad now without risking WW3, so both sides will end up bombing ISIS by default (even if the FSA get bombed a little by the Russians as well)

felix

Jonathan said:

JEO said:

Jonathan said:

JEO said:

Jonathan said:

JEO said:

Jonathan said:

The scale of Labours membership is quite impressive. Not only did Lammy beat Zac.

Note also that Khan got twice the vote of Farron nationally.

That might be more of a curse than a blessing, considering they are predominantly hardline left wingers.

They're not hardliners that's just spin.

They voted for Corbyn in a four-way choice. Of course they're hardliners.

FWIW you're deluding yourself. Please carry on.

There isn't much to engage with unless you provide a counter-argument.

I don't need to. Was happy to see perfectly normal membership at local CLP. People voted for Corbyn for many reasons. Chief amongst those was change. That does not make you hardline.

"perfectly normal membership at local CLP." No such thing - in any party!

rcs1000

Charles said:

JosiasJessop said:

rcs1000 said:

OK. I've solved the problem of Heathrow and I dare anyone to find any problems with my solution.

If we're getting into blue-sky thinking, I've got a solution I'm willing to patent: double-deck runways. It should be easy to build a third and fourth runways directly above the two we've already got. 100 feet should be enough to fit a large plane under.

I dare anyone to find any problems with my solution...

Emergency go-abouts might be tricky...

No, because you'd always take off from the bottom runway, and land on the top.

GIN1138

Jonathan said:

GIN1138 said:

On Topic: The fact Corbyn is the most unpopular LOTO since at least The Corn Laws has got to be a drag on Sadiq surely?

Curious to mention the Corn Laws, which divided the Tories and brought a Liberal LOTO to power.

OK, pick another event from hundreds of years ago where LOTO was as popular as the work house....

#yourmove

MaxPB

david_herdson said:

GIN1138 said:

Scott_P said:

@BBCBreaking: Major Fifa sponsors Coca-Cola and McDonalds call for Sepp Blatter to step down immediately as president http://t.co/BXeKxJKnKF

Once the Sponsors start pulling the plug, that really IS the end.

What is telling is that the two sponsors look to be co-ordinating their call.

I can add that Sony cancelled their renewal process once the scale of corruption became clear. I was involved in the decision to renew the UEFA Champions League sponsorship a few years ago and I know the team who worked with FIFA and they were appalled by the corruption and didn't want the Sony brand to be associated with it. I'm sure now that Platini has been dragged in the CL sponsorship is now going to be questioned by Sony/PlayStation.

MTimT

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

JosiasJessop said:

rcs1000 said:

JosiasJessop said:

rcs1000 said:

I have a radical idea WRT Heathrow.

The reason noise pollution is such a big problem at Heathrow is because it is to the West of London, and the runways run East-West. Therefore, aircraft either take-off over densely populated areas, or have their landing approach over them.

Why not reorient the runways so they go North-South? We'd get to re-use all the (incredibly expensive) infrastructure that's already in place. But we'd have flight going over the M25 and the lakes and not over Barnes.

Sure, it would be expensive and difficult, and we'd need to build two runways to the West of the M25 before we did anything else. But it seems it would be a better option than almost anything else suggested.

AIUI wind is the problem there. Our prevailing wind are from the SW, and less often from the south. Planes prefer to land or take-off into or away from the wind, and they hate crosswinds. Gatwick also has W-E runways, and I think Luton does as well. Stansted is SW-NE.

(as an aside, military airfields in WW2 often got around this problem by having runways in a triangle, meaning planes could land on whichever one the winds favoured).

Because of the rotation of the earth (I assume), prevailing winds are almost always East-West, and as a man with 20 odd hours of flying time, I am aware of the advantages of taking off and landing into the wind.

Nevertheless, there are quite a lot of major airports with North-South Runways. Syndey, IIRC, is North-South.

I'm not sure you can assume Sydney's prevailing winds are from the west. From vague memory of school, prevailing winds are much more complex than that.

Edit: it appears southerly winds are predominant at Sydney airport:
http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/144089/130620_CSPC_ITEM04_ATTACHMENTA17.PDF
http://www.windfinder.com/windstatistics/botany_bay_sydney

This is what I love about PB. I get slapped down by someone with actual knowledge, not just by someone spouting nonsense. :-)

It's like the world's greatest pub quiz team!

