An interesting fellow: either a hero or a right barsteward, depending on your view.
He was probably the most powerful man in the world - in his day. It was pretty much all downhill from there.
From the admittedly little I know about him, he killed off the successor most likely to be competent. Mind you, the Ottoman Emperors were a bloodthirsty lot, a trait that might have played a part in their empire's downfall.
Wonder how Jahadi Jezza knows these individuals. Either he doesn't and he writes letters for any old granny robbers or maybe they are regulars one of Jezza's regular hang outs, Finsbury Park Mosque?
As we all know Islam is the Religion of Peace™ so obviously it's nothing to do with Islam. It must be a stitch-up by the evil Tories or UKIP or something because they're RAAAAACIST.
I don't think the Quran has much to say about defrauding grannies, so I think I shall excuse these scumbags from being part of global Jihad.
You would be wrong. at least one of them had returned from Syria according to the BBC 6 o'clock news.
Wonder how Jahadi Jezza knows these individuals. Either he doesn't and he writes letters for any old granny robbers or maybe they are regulars one of Jezza's regular hang outs, Finsbury Park Mosque?
As we all know Islam is the Religion of Peace™ so obviously it's nothing to do with Islam. It must be a stitch-up by the evil Tories or UKIP or something because they're RAAAAACIST.
I don't think the Quran has much to say about defrauding grannies, so I think I shall excuse these scumbags from being part of global Jihad.
You would be wrong. at least one of them had returned from Syria according to the BBC 6 o'clock news.
They're just your ordinary, everyday scumbags. Defrauding the elderly isn't the preserve on any particular ethnicity or religion. We can't start thinking of Islam as being the root of all evil.
Wonder how Jahadi Jezza knows these individuals. Either he doesn't and he writes letters for any old granny robbers or maybe they are regulars one of Jezza's regular hang outs, Finsbury Park Mosque?
As we all know Islam is the Religion of Peace™ so obviously it's nothing to do with Islam. It must be a stitch-up by the evil Tories or UKIP or something because they're RAAAAACIST.
I don't think the Quran has much to say about defrauding grannies, so I think I shall excuse these scumbags from being part of global Jihad.
You would be wrong. at least one of them had returned from Syria according to the BBC 6 o'clock news.
They're just your ordinary, everyday scumbags. Defrauding the elderly isn't the preserve on any particular ethnicity or religion. We can't start thinking of Islam as being the root of all evil.
It reminds me of a book I read a few years ago called Londonistan.
Probably but it also leaves his GOP opponents floundering. Even the normally eloquent Carly Fiorina, who tries to use every sentence to attack the President, was left in limbo between her desire to look like an attack-dog Republican and her intent to distance herself from Trump.
If, somehow, the GOP nomination is denied, will Trump, like Perot before him, try to run as a third party spoiler ? I suppose, for the GOP, it becomes a question of the worse nightmare - Trump as the candidate or Trump as not the candidate ?
On an unrelated, health and NHS stories are incredibly bad for any Government. The persistent drip-drip of scandal, mismanagement and people dying creates the impression of an NHS starved of resources by an uncaring Government and it's that which weakens poll numbers over time.
As with so much else, the facts take second place to the story and so we come back to Trump.
Mohammed Dahir? The leader of the Labour Party believes he should have bail to spend Christmas with his family? You couldn't make it up. Mr Corbyn will also be asking his good friends in Hamas to declare Hannukah a national holiday.
Wonder how Jahadi Jezza knows these individuals. Either he doesn't and he writes letters for any old granny robbers or maybe they are regulars one of Jezza's regular hang outs, Finsbury Park Mosque?
As we all know Islam is the Religion of Peace™ so obviously it's nothing to do with Islam. It must be a stitch-up by the evil Tories or UKIP or something because they're RAAAAACIST.
I don't think the Quran has much to say about defrauding grannies, so I think I shall excuse these scumbags from being part of global Jihad.
You would be wrong. at least one of them had returned from Syria according to the BBC 6 o'clock news.
They're just your ordinary, everyday scumbags. Defrauding the elderly isn't the preserve on any particular ethnicity or religion. We can't start thinking of Islam as being the root of all evil.
You have to accept that some people are just scumbags. Hard to understand why Corbyn would choose to show support for convicted criminals like that. Can't imagine the victims are too impressed.
Off topic. We await the Heathrow announcement. A decision to be based on the genius that is Howard Davies. Who ever thought that having London in the flightpath of millions of plane landings each decade and pollution that breaks the law is a good idea, well Howard sets out plans for more of it. Howard has a "wonderful" record. As the Head of the CBI he advocated the adoption of the Euro for the UK..... Howard was from 97 to 2003 the first chairman of the Financial Services Authority, the body that was set up which failed to spot our banks antics.... From 2003 to 2011 Davies served as Director of the London School of Economics and Political Science. He stepped down from the position on 3 March 2011 following concern over the institution's decision to accept funding from a foundation controlled by the Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi's son, Saif, and other LSE Libya Links. (wikipedia)
IMV the airports commission did a competent job within their remit. There remains some doubt over whether the remit was designed to get the result, but nonetheless they produced a good report.
Even if I don't particularly agree with it, damnit!
Wonder how Jahadi Jezza knows these individuals. Either he doesn't and he writes letters for any old granny robbers or maybe they are regulars one of Jezza's regular hang outs, Finsbury Park Mosque?
As we all know Islam is the Religion of Peace™ so obviously it's nothing to do with Islam. It must be a stitch-up by the evil Tories or UKIP or something because they're RAAAAACIST.
I don't think the Quran has much to say about defrauding grannies, so I think I shall excuse these scumbags from being part of global Jihad.
You would be wrong. at least one of them had returned from Syria according to the BBC 6 o'clock news.
They're just your ordinary, everyday scumbags. Defrauding the elderly isn't the preserve on any particular ethnicity or religion. We can't start thinking of Islam as being the root of all evil.
I agree, much as it sometimes looks like it these days.
