Now it seems that in the face of the intense smear campaign run by supporters of Theresa May, she concluded that the price of winning would be too high.
We can only really speculate on Andrea's reasons for dropping out.
Whether or not May is the person for the job, the way the establishment candidate is being crowned should make anyone who cares about living in a democracy very uneasy.
Yep, I'm prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt but I'm shaking my head at those reacting like their team has signed Messi.
The Establishment won because the challenger was a delusional lightweight.
The better candidate won because the challenger was a "delusional lightweight".
Of course, May was clearly the only sane choice. But less than three weeks after a vote that was supposed to have rocked the Establishment to its core it is very much in charge with minimal damage done. Not that it was ever going to be otherwise.
"For all its acrimony, the open debate between the wings of the party shows that the party wants to keep the door open in future for Conservative supporters of either camp. In addition, if Cameron’s successor is a prominent Leave supporter, many Conservative defectors to UKIP in 2015 and since could return in significant numbers. Do not bet against a general election before 2020 under a new Conservative leader."
Cameron's successor is not a prominent Leave supporter, but a PM who becomes a prominent Leave implementer will do just as much or more to attract back UKIP defectors.
Conservative polling is also bound to improve with May's accession. Apart from the usual short term boost to a new leader, there could be a longer term effect, not because Cameron has lost his long-time approval rating but more because the deeply unpopular Osborne will surely go now.
Will he go? I'm really not sure. Unless somewhere like the Privy Council where he cab continue to wield power.
Apart from May's constituency being Maidenhead - has she said anything on this?
Surely she should just get it out of the way ASAP. Say that the government will carry out the findings of the independent review.
Or do something bold like Heathrow and Gatwick.....
Nothing like a bit of infrastructure spending to boost the economy. Both would definitely show that we are open for business, and the option I would prefer.
The best option (IMHO) would be a variation on Boris Island - a variation on concrete oil platform technology. Think a series of tables - flat top, legs with flotation chambers at the bottom. Because they are for shallow water, much lower than an oil platform. Say 350m x 50m and 50m high. Each. Build in various shipyards, float into position. You could build you airport *anywhere*.
When it is done, sell Heathrow for housing. Make money on the deal.
It always amazes me that people think an airport only needs a flat piece of land for aircraft to use.
Around Heathrow there is a whole network of support industry and ancillary activities and a truly massive workforce; there are several west London boroughs where much of the population essentially supports the airport. The idea you can just close it all down and drop it into some marshland miles from London was for the birds (which would have been the other problem).
Agreed. That said, putting the new runway at Gatwick is an absolute no brainer to my mind.
Not at all, it's on the wrong side of London and New York has shown that a dual hub doesn't work for a big city, it needs one megahub and smaller outlying airports.
Rubbish. We need extra runways at LHR, LGW and Stansted.
I'd take that! The other idea I have seen is to turn Luton into the hub and give it four to six runways and rebuild it from ground up with modern facilities and terminal buildings. We'd lose part of Luton, but that's not much of a loss. Given the transport links that currently serve Heathrow we could turn the Heathrow site into an industrial and science park giving London and the SE a new high tech manufacturing base.
Now it seems that in the face of the intense smear campaign run by supporters of Theresa May, she concluded that the price of winning would be too high.
The 'smear campaign' that consisted of i) Clarifying her CV and ii) Reporting what she said?
There is clearly a counter-narrative that May cunningly plotted Leadsom's downfall. Allison Pearson's telegraph article is a good example - she neatly overlooks the fact that it was Leadsom who first raised the children in response to an open question, and argues that she was "lured" onto dangerous ground deliberately by the Times. And on last night's newsnight Iain thingybob even argued that May's recent interview about her childlessness was a deliberate trap for Leadsom, with phase two being her disables interview. Which is taking conspiracy theory a but far IMHO,
May did talk about their inability to have children - unsolicited. Why was that necessary at all, except for the sympathy vote. She clearly out-manoeuvred the hapless Loathsome !
Apart from May's constituency being Maidenhead - has she said anything on this?
Surely she should just get it out of the way ASAP. Say that the government will carry out the findings of the independent review.
Or do something bold like Heathrow and Gatwick.....
Nothing like a bit of infrastructure spending to boost the economy. Both would definitely show that we are open for business, and the option I would prefer.
