Don't think so. I live in west London, and I see the planes all the time (though they're quite high up, so I don't hear them). The only polling on the issue that I can recall seeing had opinion more or less evenly divided. As you say there are lots of people who depend on Heathrow for employment, and many more who would benefit (directly and indirectly) from the opportunities created by expansion.
Basically, I think there is a very vocal opposition (a strange alliance of eco-warriors joined by suburbanites who want to enjoy a quite summer evening G+T on their beautifully-manicured lawns), with the rest of London not that fussed either way, or generally in favour.
Agreed. Also all neighbouring constituencies will not necessarily be opposed. I bet Feltham and Southall residents who work in Heathrow will be quite happy with the expansion. It is the airport which provides their and their children's bread.
I am, as such, puzzled why McDonnell is opposed.
McDonnell is puzzling: something to do with his politics generally perhaps? However I think he's more dangerous than Comrade J because he's sometimes hard to suss.
Although Zac says he didn't want teh answer to be kicked past the Mayoral election. he wanted a 'no' now.
Politically convenient for the government, not for Zac. (Although he gets to maintain his principled opposition and doesn't have to keep his promise to resign)
And it is why Zac has to win Mayoralty. If he doesn't, the Tory fall out in London if Dave says yes to 3rd runway will damage a bit when Zac leaves the party.
Why should Zac leave the party ? He will resign his seat and contest the ensuing by-election. After all, he will be keeping his promise.
David Davies resigned his seat and fought and, like you say, stayed in the party. But he was buggered after that. If Zac resigns because of 3rd runway and stands and wins what is in it for him? And why would central party allow him to stand as an official candidate in the first place?
I said yesterday I expect Khan to win, which isn't the worst result for the Tories as
1) It spares a tricky by election in Richmond Park, which despite its mahoosive majority, I still place faith in the Lib Dem by election ops
2) Keeps Jez in place
3) Gives us a fascinating by election in Tooting, especially if Ken Livingstone is the Labour candidate.
Tooting is quite simple, I think. Reasonable Lab candidate and it's a Lab hold. Livingstone for Lab and it's a sure-fire Tory gain.
Indeed, Governments seldom win seats from the Opposition, so it should be a Labour hold but Ken adds a new dynamic, plus the Tories seem quite confident that if not next year, they might take it in 2020.
Sooner or later, the Conservatives will make it a hat-trick in Wandsworth.
Something the Conservatives have been saying since 1987.
The irony is that the Conservatives did win Tooting (when it was called Wandsworth Central) in 1955 and 1959.
Have you been to Tooting lately ? You see it going Conservative ?
It's on the up. If Crossrail 2 get the go ahead, regeneration will occur. And Tories only lost it by 3,000 votes. Also boundary changes may get rid of strongest Labour wards and give it a couple of safer Tory wards towards Balham
Is that the reason why we are going to have 600 seats ? It is called Gerrymandering.
No it ain't unless improving fairness equates to gerrymandering. Perhaps since you capitalised it, I'm misreading your post?
In Bangladesh houses are built on raised earth foundations, and in parts of SE Asia on stilts. Very sensible people these foreign johnnies.
When 50% of the land is flooded, don't be surprised people work it out. Also, channels are dug around the houses to raise the level with the earth dug up.
You should read up on SuDS: it's a way of making new developments deal with rainfall better. Things like separating drainage and rainwater run-off; drainage/storage channels, porous driveways and roads. All designed to reduce the amount of water getting into the wastewater system, and delaying rain from reaching watercourses outside the settlement.
sadly, it is slightly costly in terms of land and building. But it seems like it helps some of the problem of localised flooding at least. It won't help much if you build on a floodplain though ...
I said yesterday I expect Khan to win, which isn't the worst result for the Tories as
1) It spares a tricky by election in Richmond Park, which despite its mahoosive majority, I still place faith in the Lib Dem by election ops
2) Keeps Jez in place
3) Gives us a fascinating by election in Tooting, especially if Ken Livingstone is the Labour candidate.
Tooting is quite simple, I think. Reasonable Lab candidate and it's a Lab hold. Livingstone for Lab and it's a sure-fire Tory gain.