IMV the airports commission did a competent job within their remit. There remains some doubt over whether the remit was designed to get the result, but nonetheless they produced a good report. Even if I don't particularly agree with it, damnit!
(Getting the courage to take on an engineer.) From what I have read, the Commission ruled out the Boris Island proposal and other options before they had fully evaluated the air pollution problems of Heathrow and its expansion. Having just had a read of the "final report" it lists several major pollution problems with Heathrow expansion but with some fairly vague mitigation thoughts....
It also proposes restriction the time slots of flights to improve the sleeping patterns of local folk but without any clear idea of how the time slots fit into a major hub airport connecting with the world. A form of Sunday Trading restrictions fit for the 20th century not the 21st century.
The programme Coast is on Yesterday channel right now and in the Edinburgh area. They are on the forth bridge and in this programme they have stated the cables holding up the roadway are suffering serious corrosion. They also make the statement closure of the bridge would result in "economic disaster for the region"
They deal in detail with the corrosion issue and problems with the bridge with those that are there to maintain it. They have placed microphones on the cables to listen for any wires breaking. They have actual recordings of small wires of the main hawser wires snapping and they play the sounds on the programme.
That episode was series No 3 made in 2007. It was stated as a very serious concern at that time and intervention was needed but not a simple operation.
Off topic. We await the Heathrow announcement. A decision to be based on the genius that is Howard Davies. Who ever thought that having London in the flightpath of millions of plane landings each decade and pollution that breaks the law is a good idea, well Howard sets out plans for more of it. Howard has a "wonderful" record. As the Head of the CBI he advocated the adoption of the Euro for the UK..... Howard was from 97 to 2003 the first chairman of the Financial Services Authority, the body that was set up which failed to spot our banks antics.... From 2003 to 2011 Davies served as Director of the London School of Economics and Political Science. He stepped down from the position on 3 March 2011 following concern over the institution's decision to accept funding from a foundation controlled by the Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi's son, Saif, and other LSE Libya Links. (wikipedia)
It's a simple decision. Which airport expansion allows London to keep it's global hub status. There are two answers, a third (and eventually fourth) runway at Heathrow or a new hub somewhere north east of London just outside the M25 so planes ascend and descend over the estuary/sea. The latter is the permanent solution but has truly massive funding requirements and will take until 2050 to complete after countless judicial reviews and delays, with Heathrow we can get building by 2018 and complete by 2025-27. Personally I think we should be doing this with one eye on the big project, but politicians think too short term.
Gatwick gives us nothing of value, maybe a few more flights to Magaluf or Faliraki with Ryanair.
IMV the airports commission did a competent job within their remit. There remains some doubt over whether the remit was designed to get the result, but nonetheless they produced a good report. Even if I don't particularly agree with it, damnit!
(Getting the courage to take on an engineer.) From what I have read, the Commission ruled out the Boris Island proposal and other options before they had fully evaluated the air pollution problems of Heathrow and its expansion. Having just had a read of the "final report" it lists several major pollution problems with Heathrow expansion but with some fairly vague mitigation thoughts....
It also proposes restriction the time slots of flights to improve the sleeping patterns of local folk but without any clear idea of how the time slots fit into a major hub airport connecting with the world. A form of Sunday Trading restrictions fit for the 20th century not the 21st century.
Don't worry about taking me on! It's not my particular regime of engineering (I merely shift 0's and 1's about). Civ eng was very nearly my occupation though, and I'm still fascinated by it.
The report, like all such reports, has to deal with known unknowns. As you say, there are several the report outlines. But that is also true of the alternatives. I'd be more suspicious if it pretended to have factored everything in.
The biggest problem with it are the restrictions you mention. As the third runway is a sticking plaster rather than a solution, sometime (soon?) after it is completed there will be another capacity crunch. And breaking such restrictions is cheaper and easier than yet another expansion ...
I favour BI. But as that's been rejected, and IMV it's better to get the third runway built than have yet another delay whilst we make our minds up.
Off topic. We await the Heathrow announcement. A decision to be based on the genius that is Howard Davies. Who ever thought that having London in the flightpath of millions of plane landings each decade and pollution that breaks the law is a good idea, well Howard sets out plans for more of it. Howard has a "wonderful" record. As the Head of the CBI he advocated the adoption of the Euro for the UK..... Howard was from 97 to 2003 the first chairman of the Financial Services Authority, the body that was set up which failed to spot our banks antics.... From 2003 to 2011 Davies served as Director of the London School of Economics and Political Science. He stepped down from the position on 3 March 2011 following concern over the institution's decision to accept funding from a foundation controlled by the Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi's son, Saif, and other LSE Libya Links. (wikipedia)
It's a simple decision. Which airport expansion allows London to keep it's global hub status. There are two answers, a third (and eventually fourth) runway at Heathrow or a new hub somewhere north east of London just outside the M25 so planes ascend and descend over the estuary/sea. The latter is the permanent solution but has truly massive funding requirements and will take until 2050 to complete after countless judicial reviews and delays, with Heathrow we can get building by 2018 and complete by 2025-27. Personally I think we should be doing this with one eye on the big project, but politicians think too short term.
Gatwick gives us nothing of value, maybe a few more flights to Magaluf or Faliraki with Ryanair.
No flights with expansion from 630 to 11pm.... Hardly a world class hub airport in a 24/7 world.
Cameron decided it was better to break his promise to decide before Christmas than break his earlier promise that there would be no third runway.
Well, I suppose he can't expect people to realise that the third runway he ruled out is not the one currently proposed.
He has a report proposing somethings which the environmental commitments/laws say that you are already breaking.... Utter madness.
Again, it isn't the airport that breaks the pollution regulations, it's bloody diesel cars and vans on the M4. London needs to turn into a diesel exclusion zone if we want to improve air quality. The VW scandal makes it pretty clear that the car companies were lying about their emissions, people blamed poor air quality on the airports but it was diesel cars and we need to remove them from London's roads to have any chance of decent air quality in our fair city.