The best option (IMHO) would be a variation on Boris Island - a variation on concrete oil platform technology. Think a series of tables - flat top, legs with flotation chambers at the bottom. Because they are for shallow water, much lower than an oil platform. Say 350m x 50m and 50m high. Each. Build in various shipyards, float into position. You could build you airport *anywhere*.
When it is done, sell Heathrow for housing. Make money on the deal.
It always amazes me that people think an airport only needs a flat piece of land for aircraft to use.
Around Heathrow there is a whole network of support industry and ancillary activities and a truly massive workforce; there are several west London boroughs where much of the population essentially supports the airport. The idea you can just close it all down and drop it into some marshland miles from London was for the birds (which would have been the other problem).
Agreed. That said, putting the new runway at Gatwick is an absolute no brainer to my mind.
Not at all, it's on the wrong side of London and New York has shown that a dual hub doesn't work for a big city, it needs one megahub and smaller outlying airports.
Rubbish. We need extra runways at LHR, LGW and Stansted.
Do you understand the concepts of hub-and-spoke versus point-to-point? What you're calling for is point-to-point, but many countries are betting on hub-and-spoke. The commission looked into this: see the reports I linked to earlier.
Leadsom was an empty vessel into which rightwingers poured their hopes and aspirations.
Thing is, they got carried away, probably as much to the surprise of Leadsom as anyone else. Which led to unnecessary CV spinning, loose talk about her beliefs, etc, which would never have occurred with a more experienced or capable operator.
Because sadly they picked the wrong candidate. Leadsom herself was simply not up to it. Everyone, whether from past lives, or her current one, said the same thing. Deeply mediocre at best. Now, there's nothing wrong with living your life as a nothing special backbencher. Plenty of them around. But PM takes something more. Leadsom didn't have it. Not wholly her fault, although she was also culpable.
May, meanwhile, is fulfilling the same function for the mildly-europhile, wettish wing. Projecting onto her the safe pair of hands, not rocking the boat, let's not do anything too EU bonkers candidate.
While she is no way as good an operator as Dave, she is miles ahead of Andrea so we are in with a better chance.
May depresses me. A humourless and charmless battleaxe with no ideas of her own who has risen without trace or talent. She prospers by doing very little other than survive.
She does have the advantage of both her internal party and external enemies vanish from the field of play. Perhaps she is a witch after all.
Politicians don't have talent, that is a natural ability to do things such as artists or athletes.
When people describe politicians as talented they mean they agree with them.
I wouldn't say that. Gove clearly has talent as does BoJo, though both rather erratically, Jeremy Hunt too. I wouldn't vote for any of them though.
Apart from May's constituency being Maidenhead - has she said anything on this?
Surely she should just get it out of the way ASAP. Say that the government will carry out the findings of the independent review.
Or do something bold like Heathrow and Gatwick.....
Nothing like a bit of infrastructure spending to boost the economy. Both would definitely show that we are open for business, and the option I would prefer.
The best option (IMHO) would be a variation on Boris Island - a variation on concrete oil platform technology. Think a series of tables - flat top, legs with flotation chambers at the bottom. Because they are for shallow water, much lower than an oil platform. Say 350m x 50m and 50m high. Each. Build in various shipyards, float into position. You could build you airport *anywhere*.
When it is done, sell Heathrow for housing. Make money on the deal.
It always amazes me that people think an airport only needs a flat piece of land for aircraft to use.
Around Heathrow there is a whole network of support industry and ancillary activities and a truly massive workforce; there are several west London boroughs where much of the population essentially supports the airport. The idea you can just close it all down and drop it into some marshland miles from London was for the birds (which would have been the other problem).
Agreed. That said, putting the new runway at Gatwick is an absolute no brainer to my mind.
Not at all, it's on the wrong side of London and New York has shown that a dual hub doesn't work for a big city, it needs one megahub and smaller outlying airports.
Rubbish. We need extra runways at LHR, LGW and Stansted.
I'd take that! The other idea I have seen is to turn Luton into the hub and give it four to six runways and rebuild it from ground up with modern facilities and terminal buildings. We'd lose part of Luton, but that's not much of a loss. Given the transport links that currently serve Heathrow we could turn the Heathrow site into an industrial and science park giving London and the SE a new high tech manufacturing base.
It could have been a runner but not now. Too much has been spent on T5 and T2.