Indeed, Governments seldom win seats from the Opposition, so it should be a Labour hold but Ken adds a new dynamic, plus the Tories seem quite confident that if not next year, they might take it in 2020.
Sooner or later, the Conservatives will make it a hat-trick in Wandsworth.
Something the Conservatives have been saying since 1987.
The irony is that the Conservatives did win Tooting (when it was called Wandsworth Central) in 1955 and 1959.
Have you been to Tooting lately ? You see it going Conservative ?
It's on the up. If Crossrail 2 get the go ahead, regeneration will occur. And Tories only lost it by 3,000 votes. Also boundary changes may get rid of strongest Labour wards and give it a couple of safer Tory wards towards Balham
Is that the reason why we are going to have 600 seats ? It is called Gerrymandering.
But a little thinking could have solved a lot of the damage even then. Planning permission would only be given if the "living" part was from the "first floor" [ maybe on pillars ]. It may look ghastly but we would not have seen all those carpets thrown out. The "ground floor" could be used as a "basement" even though above ground, garage etc.
Or floating houses, as seen on a recent Grand Designs (and very popular in the low countries). But all these are *very* expensive. Perhaps it's best to floodproof houses as much as possible instead.
I have seen on some modern estates a selection of "town house" style houses where the garage is the ground floor and then living is on floors 2/3/4 on built directly on top
It would seem very sensible to be looking into a lot more of these ideas when new builds in areas with high probabilities of flooding are under planning proposals.
Indeed; there are some like that in my village. They're not necessarily as popular, mainly being to the benefit of the builder (smaller footprint means more houses per acre). Also, as we are learning, a townhouse is not ideal to bring up a baby. Too many stairs.
As I've said many times passim, we're too wedded both to home ownership, and 'traditional' style housing. The last factor not helped by the disasters in high-rise during the 1960s and 1970s.
In Bangladesh houses are built on raised earth foundations, and in parts of SE Asia on stilts. Very sensible people these foreign johnnies.
When 50% of the land is flooded, don't be surprised people work it out. Also, channels are dug around the houses to raise the level with the earth dug up.
You should read up on SuDS: it's a way of making new developments deal with rainfall better. Things like separating drainage and rainwater run-off; drainage/storage channels, porous driveways and roads. All designed to reduce the amount of water getting into the wastewater system, and delaying rain from reaching watercourses outside the settlement.
sadly, it is slightly costly in terms of land and building. But it seems like it helps some of the problem of localised flooding at least. It won't help much if you build on a floodplain though ...
SUDS to anyone in the haulage industry generally means (Safer Urban Driving Scheme) A scheme to get lorry drivers to better understand a cyclist's point of view. It ends up with lots of fat lorry drivers riding pushbikes.
But a little thinking could have solved a lot of the damage even then. Planning permission would only be given if the "living" part was from the "first floor" [ maybe on pillars ]. It may look ghastly but we would not have seen all those carpets thrown out. The "ground floor" could be used as a "basement" even though above ground, garage etc.
Or floating houses, as seen on a recent Grand Designs (and very popular in the low countries). But all these are *very* expensive. Perhaps it's best to floodproof houses as much as possible instead.
I am not an architect but a few "pillars" would not be that expensive. £5k, £10k - I don't know. But the space is not wasted. A concrete floor [ garage ]. recreational rooms etc. can be made out of them.
Insurers presumably have a detailed map which they share about where flooding has occurred, and more particularly where they've paid out - is this map available generally?
Certainly, all the canvassing I do agree with that. No to 3rd doesn't work in Tooting for example and not much interest in Battersea.
Agreed. The areas I know best politically are Islington (couldn't care less where they build it) and Ealing (mildly in favour).
Incidentally, flew back to Gatwick from the US this morning to find that the entire link to London was inoperative due to engineering works - we had to take a train meandering over the countryside, 90 minutes' travel in all. Didn't persuade me that they are ready for another runway.
Good point. They are upgrading line though. From 2018 trains from London Bridge to Gatwick in 28 minutes! But that is 2 years time. No help to you at the moment.
A hub airport at Gatwick is great for South London southwards but a definite no no for North London northwards. I think that makes Gatwick a doh!