Off topic. We await the Heathrow announcement. A decision to be based on the genius that is Howard Davies. Who ever thought that having London in the flightpath of millions of plane landings each decade and pollution that breaks the law is a good idea, well Howard sets out plans for more of it. Howard has a "wonderful" record. As the Head of the CBI he advocated the adoption of the Euro for the UK..... Howard was from 97 to 2003 the first chairman of the Financial Services Authority, the body that was set up which failed to spot our banks antics.... From 2003 to 2011 Davies served as Director of the London School of Economics and Political Science. He stepped down from the position on 3 March 2011 following concern over the institution's decision to accept funding from a foundation controlled by the Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi's son, Saif, and other LSE Libya Links. (wikipedia)
It's a simple decision. Which airport expansion allows London to keep it's global hub status. There are two answers, a third (and eventually fourth) runway at Heathrow or a new hub somewhere north east of London just outside the M25 so planes ascend and descend over the estuary/sea. The latter is the permanent solution but has truly massive funding requirements and will take until 2050 to complete after countless judicial reviews and delays, with Heathrow we can get building by 2018 and complete by 2025-27. Personally I think we should be doing this with one eye on the big project, but politicians think too short term.
Gatwick gives us nothing of value, maybe a few more flights to Magaluf or Faliraki with Ryanair.
No flights with expansion from 630 to 11pm.... Hardly a world class hub airport in a 24/7 world.
Like I said, we should be going after the big project but this is not going to be possible in our political environment. None of our politicians have the vision or resolve to order a massive £60bn project to build a new airport in the south east where there is already a hub and three other airports of reasonable size.
Off topic. We await the Heathrow announcement. A decision to be based on the genius that is Howard Davies. Who ever thought that having London in the flightpath of millions of plane landings each decade and pollution that breaks the law is a good idea, well Howard sets out plans for more of it. Howard has a "wonderful" record. As the Head of the CBI he advocated the adoption of the Euro for the UK..... Howard was from 97 to 2003 the first chairman of the Financial Services Authority, the body that was set up which failed to spot our banks antics.... From 2003 to 2011 Davies served as Director of the London School of Economics and Political Science. He stepped down from the position on 3 March 2011 following concern over the institution's decision to accept funding from a foundation controlled by the Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi's son, Saif, and other LSE Libya Links. (wikipedia)
It's a simple decision. Which airport expansion allows London to keep it's global hub status. There are two answers, a third (and eventually fourth) runway at Heathrow or a new hub somewhere north east of London just outside the M25 so planes ascend and descend over the estuary/sea. The latter is the permanent solution but has truly massive funding requirements and will take until 2050 to complete after countless judicial reviews and delays, with Heathrow we can get building by 2018 and complete by 2025-27. Personally I think we should be doing this with one eye on the big project, but politicians think too short term.
Gatwick gives us nothing of value, maybe a few more flights to Magaluf or Faliraki with Ryanair.
"we can get building by 2018"
Can we? Won't there have to be another T5-style multi-million pound multi-year public inquiry, even through a Development Consent Order?
Cameron decided it was better to break his promise to decide before Christmas than break his earlier promise that there would be no third runway.
Well, I suppose he can't expect people to realise that the third runway he ruled out is not the one currently proposed.
He has a report proposing somethings which the environmental commitments/laws say that you are already breaking.... Utter madness.
Again, it isn't the airport that breaks the pollution regulations, it's bloody diesel cars and vans on the M4. London needs to turn into a diesel exclusion zone if we want to improve air quality. The VW scandal makes it pretty clear that the car companies were lying about their emissions, people blamed poor air quality on the airports but it was diesel cars and we need to remove them from London's roads to have any chance of decent air quality in our fair city.
That does make sense. But I note that Osborne made no move to alter the tax position of diesil vehicles. He should have given notice of large future hikes to change people's buying habits. Oh and Osborne attends the Airport Delay Committee.
On an unrelated, health and NHS stories are incredibly bad for any Government. The persistent drip-drip of scandal, mismanagement and people dying creates the impression of an NHS starved of resources by an uncaring Government and it's that which weakens poll numbers over time.
The NHS is always in crisis.
There comes a point where people tune it out because they have heard it all before.
Off topic. We await the Heathrow announcement. A decision to be based on the genius that is Howard Davies. Who ever thought that having London in the flightpath of millions of plane landings each decade and pollution that breaks the law is a good idea, well Howard sets out plans for more of it. Howard has a "wonderful" record. As the Head of the CBI he advocated the adoption of the Euro for the UK..... Howard was from 97 to 2003 the first chairman of the Financial Services Authority, the body that was set up which failed to spot our banks antics.... From 2003 to 2011 Davies served as Director of the London School of Economics and Political Science. He stepped down from the position on 3 March 2011 following concern over the institution's decision to accept funding from a foundation controlled by the Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi's son, Saif, and other LSE Libya Links. (wikipedia)
It's a simple decision. Which airport expansion allows London to keep it's global hub status. There are two answers, a third (and eventually fourth) runway at Heathrow or a new hub somewhere north east of London just outside the M25 so planes ascend and descend over the estuary/sea. The latter is the permanent solution but has truly massive funding requirements and will take until 2050 to complete after countless judicial reviews and delays, with Heathrow we can get building by 2018 and complete by 2025-27. Personally I think we should be doing this with one eye on the big project, but politicians think too short term.
Gatwick gives us nothing of value, maybe a few more flights to Magaluf or Faliraki with Ryanair.
Tend to agree with this. Gatwick is a pain to get to for the 50m plus of us that do not live in London or south of it. That does not change by adding a runway.
The programme Coast is on Yesterday channel right now and in the Edinburgh area. They are on the forth bridge and in this programme they have stated the cables holding up the roadway are suffering serious corrosion. They also make the statement closure of the bridge would result in "economic disaster for the region"
They deal in detail with the corrosion issue and problems with the bridge with those that are there to maintain it. They have placed microphones on the cables to listen for any wires breaking. They have actual recordings of small wires of the main hawser wires snapping and they play the sounds on the programme.
That episode was series No 3 made in 2007. It was stated as a very serious concern at that time and intervention was needed but not a simple operation.