Thanks for that - I had completely overlooked Collins' rationale until now. So very clearly, the Labour Party's system for selecting a leader is designed "to ensure that all candidates who are put to the ballot command a substantial body of support in the PLP"
Every time that a Corbyn cultist claims that he can carry on regardless of the fact that almost the entire PLP thinks he should go, on the grounds that the choice of leadership is solely a matter for anyone in the country choosing to make at least a £3 one-off payment, those words should be quoted back at them.
Surely, somebody who is the existing leader has already amply demonstrated they "command a substantial body of support in the PLP" by virtue of having become leader? The number of nominations for the challenger is to make sure the Leader doesn't face a weekly challenge from a stalking horse.
The current situation was never envisaged by anybody framing the rules. It is just outside anyones thinking that a Leader could plough on regardless, then be unable to collect the same number of nominations as a challenger....
Wrong. You are just talking up your own book with your moralising
If Corbyn cannot command the support of even 50 of his own MPs, having lost a NCV, his candidacy has no moral legitimacy. The only traitors are the Corbynites - traitors to the entire concept of parliamentary democracy and British spirit of fair play and honour.
Cue another intensity weird post from RodCrosby about the bloody Showmen's Guild in 3, 2, 1...
"Jeremy Corbyn promised to make Labour leaders face mandatory elections every year to avoid the party struggling with a 'personality' leader.
He said it would "bring back democracy into the Labour Party and the Labour movement."
But the embattled Labour leader seems to have radically changed his mind since he unexpectedly became leader of the party last September."
Right now i think jeremy would love to face an election, but others are trying to prevent him from doing so.
The requirement for a sufficient number of nominations is of itself part of the election. Corbyn dismisses the PLP as their having no particular legitimacy outside of simply being part of the Labour movement as a whole - yet if so, why are nominations from them, and only from them - given a special place in the process? Precisely because they do in fact have a special place.
From the Collins review, which was the template for Miliband's rules reforms:
"in recognition of the fact that the leader of the Labour Party has a special duty to head the Parliamentary Labour Party in Westminster, MPs will retain the responsibility of deciding the final shortlist of candidates that will be put to the ballot. MEPs, who previously had a share of the MPs’ section of the college, will be able to publish supporting nominations but these will not count towards the formal nominating process. To ensure that all candidates who are put to the ballot command a substantial body of support in the PLP, the threshold for nominations to secure a position on the shortlist should be raised from 12.5 per cent to 15 per cent of House of Commons members of the PLP. "
Thanks for that - I had completely overlooked Collins' rationale until now. So very clearly, the Labour Party's system for selecting a leader is designed "to ensure that all candidates who are put to the ballot command a substantial body of support in the PLP"
Every time that a Corbyn cultist claims that he can carry on regardless of the fact that almost the entire PLP thinks he should go, on the grounds that the choice of leadership is solely a matter for anyone in the country choosing to make at least a £3 one-off payment, those words should be quoted back at them.
But the Rules [since amended to include MEPs as nominators] do in fact contemplate a leader with as few as 18 members of the PLP supporting them.
That is what the Labour Party deems to be "substantial". So be it...
We can only really speculate on Andrea's reasons for dropping out.
Whether or not May is the person for the job, the way the establishment candidate is being crowned should make anyone who cares about living in a democracy very uneasy.
Not all that uneasy about it. After all, we're not in a presidential democracy (much though various PMs have tried to make it so). Saying that, a snap GE would be nice, perhaps once Labour has sorted themselves out.
You're not uneasy because you got the result you wanted. That misses the wood for the trees.
We can only really speculate on Andrea's reasons for dropping out.
Whether or not May is the person for the job, the way the establishment candidate is being crowned should make anyone who cares about living in a democracy very uneasy.
Not all that uneasy about it. After all, we're not in a presidential democracy (much though various PMs have tried to make it so). Saying that, a snap GE would be nice, perhaps once Labour has sorted themselves out.
You're not uneasy because you got the result you wanted. That misses the wood for the trees.
I would feel the same way if it were Leadsom to be honest.
Leadsom was an empty vessel into which rightwingers poured their hopes and aspirations.
Thing is, they got carried away, probably as much to the surprise of Leadsom as anyone else. Which led to unnecessary CV spinning, loose talk about her beliefs, etc, which would never have occurred with a more experienced or capable operator.
Because sadly they picked the wrong candidate. Leadsom herself was simply not up to it. Everyone, whether from past lives, or her current one, said the same thing. Deeply mediocre at best. Now, there's nothing wrong with living your life as a nothing special backbencher. Plenty of them around. But PM takes something more. Leadsom didn't have it. Not wholly her fault, although she was also culpable.