I said yesterday I expect Khan to win, which isn't the worst result for the Tories as
1) It spares a tricky by election in Richmond Park, which despite its mahoosive majority, I still place faith in the Lib Dem by election ops
2) Keeps Jez in place
3) Gives us a fascinating by election in Tooting, especially if Ken Livingstone is the Labour candidate.
Tooting is quite simple, I think. Reasonable Lab candidate and it's a Lab hold. Livingstone for Lab and it's a sure-fire Tory gain.
Indeed, Governments seldom win seats from the Opposition, so it should be a Labour hold but Ken adds a new dynamic, plus the Tories seem quite confident that if not next year, they might take it in 2020.
Sooner or later, the Conservatives will make it a hat-trick in Wandsworth.
Something the Conservatives have been saying since 1987.
The irony is that the Conservatives did win Tooting (when it was called Wandsworth Central) in 1955 and 1959.
Have you been to Tooting lately ? You see it going Conservative ?
It's on the up. If Crossrail 2 get the go ahead, regeneration will occur. And Tories only lost it by 3,000 votes. Also boundary changes may get rid of strongest Labour wards and give it a couple of safer Tory wards towards Balham
Dixie - You are correct that in the abandoned boundary review Balham and Tooting would have been Con (although the Battersea and Vauxhall seat would have been Lab). I don't think you can assume the last review will be anything like the last one in London due to high population churn and the tidying up of the register.
Currently Battersea with 76k and Tooting with 77k can be pretty much left alone. Putney with only 64k needs to expand (probably taking Barnes from Richmond) as the Richmond and Kingston seats all have slightly too many electors
Don't think so. I live in west London, and I see the planes all the time (though they're quite high up, so I don't hear them). The only polling on the issue that I can recall seeing had opinion more or less evenly divided. As you say there are lots of people who depend on Heathrow for employment, and many more who would benefit (directly and indirectly) from the opportunities created by expansion.
Basically, I think there is a very vocal opposition (a strange alliance of eco-warriors joined by suburbanites who want to enjoy a quite summer evening G+T on their beautifully-manicured lawns), with the rest of London not that fussed either way, or generally in favour.
Agreed. Also all neighbouring constituencies will not necessarily be opposed. I bet Feltham and Southall residents who work in Heathrow will be quite happy with the expansion. It is the airport which provides their and their children's bread.
I am, as such, puzzled why McDonnell is opposed.
It's business. It's technology. It's capitalism. We'll have none of that nonsense round 'ere, young ReggiCide Surbiton. 'Tis evil, I tell you, 'baint be fit for man nor beast. BEWARE THE MOON!
It appears I was wrong about disabled access on raised houses. The principal storey becomes the first floor if the floor with access (i.e. door) is not habitable. I think ...
No one said equalisation was gerrymandering. Reducing 650 seats to 600 effectively makes sure that virtually every single seat is touched. Since Labour seats are urban and hence, more compact, they will be hit harder precisely by moving a ward or too here and there.
Suits Corbyn and Momentum fine !
Number of seats has nothing to do with gerrymandering. Which is illegal - if you have evidence then I am sure the plod will be interested. If not, then how about you lay off the unsubstantiated accusations?
This is still Christmas time ! We have had 630 - 650 seats for almost a hundred years perhaps more. Why this sudden desire for 600 seats apart from changing every constituency boundary ?
We could have had equalisation with 650 seats too !
A manifesto pledge. Reducing the cost of Parliament by 10%. And it's been policy for more than 5 years (and IIRC Parliament has already backed it). So not really a hurry at all. But I guess you are ok using 2001 census data for the boundaries if it favours your side.
One has to feel sorry about the fate of many Cumbrians being visited by the deluge virtually every week.
For some of the most vulnerable pockets, the question has to be asked: how much are we willing to spend to protect some of these villages. The Dutch faced the same problem. Some people were moved because the cost of dykes were huge compared to the number of people protected. I know no one is saying this at this time but voices will be heard once it all subsides.
There are vague plans to protect Nottingham by allowing land much further upstream to flood; basically creating a series of floodable areas to take excess water.
Which seems fine, until you live in one of those villages ...
I haven't heard much about that scheme for a couple of years.