IMV the airports commission did a competent job within their remit. There remains some doubt over whether the remit was designed to get the result, but nonetheless they produced a good report. Even if I don't particularly agree with it, damnit!
(Getting the courage to take on an engineer.) From what I have read, the Commission ruled out the Boris Island proposal and other options before they had fully evaluated the air pollution problems of Heathrow and its expansion. Having just had a read of the "final report" it lists several major pollution problems with Heathrow expansion but with some fairly vague mitigation thoughts....
It also proposes restriction the time slots of flights to improve the sleeping patterns of local folk but without any clear idea of how the time slots fit into a major hub airport connecting with the world. A form of Sunday Trading restrictions fit for the 20th century not the 21st century.
... The biggest problem with it are the restrictions you mention. As the third runway is a sticking plaster rather than a solution, sometime (soon?) after it is completed there will be another capacity crunch. And breaking such restrictions is cheaper and easier than yet another expansion ... I favour BI. But as that's been rejected, and IMV it's better to get the third runway built than have yet another delay whilst we make our minds up.
BI was rejected by Davies group before they completed all the environmental conclusions. Anyone know the timeframe to complete these Heathrow options? Also I wonder what the planes of the 2030s will require? Will we have planes with speeds like Concorde that really do need 24/7 airports to fit in with how the rest of the world lives?
Off topic. We await the Heathrow announcement. A decision to be based on the genius that is Howard Davies. Who ever thought that having London in the flightpath of millions of plane landings each decade and pollution that breaks the law is a good idea, well Howard sets out plans for more of it. Howard has a "wonderful" record. As the Head of the CBI he advocated the adoption of the Euro for the UK..... Howard was from 97 to 2003 the first chairman of the Financial Services Authority, the body that was set up which failed to spot our banks antics.... From 2003 to 2011 Davies served as Director of the London School of Economics and Political Science. He stepped down from the position on 3 March 2011 following concern over the institution's decision to accept funding from a foundation controlled by the Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi's son, Saif, and other LSE Libya Links. (wikipedia)
It's a simple decision. Which airport expansion allows London to keep it's global hub status. There are two answers, a third (and eventually fourth) runway at Heathrow or a new hub somewhere north east of London just outside the M25 so planes ascend and descend over the estuary/sea. The latter is the permanent solution but has truly massive funding requirements and will take until 2050 to complete after countless judicial reviews and delays, with Heathrow we can get building by 2018 and complete by 2025-27. Personally I think we should be doing this with one eye on the big project, but politicians think too short term.
Gatwick gives us nothing of value, maybe a few more flights to Magaluf or Faliraki with Ryanair.
"we can get building by 2018"
Can we? Won't there have to be another T5-style multi-million pound multi-year public inquiry, even through a Development Consent Order?
I think the hardest part will be the fight over the CPOs with local residents, but yeah I think 2018 would be ideal, probably 2020 if we get a 2016 announcement.
Cameron decided it was better to break his promise to decide before Christmas than break his earlier promise that there would be no third runway.
Well, I suppose he can't expect people to realise that the third runway he ruled out is not the one currently proposed.
He has a report proposing somethings which the environmental commitments/laws say that you are already breaking.... Utter madness.
Again, it isn't the airport that breaks the pollution regulations, it's bloody diesel cars and vans on the M4. London needs to turn into a diesel exclusion zone if we want to improve air quality. The VW scandal makes it pretty clear that the car companies were lying about their emissions, people blamed poor air quality on the airports but it was diesel cars and we need to remove them from London's roads to have any chance of decent air quality in our fair city.
Let's just be thankful for all those green aircraft
I have to say that Boris is not my idea of a good Leader but he really has the best idea for our main airport. I note that the Howard group said the target was to increase airport capacity by 2030.... Which is so far away that BI would be achieveable if we only had a Leader with vision.
IMV the airports commission did a competent job within their remit. There remains some doubt over whether the remit was designed to get the result, but nonetheless they produced a good report. Even if I don't particularly agree with it, damnit!
(Getting the courage to take on an engineer.) From what I have read, the Commission ruled out the Boris Island proposal and other options before they had fully evaluated the air pollution problems of Heathrow and its expansion. Having just had a read of the "final report" it lists several major pollution problems with Heathrow expansion but with some fairly vague mitigation thoughts....
It also proposes restriction the time slots of flights to improve the sleeping patterns of local folk but without any clear idea of how the time slots fit into a major hub airport connecting with the world. A form of Sunday Trading restrictions fit for the 20th century not the 21st century.
... The biggest problem with it are the restrictions you mention. As the third runway is a sticking plaster rather than a solution, sometime (soon?) after it is completed there will be another capacity crunch. And breaking such restrictions is cheaper and easier than yet another expansion ... I favour BI. But as that's been rejected, and IMV it's better to get the third runway built than have yet another delay whilst we make our minds up.
BI was rejected by Davies group before they completed all the environmental conclusions. Anyone know the timeframe to complete these Heathrow options? Also I wonder what the planes of the 2030s will require? Will we have planes with speeds like Concorde that really do need 24/7 airports to fit in with how the rest of the world lives?
As I've said about HS2 passim, we can only plan infrastructure based on the technology we have at the moment, not that we theorise we may have in twenty or more years. If only because most of the theories turn out to be bunkum.
From memory (and it's been some time since I read the reasons), the BI rejection at an earlier stage was reasonable given the inquiry's remit. I'd argue with the remit though ...
Cameron decided it was better to break his promise to decide before Christmas than break his earlier promise that there would be no third runway.
Well, I suppose he can't expect people to realise that the third runway he ruled out is not the one currently proposed.
He has a report proposing somethings which the environmental commitments/laws say that you are already breaking.... Utter madness.
Again, it isn't the airport that breaks the pollution regulations, it's bloody diesel cars and vans on the M4. London needs to turn into a diesel exclusion zone if we want to improve air quality. The VW scandal makes it pretty clear that the car companies were lying about their emissions, people blamed poor air quality on the airports but it was diesel cars and we need to remove them from London's roads to have any chance of decent air quality in our fair city.