May, meanwhile, is fulfilling the same function for the mildly-europhile, wettish wing. Projecting onto her the safe pair of hands, not rocking the boat, let's not do anything too EU bonkers candidate.
While she is no way as good an operator as Dave, she is miles ahead of Andrea so we are in with a better chance.
May depresses me. A humourless and charmless battleaxe with no ideas of her own who has risen without trace or talent. She prospers by doing very little other than survive.
She does have the advantage of both her internal party and external enemies vanish from the field of play. Perhaps she is a witch after all.
Politicians don't have talent, that is a natural ability to do things such as artists or athletes.
When people describe politicians as talented they mean they agree with them.
And when you rubbish politicians on here on a daily basis, its because you don't agree with them.
Indeed. Yet it has been done: HK International Airport being the most famous example.
Expansion of Heathrow is only a medium-term measure. I predict before runway 3 is complete they'l be looking for a fourth, and that's when it starts getting *really* expensive.
And to compete, we need to look at what other countries are doing. As an example, the new Istanbul airport already being built has three runways, and is planned to have 6. From Wiki, Heathrow has 75 million passengers per annum; Istanbul with be able to cope with 150 million, with expansion possible to 200 million.
This doesn't mean we should get into a pi**ing contest with other countries. But its clear that other countries see a vast increase in passenger numbers (although they are also competing for the hub markets).
Can we afford to be left behind, or is everyone else getting it wrong?
Heathrow presented a two runway plan, one of the reasons I think the NW option is being given the go ahead is because that was the plan that allowed for a four runway solution in the future as well as the least disruption to wildlife.
I like the idea of BI as well, but for a variety of reasons it's not going to happen. Hopefully the PM is realistic and gets on with LHR3 at least.
From my memory, the LHR3+4 option makes the costings go even more sky-high. Even with LHR3+4, capacity will be nowhere near what our competitors are building.
Yes, we should get on with LHR3. But I fear a great opportunity has been lost. Or perhaps the projections for the potential market are all wrong.
As was said in a famous misprint in the 60s - "the Labour Party has its roubles..."
My favourite political misprint that told an unconscious truth was the SDP leaflet that said its economic policies would reduce employment by 1 million in 3 years!
Leadsom was an empty vessel into which rightwingers poured their hopes and aspirations.
Thing is, they got carried away, probably as much to the surprise of Leadsom as anyone else. Which led to unnecessary CV spinning, loose talk about her beliefs, etc, which would never have occurred with a more experienced or capable operator.
Because sadly they picked the wrong candidate. Leadsom herself was simply not up to it. Everyone, whether from past lives, or her current one, said the same thing. Deeply mediocre at best. Now, there's nothing wrong with living your life as a nothing special backbencher. Plenty of them around. But PM takes something more. Leadsom didn't have it. Not wholly her fault, although she was also culpable.
May, meanwhile, is fulfilling the same function for the mildly-europhile, wettish wing. Projecting onto her the safe pair of hands, not rocking the boat, let's not do anything too EU bonkers candidate.
While she is no way as good an operator as Dave, she is miles ahead of Andrea so we are in with a better chance.
May depresses me. A humourless and charmless battleaxe with no ideas of her own who has risen without trace or talent. She prospers by doing very little other than survive.
She does have the advantage of both her internal party and external enemies vanish from the field of play. Perhaps she is a witch after all.
Politicians don't have talent, that is a natural ability to do things such as artists or athletes.
When people describe politicians as talented they mean they agree with them.
I wouldn't say that. Gove clearly has talent as does BoJo, though both rather erratically, Jeremy Hunt too. I wouldn't vote for any of them though.
There are certain politicians though who have an ease when dealing with people. Make them feel special for that moment they have one-to-one contact, even if it is fleeting.
I worked in a company for a while where our Chairman was a former Govt. Minister. He had the brilliant ability to work a room - move in, have a brief conversation, move out again, without it ever appearing rude or pushy. That is a political talent.
Indeed. Yet it has been done: HK International Airport being the most famous example.
Expansion of Heathrow is only a medium-term measure. I predict before runway 3 is complete they'l be looking for a fourth, and that's when it starts getting *really* expensive.
And to compete, we need to look at what other countries are doing. As an example, the new Istanbul airport already being built has three runways, and is planned to have 6. From Wiki, Heathrow has 75 million passengers per annum; Istanbul with be able to cope with 150 million, with expansion possible to 200 million.