But in the scheme of things that, at a macro level, is correct ! What is not correct is we have a new "village" of 500 in a flood plain and to protect that a village of a thousand is put in harm's way.
I guess houses were built on flood plains because that is where there was least planning objections. Sometimes, you cannot blame the politicians.
We need 200,000 houses built every year. All parties agree [ maybe, not UKIP ]. Where do you build them without lawyers getting seriously rich ?
The problem in this case being that, AIUI, there has been much more development in 'floodable' areas in Nottingham since the 1947 floods than in the 'old' villages further upstream.
Houses were often built on floodplains for many reasons. One of the major is that our forebears were not stupid. They knew the land that normally flooded, and that which did not. They therefore built on the land that generally did not flood. (*) (As an example, see the overhead photos from ?Gloucester/Cirencester? after the floods a few years back, where the cathedral and old town was left dry). But as demand for housing in those towns grew, the flatter, low-level areas became much more valuable, even if they did have downsides that were 'forgotten'.
Also, bad practice means that even new housing developments on high, unfloodable ground adds to the problem. Hence the localised flooding we see, which are little to do with watercourses. Thank goodness for SuDS!
(*) A notable exception to this is where there were other reasons for building near the water, e.g. wharves and warehouses, along with the attendant housing and peripheries.
You're thinking of Tewkesbury Cathedral and its surrounding houses - which made your point very well.
I said yesterday I expect Khan to win, which isn't the worst result for the Tories as
1) It spares a tricky by election in Richmond Park, which despite its mahoosive majority, I still place faith in the Lib Dem by election ops
2) Keeps Jez in place
3) Gives us a fascinating by election in Tooting, especially if Ken Livingstone is the Labour candidate.
Tooting is quite simple, I think. Reasonable Lab candidate and it's a Lab hold. Livingstone for Lab and it's a sure-fire Tory gain.
Indeed, Governments seldom win seats from the Opposition, so it should be a Labour hold but Ken adds a new dynamic, plus the Tories seem quite confident that if not next year, they might take it in 2020.
Sooner or later, the Conservatives will make it a hat-trick in Wandsworth.
Something the Conservatives have been saying since 1987.
The irony is that the Conservatives did win Tooting (when it was called Wandsworth Central) in 1955 and 1959.
Have you been to Tooting lately ? You see it going Conservative ?
It's on the up. If Crossrail 2 get the go ahead, regeneration will occur. And Tories only lost it by 3,000 votes. Also boundary changes may get rid of strongest Labour wards and give it a couple of safer Tory wards towards Balham
Crossrail 2's estimated completion date of 2030 is insane. I welcome the new rail route but any form of progress seems to be taking forever.
Although Zac says he didn't want teh answer to be kicked past the Mayoral election. he wanted a 'no' now.
Politically convenient for the government, not for Zac. (Although he gets to maintain his principled opposition and doesn't have to keep his promise to resign)
And it is why Zac has to win Mayoralty. If he doesn't, the Tory fall out in London if Dave says yes to 3rd runway will damage a bit when Zac leaves the party.
Why should Zac leave the party ? He will resign his seat and contest the ensuing by-election. After all, he will be keeping his promise.
Labour wins the mayoralty, Tories take Tooting and Lib Dems win Richmond Park.
One has to feel sorry about the fate of many Cumbrians being visited by the deluge virtually every week.
For some of the most vulnerable pockets, the question has to be asked: how much are we willing to spend to protect some of these villages. The Dutch faced the same problem. Some people were moved because the cost of dykes were huge compared to the number of people protected. I know no one is saying this at this time but voices will be heard once it all subsides.
The uplands need to be water sinks rather than being drained.
No one said equalisation was gerrymandering. Reducing 650 seats to 600 effectively makes sure that virtually every single seat is touched. Since Labour seats are urban and hence, more compact, they will be hit harder precisely by moving a ward or too here and there.
Suits Corbyn and Momentum fine !
Number of seats has nothing to do with gerrymandering. Which is illegal - if you have evidence then I am sure the plod will be interested. If not, then how about you lay off the unsubstantiated accusations?
This is still Christmas time ! We have had 630 - 650 seats for almost a hundred years perhaps more. Why this sudden desire for 600 seats apart from changing every constituency boundary ?