That does make sense. But I note that Osborne made no move to alter the tax position of diesil vehicles. He should have given notice of large future hikes to change people's buying habits. Oh and Osborne attends the Airport Delay Committee.
Yes, there was nothing in the statement about getting diesel cars and vans off the roads. Hopefully we get something in March because we need to move on this. Maybe introduce tax breaks for PHEVs and increase taxes on diesel cars/vans. The NOx emissions from diesel cars is destroying the air quality in this city, I see it every day, black smoke pouring out of vans and cars, and now the VW scandal and massively higher NOx emissions from a massive number of cars. There are also no guarantees that the scandal is limited to VW, I wouldn't be surprised if all diesel cars have some kind of defeat device for NOx emissions tests because the technology is flawed.
Off topic. We await the Heathrow announcement. A decision to be based on the genius that is Howard Davies. Who ever thought that having London in the flightpath of millions of plane landings each decade and pollution that breaks the law is a good idea, well Howard sets out plans for more of it. Howard has a "wonderful" record. As the Head of the CBI he advocated the adoption of the Euro for the UK..... Howard was from 97 to 2003 the first chairman of the Financial Services Authority, the body that was set up which failed to spot our banks antics.... From 2003 to 2011 Davies served as Director of the London School of Economics and Political Science. He stepped down from the position on 3 March 2011 following concern over the institution's decision to accept funding from a foundation controlled by the Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi's son, Saif, and other LSE Libya Links. (wikipedia)
It's a simple decision. Which airport expansion allows London to keep it's global hub status. There are two answers, a third (and eventually fourth) runway at Heathrow or a new hub somewhere north east of London just outside the M25 so planes ascend and descend over the estuary/sea. The latter is the permanent solution but has truly massive funding requirements and will take until 2050 to complete after countless judicial reviews and delays, with Heathrow we can get building by 2018 and complete by 2025-27. Personally I think we should be doing this with one eye on the big project, but politicians think too short term.
Gatwick gives us nothing of value, maybe a few more flights to Magaluf or Faliraki with Ryanair.
Tend to agree with this. Gatwick is a pain to get to for the 50m plus of us that do not live in London or south of it. That does not change by adding a runway.
I believe the logic would be that Gatwick could take capacity from those who live in London or further south, which would free up space at Heathrow for the rest of the country.
IMV the airports commission did a competent job within their remit. There remains some doubt over whether the remit was designed to get the result, but nonetheless they produced a good report. Even if I don't particularly agree with it, damnit!
(Getting the courage to take on an engineer.) From what I have read, the Commission ruled out the Boris Island proposal and other options before they had fully evaluated the air pollution problems of Heathrow and its expansion. Having just had a read of the "final report" it lists several major pollution problems with Heathrow expansion but with some fairly vague mitigation thoughts....
It also proposes restriction the time slots of flights to improve the sleeping patterns of local folk but without any clear idea of how the time slots fit into a major hub airport connecting with the world. A form of Sunday Trading restrictions fit for the 20th century not the 21st century.
Don't worry about taking me on! It's not my particular regime of engineering (I merely shift 0's and 1's about). Civ eng was very nearly my occupation though, and I'm still fascinated by it.
The report, like all such reports, has to deal with known unknowns. As you say, there are several the report outlines. But that is also true of the alternatives. I'd be more suspicious if it pretended to have factored everything in.
The biggest problem with it are the restrictions you mention. As the third runway is a sticking plaster rather than a solution, sometime (soon?) after it is completed there will be another capacity crunch. And breaking such restrictions is cheaper and easier than yet another expansion ...
I favour BI. But as that's been rejected, and IMV it's better to get the third runway built than have yet another delay whilst we make our minds up.
And yet you rejected my idea for LHR (London Hertsmere) airport solution.
Cameron decided it was better to break his promise to decide before Christmas than break his earlier promise that there would be no third runway.
Well, I suppose he can't expect people to realise that the third runway he ruled out is not the one currently proposed.
He has a report proposing somethings which the environmental commitments/laws say that you are already breaking.... Utter madness.
Again, it isn't the airport that breaks the pollution regulations, it's bloody diesel cars and vans on the M4. London needs to turn into a diesel exclusion zone if we want to improve air quality. The VW scandal makes it pretty clear that the car companies were lying about their emissions, people blamed poor air quality on the airports but it was diesel cars and we need to remove them from London's roads to have any chance of decent air quality in our fair city.
Let's just be thankful for all those green aircraft
Because of the speeds at which planes fly and the amount of air going into the engines the NOx emissions are lower than that of consumer grade diesel engines despite the heavier fuel and the newer engines and jets reduce that by another ~30%.
I have to say that Boris is not my idea of a good Leader but he really has the best idea for our main airport. I note that the Howard group said the target was to increase airport capacity by 2030.... Which is so far away that BI would be achieveable if we only had a Leader with vision.
We would need a leader with vision and resolve, few of those still exist in this era of pygmy politicians who worry more about the 24 hour news cycle than the future of this nation.
IMV the airports commission did a competent job within their remit. There remains some doubt over whether the remit was designed to get the result, but nonetheless they produced a good report. Even if I don't particularly agree with it, damnit!
(Getting the courage to take on an engineer.) From what I have read, the Commission ruled out the Boris Island proposal and other options before they had fully evaluated the air pollution problems of Heathrow and its expansion. Having just had a read of the "final report" it lists several major pollution problems with Heathrow expansion but with some fairly vague mitigation thoughts....
It also proposes restriction the time slots of flights to improve the sleeping patterns of local folk but without any clear idea of how the time slots fit into a major hub airport connecting with the world. A form of Sunday Trading restrictions fit for the 20th century not the 21st century.
Don't worry about taking me on! It's not my particular regime of engineering (I merely shift 0's and 1's about). Civ eng was very nearly my occupation though, and I'm still fascinated by it.