This doesn't mean we should get into a pi**ing contest with other countries. But its clear that other countries see a vast increase in passenger numbers (although they are also competing for the hub markets).
Can we afford to be left behind, or is everyone else getting it wrong?
Heathrow presented a two runway plan, one of the reasons I think the NW option is being given the go ahead is because that was the plan that allowed for a four runway solution in the future as well as the least disruption to wildlife.
I like the idea of BI as well, but for a variety of reasons it's not going to happen. Hopefully the PM is realistic and gets on with LHR3 at least.
From my memory, the LHR3+4 option makes the costings go even more sky-high. Even with LHR3+4, capacity will be nowhere near what our competitors are building.
Yes, we should get on with LHR3. But I fear a great opportunity has been lost. Or perhaps the projections for the potential market are all wrong.
I think with four runways we'd have enough capacity to take us to the point where air travel as we know it may be looking dated.
We can only really speculate on Andrea's reasons for dropping out.
Whether or not May is the person for the job, the way the establishment candidate is being crowned should make anyone who cares about living in a democracy very uneasy.
Not all that uneasy about it. After all, we're not in a presidential democracy (much though various PMs have tried to make it so). Saying that, a snap GE would be nice, perhaps once Labour has sorted themselves out.
You're not uneasy because you got the result you wanted. That misses the wood for the trees.
We should have a general election, even more so no that Theresa has not won any direct membership election. It was a mistake for Brown not to call one, and I believe Theresa criticised him for it at the time. She needs her own mandate.
Thanks for that - I had completely overlooked Collins' rationale until now. So very clearly, the Labour Party's system for selecting a leader is designed "to ensure that all candidates who are put to the ballot command a substantial body of support in the PLP"
Every time that a Corbyn cultist claims that he can carry on regardless of the fact that almost the entire PLP thinks he should go, on the grounds that the choice of leadership is solely a matter for anyone in the country choosing to make at least a £3 one-off payment, those words should be quoted back at them.
Surely, somebody who is the existing leader has already amply demonstrated they "command a substantial body of support in the PLP" by virtue of having become leader? The number of nominations for the challenger is to make sure the Leader doesn't face a weekly challenge from a stalking horse.
The current situation was never envisaged by anybody framing the rules. It is just outside anyones thinking that a Leader could plough on regardless, then be unable to collect the same number of nominations as a challenger....
No one drafting the rules could possibly have envisaged:
1. Give sympathy votes to a totally unsuitable candidate 2. The big names totally fail to convince the selectorate 3. TUC wipes the floor with them 4. Most of the shadow cabinet resigns 5. TUC carries on and replaces them/hands out multiple job titles 6. Vote of no confidence by 172 MPs 7. TUC carries on surrounded by acolytes 8. Biggest unions continue to back TUC 9. Meanwhile TUC holds rallies and recruits more supporters
... he's a limpet and his supporters are on a quest.
We can only really speculate on Andrea's reasons for dropping out.
Whether or not May is the person for the job, the way the establishment candidate is being crowned should make anyone who cares about living in a democracy very uneasy.
Not all that uneasy about it. After all, we're not in a presidential democracy (much though various PMs have tried to make it so). Saying that, a snap GE would be nice, perhaps once Labour has sorted themselves out.
You're not uneasy because you got the result you wanted. That misses the wood for the trees.
We should have a general election, even more so no that Theresa has not won any direct membership election. It was a mistake for Brown not to call one, and I believe Theresa criticised him for it at the time. She needs her own mandate.
Brown's mistake was to give huge hints he was about to call one and then backed out.
There is no reason to have a GE. We live in a Parliamentary democracy and the PM can be changed at any time by the governing party.
May has said 'No' and from all we read about her, that'll be the end of the matter.
We can only really speculate on Andrea's reasons for dropping out.
Whether or not May is the person for the job, the way the establishment candidate is being crowned should make anyone who cares about living in a democracy very uneasy.
Not all that uneasy about it. After all, we're not in a presidential democracy (much though various PMs have tried to make it so). Saying that, a snap GE would be nice, perhaps once Labour has sorted themselves out.
You're not uneasy because you got the result you wanted. That misses the wood for the trees.
We should have a general election, even more so no that Theresa has not won any direct membership election. It was a mistake for Brown not to call one, and I believe Theresa criticised him for it at the time. She needs her own mandate.