Map of world's prevailing winds: http://www.ccisd.com/cms/lib/TX01000559/Centricity/Domain/454/prevailing winds.jpg

JosiasJessop

HYUFD said:

Roger said:

HYUFD

"Voters approve of cooperating with Russia against ISIS by 59% to 20%. They approve of co-operating with President Assad by 38% to 31%

http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/5xu6yg85x7/Internal_Results_150930_Syria_Website.pdf"

That is so self evidently the sensible solution one wonders how our politicians can be so out of step-

Well they are not going to be able to do anything against Assad now without risking WW3, so both sides will end up bombing ISIS by default (even if the FSA get bombed a little by the Russians as well)

And the Kurds. Don't forget the Kurds.

Charles

MTimT said:

JEO said:

Because Heathrow repeatedly promised over a number of years that there would be no third runway.

So what we are talking about in terms of equity is the loss in value (to house price/quality of living) due to the incremental increase in noise pollution of those who were there before the decision to add the third runway was announced.

But it still brings you back to the question, why not there rather than somewhere else? Unless you are arguing that UK plc's airport capacity should be permanently capped at current levels.

For me, the answer to that question would include a component that at least pretty much everyone living near Heathrow chose to live there knowing there would be noise pollution at some level, so it is less of an imposition to build up capacity there than in another location where there currently is no noise pollution and presumably the absence of noise pollution played into purchase decisions and house prices.

The ability to see the landing gear on planes was one reason why we didn't bid on a fun little place called Syon Lodge a few years ago...

Jonathan

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

JEO said:

Jonathan said:

The scale of Labours membership is quite impressive. Not only did Lammy beat Zac.

Note also that Khan got twice the vote of Farron nationally.

That might be more of a curse than a blessing, considering they are predominantly hardline left wingers.

They're not hardliners that's just spin.

A first round win for Corbyn shows otherwise, though I will grant that the members are less hardline than the entryists who voted overwhelmingly in favour of Corbyn.

Well most of the new members I've met are perfectly reasonable. Many are ex members who left over Iraq. No massive swing to the left. Whilst no doubt some far left wingers joined to say that they are the majority is simply mistaken.

I offer that in good faith to punters. Don't get carried away with all the hype.

Apologies in advance but like many of Nick's musings and canvas returns I'm going t take this with a massive grain of salt. The polls, unreliable as they are, showed a decisive leftwards move in the Labour selectorate since 2010.

Do what you like. In fact pass the salt. Plenty of right wing opinion masquerading as fact.

HYUFD

JosiasJessop said:

HYUFD said:

Roger said:

HYUFD

"Voters approve of cooperating with Russia against ISIS by 59% to 20%. They approve of co-operating with President Assad by 38% to 31%

http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/5xu6yg85x7/Internal_Results_150930_Syria_Website.pdf"

That is so self evidently the sensible solution one wonders how our politicians can be so out of step-

Well they are not going to be able to do anything against Assad now without risking WW3, so both sides will end up bombing ISIS by default (even if the FSA get bombed a little by the Russians as well)

And the Kurds. Don't forget the Kurds.

Indeed, but we started bombing around Kobane last summer

MaxPB

HYUFD said:

Roger said:

HYUFD

"Voters approve of cooperating with Russia against ISIS by 59% to 20%. They approve of co-operating with President Assad by 38% to 31%

http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/5xu6yg85x7/Internal_Results_150930_Syria_Website.pdf"

That is so self evidently the sensible solution one wonders how our politicians can be so out of step-

Well they are not going to be able to do anything against Assad now without risking WW3, so both sides will end up bombing ISIS by default (even if the FSA get bombed a little by the Russians as well)

There is no FSA left to bomb, most have defected to al-Nusra and the rest were killed by ISIS. This idea that the FSA are some kind of strong democratic army is a joke and only believed by a few select fools.

rcs1000

Charles said:

MTimT said:

JEO said:

Because Heathrow repeatedly promised over a number of years that there would be no third runway.

So what we are talking about in terms of equity is the loss in value (to house price/quality of living) due to the incremental increase in noise pollution of those who were there before the decision to add the third runway was announced.