The report, like all such reports, has to deal with known unknowns. As you say, there are several the report outlines. But that is also true of the alternatives. I'd be more suspicious if it pretended to have factored everything in.
The biggest problem with it are the restrictions you mention. As the third runway is a sticking plaster rather than a solution, sometime (soon?) after it is completed there will be another capacity crunch. And breaking such restrictions is cheaper and easier than yet another expansion ...
I favour BI. But as that's been rejected, and IMV it's better to get the third runway built than have yet another delay whilst we make our minds up.
And yet you rejected my idea for LHR (London Hertsmere) airport solution.
Did I? I can't remember.
I'm surprised I wasn't in favour of seeing Borehamwood demolished.
"Tyson - you might want to reflect on that a little. It's one of the most unpleasant things I have ever read on here, and that is saying something."
Ridiculous hyperbole. Get a grip! You used to be one of the most astute of the Labour posters on here but now you seem to confine yourself to calling NickP an "idiot" which is at least as unpleasant as anything tyson has said this evening and having met Nick you could hardly be further from the truth.
PS Don't join the piranhas. That IS one of the most unpleasant things about this site
On an unrelated, health and NHS stories are incredibly bad for any Government. The persistent drip-drip of scandal, mismanagement and people dying creates the impression of an NHS starved of resources by an uncaring Government and it's that which weakens poll numbers over time.
The NHS is always in crisis.
There comes a point where people tune it out because they have heard it all before.
This might be a stupid question, but why does this new runway HAVE to be in the south of England (at Heathrow or Gatwick)? Why not Manchester/Birmingham/Leeds?
I believe the logic would be that Gatwick could take capacity from those who live in London or further south, which would free up space at Heathrow for the rest of the country.
This is a basic misunderstanding of how the modern aviation industry works. Half or more than half of people on long haul flights going through Heathrow will be transit passengers and to open up a new route to Asia there needs to be demand from the east coast of the US and eastern Canada and demand from the Asian destination to go to the US/Canada. A new runway at Gatwick is useless because it doesn't have a whole bunch of pre-existing transatlantic routes like Heathrow to help fill up new routes to Asia and Africa, or even Asian routes to help fill up routes to Central America and the northern parts of Latin America. A hub is a hub because international passengers make up at least half of all people on flights originating from the airport. There is no way Gatwick will help London open up new routes to Asian cities or Latin American cities that aren't currently served, it just doesn't have the transit routes that Heathrow does and there is nowhere near enough domestic demand to open up new routes from British passengers.
I have to say that Boris is not my idea of a good Leader but he really has the best idea for our main airport. I note that the Howard group said the target was to increase airport capacity by 2030.... Which is so far away that BI would be achieveable if we only had a Leader with vision.
We would need a leader with vision and resolve, few of those still exist in this era of pygmy politicians who worry more about the 24 hour news cycle than the future of this nation.
I take slight issue with this. Politicians with 'vision' who want to create a legacy for themselves often fail. Their 'vision' has to be treated very cynically.
Take Scotland. They've been crowing over the reopening of the Borders railway line (with reduced capacity) and the new Queensferry bridge (at a reduced design). Yet whilst these 'visionary' projects have been going on, they've massively stuffed up maintenance on the existing bridge.
Vision has to be backed with reality. Cases can be made for (say) HS2 and/or BI: I want those cases to be based on hard analysis of requirements rather than 'vision'.
This might be a stupid question, but why does this new runway HAVE to be in the south of England (at Heathrow or Gatwick)? Why not Manchester/Birmingham/Leeds?
No one wants to go to Birmingham or Manchester? Manchester airport already has two runways and has just half the passengers of Gatwick, a one runway airport.
I have to say that Boris is not my idea of a good Leader but he really has the best idea for our main airport. I note that the Howard group said the target was to increase airport capacity by 2030.... Which is so far away that BI would be achieveable if we only had a Leader with vision.
We would need a leader with vision and resolve, few of those still exist in this era of pygmy politicians who worry more about the 24 hour news cycle than the future of this nation.
I take slight issue with this. Politicians with 'vision' who want to create a legacy for themselves often fail. Their 'vision' has to be treated very cynically.
Take Scotland. They've been crowing over the reopening of the Borders railway line (with reduced capacity) and the new Queensferry bridge (at a reduced design). Yet whilst these 'visionary' projects have been going on, they've massively stuffed up maintenance on the existing bridge.
Vision has to be backed with reality. Cases can be made for (say) HS2 and/or BI: I want those cases to be based on hard analysis of requirements rather than 'vision'.
I don't disagree with you, I just think there is already a very good case for BI or more generally a new hub somewhere around London while the business case for HS2 is not very convincing.
This might be a stupid question, but why does this new runway HAVE to be in the south of England (at Heathrow or Gatwick)? Why not Manchester/Birmingham/Leeds?
That question (as ventured upon by Max below) is one of the biggest questions in modern aviation: hub-and-spoke versus point-to-point. Boeing and Airbus have staked billions on different answers to the question (787 vs A380).
Hub and spoke is why we need one large f'ing airport, preferably near the main centre of population. Given the geographical size of the UK and demand around the world, it seems a reasonable conclusion to make.
On an unrelated, health and NHS stories are incredibly bad for any Government. The persistent drip-drip of scandal, mismanagement and people dying creates the impression of an NHS starved of resources by an uncaring Government and it's that which weakens poll numbers over time.
The NHS is always in crisis.
There comes a point where people tune it out because they have heard it all before.
You mean La La La I'm not listening.
You are Jeremy Hunt and I claim my priize.
The NHS has been in crisis for at least forty of my fifty five years. The nature of the crisis varies, but it's always a crisis.
NHS employees seem to have trouble understanding that a public service that has literally infinite demand is always going to be in crisis, irrespective of funding levels (which this year amounts to £116 billion, rising to £133 billion in 2020). We're spending about 15.5% of our entire budget on health.
I have to say that Boris is not my idea of a good Leader but he really has the best idea for our main airport. I note that the Howard group said the target was to increase airport capacity by 2030.... Which is so far away that BI would be achieveable if we only had a Leader with vision.