Brown's mistake was to give huge hints he was about to call one and then backed out.
There is no reason to have a GE. We live in a Parliamentary democracy and the PM can be changed at any time by the governing party.
May has said 'No' and from all we read about her, that'll be the end of the matter.
Heck, this is pb.com. Whatever a Labour PM does is wrong, whatever a Tory one does is right.
Indeed. Yet it has been done: HK International Airport being the most famous example.
Expansion of Heathrow is only a medium-term measure. I predict before runway 3 is complete they'l be looking for a fourth, and that's when it starts getting *really* expensive.
And to compete, we need to look at what other countries are doing. As an example, the new Istanbul airport already being built has three runways, and is planned to have 6. From Wiki, Heathrow has 75 million passengers per annum; Istanbul with be able to cope with 150 million, with expansion possible to 200 million.
This doesn't mean we should get into a pi**ing contest with other countries. But its clear that other countries see a vast increase in passenger numbers (although they are also competing for the hub markets).
Can we afford to be left behind, or is everyone else getting it wrong?
Heathrow presented a two runway plan, one of the reasons I think the NW option is being given the go ahead is because that was the plan that allowed for a four runway solution in the future as well as the least disruption to wildlife.
I like the idea of BI as well, but for a variety of reasons it's not going to happen. Hopefully the PM is realistic and gets on with LHR3 at least.
From my memory, the LHR3+4 option makes the costings go even more sky-high. Even with LHR3+4, capacity will be nowhere near what our competitors are building.
Yes, we should get on with LHR3. But I fear a great opportunity has been lost. Or perhaps the projections for the potential market are all wrong.
I think with four runways we'd have enough capacity to take us to the point where air travel as we know it may be looking dated.
You need to look at the infrastructure outside the Airport too !
The biggest problem for Heathrow will always be there - it is situated on the western edge of a highly populated city where the prevailing winds are from the west. 80% of landings fly over the entire length of the city.
Indeed. Yet it has been done: HK International Airport being the most famous example.
Expansion of Heathrow is only a medium-term measure. I predict before runway 3 is complete they'l be looking for a fourth, and that's when it starts getting *really* expensive.
And to compete, we need to look at what other countries are doing. As an example, the new Istanbul airport already being built has three runways, and is planned to have 6. From Wiki, Heathrow has 75 million passengers per annum; Istanbul with be able to cope with 150 million, with expansion possible to 200 million.
This doesn't mean we should get into a pi**ing contest with other countries. But its clear that other countries see a vast increase in passenger numbers (although they are also competing for the hub markets).
Can we afford to be left behind, or is everyone else getting it wrong?
Heathrow presented a two runway plan, one of the reasons I think the NW option is being given the go ahead is because that was the plan that allowed for a four runway solution in the future as well as the least disruption to wildlife.
I like the idea of BI as well, but for a variety of reasons it's not going to happen. Hopefully the PM is realistic and gets on with LHR3 at least.
From my memory, the LHR3+4 option makes the costings go even more sky-high. Even with LHR3+4, capacity will be nowhere near what our competitors are building.
Yes, we should get on with LHR3. But I fear a great opportunity has been lost. Or perhaps the projections for the potential market are all wrong.
I think with four runways we'd have enough capacity to take us to the point where air travel as we know it may be looking dated.
IANAE, but I think the problem is that airlines want to call into hubs, where passengers can connect to other flights. If Heathrow gets larger competitors then they will become the hub, removing hub traffic from Heathrow.
Once the hub status is lost by an airport, it still is a spoke, but the amount of traffic coming in is much reduced. And with it a large amount of money.
Oddly, if we don't increase capacity at Heathrow or a.n.other hub airport, we might not need any expansion as the hub traffic will go elsewhere - probably to Paris, but possibly Frankfurt.
That is, if you believe the hub-and-spoke philosophy. But it's ruled the roost for sixty years or so.
"Jeremy Corbyn promised to make Labour leaders face mandatory elections every year to avoid the party struggling with a 'personality' leader.
He said it would "bring back democracy into the Labour Party and the Labour movement."
But the embattled Labour leader seems to have radically changed his mind since he unexpectedly became leader of the party last September."
Right now i think jeremy would love to face an election, but others are trying to prevent him from doing so.