But it still brings you back to the question, why not there rather than somewhere else? Unless you are arguing that UK plc's airport capacity should be permanently capped at current levels.

For me, the answer to that question would include a component that at least pretty much everyone living near Heathrow chose to live there knowing there would be noise pollution at some level, so it is less of an imposition to build up capacity there than in another location where there currently is no noise pollution and presumably the absence of noise pollution played into purchase decisions and house prices.

The ability to see the landing gear on planes was one reason why we didn't bid on a fun little place called Syon Lodge a few years ago...

This is clearly some strange new meaning of the word "little" that that I wasn't previously aware of.

Jonathan

felix said:

Jonathan said:

JEO said:

Jonathan said:

JEO said:

Jonathan said:

JEO said:

Jonathan said:

The scale of Labours membership is quite impressive. Not only did Lammy beat Zac.

Note also that Khan got twice the vote of Farron nationally.

That might be more of a curse than a blessing, considering they are predominantly hardline left wingers.

They're not hardliners that's just spin.

They voted for Corbyn in a four-way choice. Of course they're hardliners.

FWIW you're deluding yourself. Please carry on.

There isn't much to engage with unless you provide a counter-argument.

I don't need to. Was happy to see perfectly normal membership at local CLP. People voted for Corbyn for many reasons. Chief amongst those was change. That does not make you hardline.

"perfectly normal membership at local CLP." No such thing - in any party!

I thought that was a given. Was boringly par for the course.

JosiasJessop

HYUFD said:

JosiasJessop said:

HYUFD said:

Roger said:

HYUFD

"Voters approve of cooperating with Russia against ISIS by 59% to 20%. They approve of co-operating with President Assad by 38% to 31%

http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/5xu6yg85x7/Internal_Results_150930_Syria_Website.pdf"

That is so self evidently the sensible solution one wonders how our politicians can be so out of step-

Well they are not going to be able to do anything against Assad now without risking WW3, so both sides will end up bombing ISIS by default (even if the FSA get bombed a little by the Russians as well)

And the Kurds. Don't forget the Kurds.

Indeed, but we started bombing around Kobane last summer

When it was held by IS, surely? What's your point?

Artist

Although Zac Goldsmith rebels sometimes, I'm sure his opponents will have a long list of unpopular policies that he has voted in favour of.

Beverley_C

Charles said:

The ability to see the landing gear on planes was one reason why we didn't bid on a fun little place called Syon Lodge a few years ago...

Was it here? http://youtu.be/6wertH16rSI

HYUFD

MaxPB said:

HYUFD said:

Roger said:

HYUFD

"Voters approve of cooperating with Russia against ISIS by 59% to 20%. They approve of co-operating with President Assad by 38% to 31%

http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/5xu6yg85x7/Internal_Results_150930_Syria_Website.pdf"

That is so self evidently the sensible solution one wonders how our politicians can be so out of step-

Well they are not going to be able to do anything against Assad now without risking WW3, so both sides will end up bombing ISIS by default (even if the FSA get bombed a little by the Russians as well)

There is no FSA left to bomb, most have defected to al-Nusra and the rest were killed by ISIS. This idea that the FSA are some kind of strong democratic army is a joke and only believed by a few select fools.

Of course the Russians are now bombing al-Nusra too

Beverley_C

MarqueeMark said:

More than just pretty shoes then?

In more ways than you could imagine. I was a solo pilot for 12 years although I lapsed and got into sailing. Now I have a skipper's licence for yachts up to 78ft in length.

I also cook and do shoes.....

HYUFD

JosiasJessop said:

HYUFD said:

JosiasJessop said:

HYUFD said:

Roger said:

HYUFD

"Voters approve of cooperating with Russia against ISIS by 59% to 20%. They approve of co-operating with President Assad by 38% to 31%

http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/5xu6yg85x7/Internal_Results_150930_Syria_Website.pdf"

That is so self evidently the sensible solution one wonders how our politicians can be so out of step-

Well they are not going to be able to do anything against Assad now without risking WW3, so both sides will end up bombing ISIS by default (even if the FSA get bombed a little by the Russians as well)

And the Kurds. Don't forget the Kurds.

Indeed, but we started bombing around Kobane last summer

When it was held by IS, surely? What's your point?

The point being it was when airstrikes really began to be launched to support the Kurds