We would need a leader with vision and resolve, few of those still exist in this era of pygmy politicians who worry more about the 24 hour news cycle than the future of this nation.
I take slight issue with this. Politicians with 'vision' who want to create a legacy for themselves often fail. Their 'vision' has to be treated very cynically.
Take Scotland. They've been crowing over the reopening of the Borders railway line (with reduced capacity) and the new Queensferry bridge (at a reduced design). Yet whilst these 'visionary' projects have been going on, they've massively stuffed up maintenance on the existing bridge.
Vision has to be backed with reality. Cases can be made for (say) HS2 and/or BI: I want those cases to be based on hard analysis of requirements rather than 'vision'.
I don't disagree with you, I just think there is already a very good case for BI or more generally a new hub somewhere around London while the business case for HS2 is not very convincing.
IMV the business case for HS2 is far stronger than BI in the short and medium term. In the long term, BI catches up as we'll be expanding Heathrow again ...
As I've always pointed out when betting on US presidential nominees, you need to look at the primary calendar. This makes clear that Ted Cruz is the value bet.
It is common knowledge the Iowa caucuses are first. Iowa is an evangelical dominated state, giving much strength to those who have courted the religious right. Trump's multiple marriages and multiple positions on abortion here do not help him. Cruz and Rubio both have serious bona fides to evangelicals, but the religious establishment backs Cruz, as demonstrated by the backing of Vander Plaats, who is one of the most influential politicians in the US that no-one has heard of. The fact these are caucuses and emphasise organisation ability makes the backing of such local players and their networks even more important.
Next up is New Hampshire, which will likely come down to a competition between Trump and Rubio, and Trump has all the momentum right now. What will be crucial is how much the moderate/establishment vote can consolidate around Rubio following Iowa. If he clearly performs along way ahead of Bush, and Bush bows out, Rubio could sneak through here. If it's more of a mush, and/or Bush is still fighting hard, Trump will win. Trump will also win if events favour him.
Third is South Carolina, which will likely be Cruz territory. Of all the candidates, he comes across the most as Southern and knows how to give the right cultural signals. He also, once again, has the evangelical leadership backing. However, it is a state where the party machine has a very tight grip (it nominated McCain in 2008, despite the state's conservatism), so if the establishment gets its act together, Rubio could still win here.
Then Nevada, which is the most right wing Republican electorate in the nation, albeit less religious. Rubio will have no chance here, so it will come down to whether the Tea Party brigade prefer Cruz's consistent conservatism or Trump's anti-immigration rhetoric. The latter can't be dismissed as it's one of the states most affected by Hispanic illegal immigration.
Then we have Super Tuesday, which has become the SEC primary. Very rich pickings for a right-wing Southern candidate here: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas. There are a few more moderate states, but these have the vast majority of the delegates, and Cruz should have a fantastic night.
At this point, if Rubio hasn't won either New Hampshire or South Carolina, it's all over. It will be a Trump versus Cruz battle, and the party will reluctantly back Cruz as the lesser of two evils, given Trump will destroy them downticket. If Rubio has won just South Carolina, he will likely struggle on in a three way battle, with Cruz having the major advantage. If Rubio has won New Hampshire, Trump will be out of there, and it will likely go to the wire.
Comments
I do agree that the Soft Left ought to be our sweet spot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHJVJ2WCxCA
and going from the sublime to the ridiculous, Harrison Ford:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35059128
Peter Whittle @prwhittle · 1h1 hour ago
Islamic society president resigns after anti-gay tweets are found http://dailym.ai/1QgQVPf via @MailOnline
His promotion of fear furthers the ISIS agenda.
https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/675019675390992384
Any chance of a Christmas reprieve for JEO?
Probably but it also leaves his GOP opponents floundering. Even the normally eloquent Carly Fiorina, who tries to use every sentence to attack the President, was left in limbo between her desire to look like an attack-dog Republican and her intent to distance herself from Trump.
If, somehow, the GOP nomination is denied, will Trump, like Perot before him, try to run as a third party spoiler ? I suppose, for the GOP, it becomes a question of the worse nightmare - Trump as the candidate or Trump as not the candidate ?
On an unrelated, health and NHS stories are incredibly bad for any Government. The persistent drip-drip of scandal, mismanagement and people dying creates the impression of an NHS starved of resources by an uncaring Government and it's that which weakens poll numbers over time.
As with so much else, the facts take second place to the story and so we come back to Trump.
You have to accept that some people are just scumbags. Hard to understand why Corbyn would choose to show support for convicted criminals like that. Can't imagine the victims are too impressed.
We await the Heathrow announcement. A decision to be based on the genius that is Howard Davies. Who ever thought that having London in the flightpath of millions of plane landings each decade and pollution that breaks the law is a good idea, well Howard sets out plans for more of it. Howard has a "wonderful" record.
As the Head of the CBI he advocated the adoption of the Euro for the UK.....
Howard was from 97 to 2003 the first chairman of the Financial Services Authority, the body that was set up which failed to spot our banks antics....
From 2003 to 2011 Davies served as Director of the London School of Economics and Political Science. He stepped down from the position on 3 March 2011 following concern over the institution's decision to accept funding from a foundation controlled by the Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi's son, Saif, and other LSE Libya Links. (wikipedia)
"He was a nice man by all accounts, but what he built at the FSA turned out to be about as much use as a chocolate teapot when the banking sector inevitably got out of control."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100179519/howard-davies-this-government-must-have-a-death-wish/
Even if I don't particularly agree with it, damnit!
From what I have read, the Commission ruled out the Boris Island proposal and other options before they had fully evaluated the air pollution problems of Heathrow and its expansion. Having just had a read of the "final report" it lists several major pollution problems with Heathrow expansion but with some fairly vague mitigation thoughts....
It also proposes restriction the time slots of flights to improve the sleeping patterns of local folk but without any clear idea of how the time slots fit into a major hub airport connecting with the world. A form of Sunday Trading restrictions fit for the 20th century not the 21st century.