The requirement for a sufficient number of nominations is of itself part of the election. Corbyn dismisses the PLP as their having no particular legitimacy outside of simply being part of the Labour movement as a whole - yet if so, why are nominations from them, and only from them - given a special place in the process? Precisely because they do in fact have a special place.
From the Collins review, which was the template for Miliband's rules reforms:
"in recognition of the fact that the leader of the Labour Party has a special duty to head the Parliamentary Labour Party in Westminster, MPs will retain the responsibility of deciding the final shortlist of candidates that will be put to the ballot. MEPs, who previously had a share of the MPs’ section of the college, will be able to publish supporting nominations but these will not count towards the formal nominating process. To ensure that all candidates who are put to the ballot command a substantial body of support in the PLP, the threshold for nominations to secure a position on the shortlist should be raised from 12.5 per cent to 15 per cent of House of Commons members of the PLP. "
Thanks for that - I had completely overlooked Collins' rationale until now. So very clearly, the Labour Party's system for selecting a leader is designed "to ensure that all candidates who are put to the ballot command a substantial body of support in the PLP"
Every time that a Corbyn cultist claims that he can carry on regardless of the fact that almost the entire PLP thinks he should go, on the grounds that the choice of leadership is solely a matter for anyone in the country choosing to make at least a £3 one-off payment, those words should be quoted back at them.
Except he's already passed that nomination stage and been elected and Labour rules don't provide for a way to eject a leader, only a way of securing challengers.
Indeed. Yet it has been done: HK International Airport being the most famous example.
Expansion of Heathrow is only a medium-term measure. I predict before runway 3 is complete they'l be looking for a fourth, and that's when it starts getting *really* expensive.
And to compete, we need to look at what other countries are doing. As an example, the new Istanbul airport already being built has three runways, and is planned to have 6. From Wiki, Heathrow has 75 million passengers per annum; Istanbul with be able to cope with 150 million, with expansion possible to 200 million.
This doesn't mean we should get into a pi**ing contest with other countries. But its clear that other countries see a vast increase in passenger numbers (although they are also competing for the hub markets).
Can we afford to be left behind, or is everyone else getting it wrong?
Heathrow presented a two runway plan, one of the reasons I think the NW option is being given the go ahead is because that was the plan that allowed for a four runway solution in the future as well as the least disruption to wildlife.
I like the idea of BI as well, but for a variety of reasons it's not going to happen. Hopefully the PM is realistic and gets on with LHR3 at least.
From my memory, the LHR3+4 option makes the costings go even more sky-high. Even with LHR3+4, capacity will be nowhere near what our competitors are building.
Yes, we should get on with LHR3. But I fear a great opportunity has been lost. Or perhaps the projections for the potential market are all wrong.
I think with four runways we'd have enough capacity to take us to the point where air travel as we know it may be looking dated.
You need to look at the infrastructure outside the Airport too !
The biggest problem for Heathrow will always be there - it is situated on the western edge of a highly populated city where the prevailing winds are from the west. 80% of landings fly over the entire length of the city.
Gatwick and Stansted do not have that problem.
Take offs make more noise. Better they are to the west.
Indeed. Yet it has been done: HK International Airport being the most famous example.
Expansion of Heathrow is only a medium-term measure. I predict before runway 3 is complete they'l be looking for a fourth, and that's when it starts getting *really* expensive.
And to compete, we need to look at what other countries are doing. As an example, the new Istanbul airport already being built has three runways, and is planned to have 6. From Wiki, Heathrow has 75 million passengers per annum; Istanbul with be able to cope with 150 million, with expansion possible to 200 million.
This doesn't mean we should get into a pi**ing contest with other countries. But its clear that other countries see a vast increase in passenger numbers (although they are also competing for the hub markets).
Can we afford to be left behind, or is everyone else getting it wrong?
Heathrow presented a two runway plan, one of the reasons I think the NW option is being given the go ahead is because that was the plan that allowed for a four runway solution in the future as well as the least disruption to wildlife.
I like the idea of BI as well, but for a variety of reasons it's not going to happen. Hopefully the PM is realistic and gets on with LHR3 at least.
From my memory, the LHR3+4 option makes the costings go even more sky-high. Even with LHR3+4, capacity will be nowhere near what our competitors are building.
Yes, we should get on with LHR3. But I fear a great opportunity has been lost. Or perhaps the projections for the potential market are all wrong.
I think with four runways we'd have enough capacity to take us to the point where air travel as we know it may be looking dated.
You need to look at the infrastructure outside the Airport too !