We could have had equalisation with 650 seats too !
A manifesto pledge. Reducing the cost of Parliament by 10%. And it's been policy for more than 5 years (and IIRC Parliament has already backed it). So not really a hurry at all. But I guess you are ok using 2001 census data for the boundaries if it favours your side.
Reduce the elected members? But maintaining 900 plus unelected members? Not very democratic!
No one said equalisation was gerrymandering. Reducing 650 seats to 600 effectively makes sure that virtually every single seat is touched. Since Labour seats are urban and hence, more compact, they will be hit harder precisely by moving a ward or too here and there.
Suits Corbyn and Momentum fine !
Number of seats has nothing to do with gerrymandering. Which is illegal - if you have evidence then I am sure the plod will be interested. If not, then how about you lay off the unsubstantiated accusations?
This is still Christmas time ! We have had 630 - 650 seats for almost a hundred years perhaps more. Why this sudden desire for 600 seats apart from changing every constituency boundary ?
We could have had equalisation with 650 seats too !
A manifesto pledge. Reducing the cost of Parliament by 10%. And it's been policy for more than 5 years (and IIRC Parliament has already backed it). So not really a hurry at all. But I guess you are ok using 2001 census data for the boundaries if it favours your side.
Reduce the elected members? But maintaining 900 plus unelected members? Not very democratic!
One has to feel sorry about the fate of many Cumbrians being visited by the deluge virtually every week.
For some of the most vulnerable pockets, the question has to be asked: how much are we willing to spend to protect some of these villages. The Dutch faced the same problem. Some people were moved because the cost of dykes were huge compared to the number of people protected. I know no one is saying this at this time but voices will be heard once it all subsides.
I think that in the case of some villages - and I am not talking specifics here just generalisations - we should be looking at abandoning new developments and removing the flood defences which have then caused flooding elsewhere in more established villages which had not previously flooded but do so now because of the displacement caused by the new defences.
This is not necessarily related specifically to Cumbria - although as I said a day or so ago there are parts of Keswick which have flooded since time immemorial and if people live in those houses they have to accept a certain lifestyle. But certainly in the case of York or the Trent Valley there are new defences in place to protect large modern developments which are now causing flooding in areas which never previously flooded. The right thing to do would be to abandon those developments, not villages which have survived perfectly well for hundreds of years.
Many developments are not like that: the villages which have survived perfectly well for hundreds of years' will have expanded as well, often onto floodplains.
As for: "... flooding in areas which never previously flooded.". Citation, please.
Parts of York right now. Villages in the Trent Valley back in 2000 which were flooded for the first time in history because of the building - both housing estates and industrial estates on the floodplains around Carlton.
There are cases like this all over the place. Those are two I am immediately aware of without even looking them up.
And these areas had 'never previously flooded' ?
(I'm teaching a grandmother to suck eggs, but it's important to differentiate between localised flooding and riverine flooding.
Yes there are areas flooding now which have never flooded before. This was also what happened in November 2000 directly as a result of the new flood defences around Nottingham.
No one said equalisation was gerrymandering. Reducing 650 seats to 600 effectively makes sure that virtually every single seat is touched. Since Labour seats are urban and hence, more compact, they will be hit harder precisely by moving a ward or too here and there.
Suits Corbyn and Momentum fine !
Number of seats has nothing to do with gerrymandering. Which is illegal - if you have evidence then I am sure the plod will be interested. If not, then how about you lay off the unsubstantiated accusations?
This is still Christmas time ! We have had 630 - 650 seats for almost a hundred years perhaps more. Why this sudden desire for 600 seats apart from changing every constituency boundary ?
We could have had equalisation with 650 seats too !
A manifesto pledge. Reducing the cost of Parliament by 10%. And it's been policy for more than 5 years (and IIRC Parliament has already backed it). So not really a hurry at all. But I guess you are ok using 2001 census data for the boundaries if it favours your side.
Reduce the elected members? But maintaining 900 plus unelected members? Not very democratic!
The elected house has primacy over the unelected. That sounds democratic to me.
TBH, I am more interested in his new product. Not sure it is as safe as he claims, will be interesting to see how far people get hacking it, but it is a neat idea.