They deal in detail with the corrosion issue and problems with the bridge with those that are there to maintain it. They have placed microphones on the cables to listen for any wires breaking. They have actual recordings of small wires of the main hawser wires snapping and they play the sounds on the programme.
That episode was series No 3 made in 2007. It was stated as a very serious concern at that time and intervention was needed but not a simple operation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007rx02
The programme ran between 2005 to present date with several series.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coast_(TV_series)
They say other bridges may have a similar issue and mention the Severn bridge as one example.
Gatwick gives us nothing of value, maybe a few more flights to Magaluf or Faliraki with Ryanair.
The report, like all such reports, has to deal with known unknowns. As you say, there are several the report outlines. But that is also true of the alternatives. I'd be more suspicious if it pretended to have factored everything in.
The biggest problem with it are the restrictions you mention. As the third runway is a sticking plaster rather than a solution, sometime (soon?) after it is completed there will be another capacity crunch. And breaking such restrictions is cheaper and easier than yet another expansion ...
I favour BI. But as that's been rejected, and IMV it's better to get the third runway built than have yet another delay whilst we make our minds up.
'Cameron decided it was better to break his promise to decide before Christmas than break his earlier promise that there would be no third runway.'
He's made a decision to delay the decision.
Gatwick must be favorite now.
Can we? Won't there have to be another T5-style multi-million pound multi-year public inquiry, even through a Development Consent Order?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/298160.stm
There comes a point where people tune it out because they have heard it all before.
'Goldsmiths must be a right laugh to be a student at'
Sounds like a real shithole.
http://www.newcivilengineer.com/news/structures/dehumidifiers-slow-forth-road-bridge-cable-corrosion/8643390.article
Note the last sentence is of particular note given the recent problems.
Anyone know the timeframe to complete these Heathrow options?
Also I wonder what the planes of the 2030s will require? Will we have planes with speeds like Concorde that really do need 24/7 airports to fit in with how the rest of the world lives?
'If it is the London might as well put up a "closed for business" sign. I don't think it will be though'
Why ? we have managed perfectly well for years with long haul flights out of both Heathrow & Gatwick.
The only issue is the capacity.
From memory (and it's been some time since I read the reasons), the BI rejection at an earlier stage was reasonable given the inquiry's remit. I'd argue with the remit though ...
And here it is:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/349518/decision-and-summary.pdf
I'm surprised I wasn't in favour of seeing Borehamwood demolished.
"Tyson - you might want to reflect on that a little. It's one of the most unpleasant things I have ever read on here, and that is saying something."
Ridiculous hyperbole. Get a grip! You used to be one of the most astute of the Labour posters on here but now you seem to confine yourself to calling NickP an "idiot" which is at least as unpleasant as anything tyson has said this evening and having met Nick you could hardly be further from the truth.
PS Don't join the piranhas. That IS one of the most unpleasant things about this site
You are Jeremy Hunt and I claim my priize.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_the_Parliament
Take Scotland. They've been crowing over the reopening of the Borders railway line (with reduced capacity) and the new Queensferry bridge (at a reduced design). Yet whilst these 'visionary' projects have been going on, they've massively stuffed up maintenance on the existing bridge.
Vision has to be backed with reality. Cases can be made for (say) HS2 and/or BI: I want those cases to be based on hard analysis of requirements rather than 'vision'.
New Thread New Thread
http://blogs.cornell.edu/info2040/2011/09/14/hub-and-spoke-vs-point-to-point-transport-networks/
Hub and spoke is why we need one large f'ing airport, preferably near the main centre of population. Given the geographical size of the UK and demand around the world, it seems a reasonable conclusion to make.
NHS employees seem to have trouble understanding that a public service that has literally infinite demand is always going to be in crisis, irrespective of funding levels (which this year amounts to £116 billion, rising to £133 billion in 2020). We're spending about 15.5% of our entire budget on health.
It is common knowledge the Iowa caucuses are first. Iowa is an evangelical dominated state, giving much strength to those who have courted the religious right. Trump's multiple marriages and multiple positions on abortion here do not help him. Cruz and Rubio both have serious bona fides to evangelicals, but the religious establishment backs Cruz, as demonstrated by the backing of Vander Plaats, who is one of the most influential politicians in the US that no-one has heard of. The fact these are caucuses and emphasise organisation ability makes the backing of such local players and their networks even more important.
Next up is New Hampshire, which will likely come down to a competition between Trump and Rubio, and Trump has all the momentum right now. What will be crucial is how much the moderate/establishment vote can consolidate around Rubio following Iowa. If he clearly performs along way ahead of Bush, and Bush bows out, Rubio could sneak through here. If it's more of a mush, and/or Bush is still fighting hard, Trump will win. Trump will also win if events favour him.
Third is South Carolina, which will likely be Cruz territory. Of all the candidates, he comes across the most as Southern and knows how to give the right cultural signals. He also, once again, has the evangelical leadership backing. However, it is a state where the party machine has a very tight grip (it nominated McCain in 2008, despite the state's conservatism), so if the establishment gets its act together, Rubio could still win here.
Then Nevada, which is the most right wing Republican electorate in the nation, albeit less religious. Rubio will have no chance here, so it will come down to whether the Tea Party brigade prefer Cruz's consistent conservatism or Trump's anti-immigration rhetoric. The latter can't be dismissed as it's one of the states most affected by Hispanic illegal immigration.
Then we have Super Tuesday, which has become the SEC primary. Very rich pickings for a right-wing Southern candidate here: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas. There are a few more moderate states, but these have the vast majority of the delegates, and Cruz should have a fantastic night.
At this point, if Rubio hasn't won either New Hampshire or South Carolina, it's all over. It will be a Trump versus Cruz battle, and the party will reluctantly back Cruz as the lesser of two evils, given Trump will destroy them downticket. If Rubio has won just South Carolina, he will likely struggle on in a three way battle, with Cruz having the major advantage. If Rubio has won New Hampshire, Trump will be out of there, and it will likely go to the wire.