No one said equalisation was gerrymandering. Reducing 650 seats to 600 effectively makes sure that virtually every single seat is touched. Since Labour seats are urban and hence, more compact, they will be hit harder precisely by moving a ward or too here and there.
Suits Corbyn and Momentum fine !
Number of seats has nothing to do with gerrymandering. Which is illegal - if you have evidence then I am sure the plod will be interested. If not, then how about you lay off the unsubstantiated accusations?
This is still Christmas time ! We have had 630 - 650 seats for almost a hundred years perhaps more. Why this sudden desire for 600 seats apart from changing every constituency boundary ?
We could have had equalisation with 650 seats too !
A manifesto pledge. Reducing the cost of Parliament by 10%. And it's been policy for more than 5 years (and IIRC Parliament has already backed it). So not really a hurry at all. But I guess you are ok using 2001 census data for the boundaries if it favours your side.
Reduce the elected members? But maintaining 900 plus unelected members? Not very democratic!
If it were possible to devise a system for implementing democracy, democracy would not be an option
No one said equalisation was gerrymandering. Reducing 650 seats to 600 effectively makes sure that virtually every single seat is touched. Since Labour seats are urban and hence, more compact, they will be hit harder precisely by moving a ward or too here and there.
Suits Corbyn and Momentum fine !
Number of seats has nothing to do with gerrymandering. Which is illegal - if you have evidence then I am sure the plod will be interested. If not, then how about you lay off the unsubstantiated accusations?
This is still Christmas time ! We have had 630 - 650 seats for almost a hundred years perhaps more. Why this sudden desire for 600 seats apart from changing every constituency boundary ?
We could have had equalisation with 650 seats too !
A manifesto pledge. Reducing the cost of Parliament by 10%. And it's been policy for more than 5 years (and IIRC Parliament has already backed it). So not really a hurry at all. But I guess you are ok using 2001 census data for the boundaries if it favours your side.
Reduce the elected members? But maintaining 900 plus unelected members? Not very democratic!
The elected house has primacy over the unelected. That sounds democratic to me.
What's the reason for housing so many unelected members too? Don't they incur a cost?
Insurers presumably have a detailed map which they share about where flooding has occurred, and more particularly where they've paid out - is this map available generally?
Insurers probably don't care anymore. We are all paying a levy on our house insurance which is then paid into a special fund, supplemented by Government money, which takes responsibility for insurance of properties in flood risk areas off the insurers' books. The problem with this is that it removes one of the main market drivers against building on flood plains.
Comments
David Davies resigned his seat and fought and, like you say, stayed in the party. But he was buggered after that. If Zac resigns because of 3rd runway and stands and wins what is in it for him? And why would central party allow him to stand as an official candidate in the first place?
http://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/engineeringGeology/urbanGeoscience/SUDS/home.html
http://www.anglianwater.co.uk/_assets/media/SUDS_LEAFLET_-_AW162.pdf
sadly, it is slightly costly in terms of land and building. But it seems like it helps some of the problem of localised flooding at least. It won't help much if you build on a floodplain though ...
Here's a case study of SuDS from my own village. It's one of several.
http://www.susdrain.org/case-studies/case_studies/lamb_drove_residential_suds_scheme_cambourne.html
As I've said many times passim, we're too wedded both to home ownership, and 'traditional' style housing. The last factor not helped by the disasters in high-rise during the 1960s and 1970s.
A scheme to get lorry drivers to better understand a cyclist's point of view.
It ends up with lots of fat lorry drivers riding pushbikes.
Currently Battersea with 76k and Tooting with 77k can be pretty much left alone. Putney with only 64k needs to expand (probably taking Barnes from Richmond) as the Richmond and Kingston seats all have slightly too many electors
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF_AD_M1_2015.pdf
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=housing+in+Bangladesh&hl=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjR-5ritITKAhUBGRQKHQf2BAgQsAQILw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMz6GV3b1ys
Labour wins the mayoralty, Tories take Tooting and Lib Dems win Richmond Park.
Everyone happy.
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/england/engine/records/index.html?id=1;id=25;type=headtohead
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35197982
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/656463.html
and in 2011
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/433585.html
new thread