The biggest problem for Heathrow will always be there - it is situated on the western edge of a highly populated city where the prevailing winds are from the west. 80% of landings fly over the entire length of the city.
Gatwick and Stansted do not have that problem.
Gatwick and Stansted are both on the wrong side of London though. The beauty of Heathrow's position is that people coming in from the west can drive there without having to take the M25 for very long, people from London almost always go on public transport, people from the north fly in and people from the midlands also don't have to take the M25 for very long if you arrive from the M40. Love it or hate it, Heathrow is in the right part of London. I say this as a West Londoner. The Luton solution was probably the best idea IMO, but as you said, it's dead now.
"Jeremy Corbyn promised to make Labour leaders face mandatory elections every year to avoid the party struggling with a 'personality' leader.
He said it would "bring back democracy into the Labour Party and the Labour movement."
But the embattled Labour leader seems to have radically changed his mind since he unexpectedly became leader of the party last September."
Right now i think jeremy would love to face an election, but others are trying to prevent him from doing so.
The requirement for a sufficient number of nominations is of itself part of the election. Corbyn dismisses the PLP as their having no particular legitimacy outside of simply being part of the Labour movement as a whole - yet if so, why are nominations from them, and only from them - given a special place in the process? Precisely because they do in fact have a special place.
From the Collins review, which was the template for Miliband's rules reforms:
"in recognition of the fact that the leader of the Labour Party has a special duty to head the Parliamentary Labour Party in Westminster, MPs will retain the responsibility of deciding the final shortlist of candidates that will be put to the ballot. MEPs, who previously had a share of the MPs’ section of the college, will be able to publish supporting nominations but these will not count towards the formal nominating process. To ensure that all candidates who are put to the ballot command a substantial body of support in the PLP, the threshold for nominations to secure a position on the shortlist should be raised from 12.5 per cent to 15 per cent of House of Commons members of the PLP. "
Is that in their rules now then or merely a proposal?
The quote comes from the document which put forward proposals.
The threshold was raised from 12.5% to 15% for nominations in an open contest, in line with the Collins Review, so we have to assume that the rationale put forward was accepted, although there must have been some pushback from MEPs as, contrary to the proposals, they maintained their nominating rights.
Apart from May's constituency being Maidenhead - has she said anything on this?
Surely she should just get it out of the way ASAP. Say that the government will carry out the findings of the independent review.
Or do something bold like Heathrow and Gatwick.....
.
When it is done, sell Heathrow for housing. Make money on the deal.
It always amazes me that people think an airport only needs a flat piece of land for aircraft to use.
Around Heathrow there is a whole network of support industry and ancillary activities and a truly massive workforce; there are several west London boroughs where much of the population essentially supports the airport. The idea you can just close it all down and drop it into some marshland miles from London was for the birds (which would have been the other problem).
Agreed. That said, putting the new runway at Gatwick is an absolute no brainer to my mind.
Not at all, it's on the wrong side of London and New York has shown that a dual hub doesn't work for a big city, it needs one megahub and smaller outlying airports.
Rubbish. We need extra runways at LHR, LGW and Stansted.
I'd take that! The other idea I have seen is to turn Luton into the hub and give it four to six runways and rebuild it from ground up with modern facilities and terminal buildings. We'd lose part of Luton, but that's not much of a loss. Given the transport links that currently serve Heathrow we could turn the Heathrow site into an industrial and science park giving London and the SE a new high tech manufacturing base.
It could have been a runner but not now. Too much has been spent on T5 and T2.
There was a think tank that came up with what I thought was the best solution - keep Heathrow but shift all the runways to the west, out over the M25. This significantly increases the overflying height over west London and hence dramatically reduces pollution and noise. It is a shame this worked up plan never seems to have got serious consideration.
We can only really speculate on Andrea's reasons for dropping out.
Whether or not May is the person for the job, the way the establishment candidate is being crowned should make anyone who cares about living in a democracy very uneasy.
Not all that uneasy about it. After all, we're not in a presidential democracy (much though various PMs have tried to make it so). Saying that, a snap GE would be nice, perhaps once Labour has sorted themselves out.
You're not uneasy because you got the result you wanted. That misses the wood for the trees.
We should have a general election, even more so no that Theresa has not won any direct membership election. It was a mistake for Brown not to call one, and I believe Theresa criticised him for it at the time. She needs her own mandate.
Brown's mistake was to give huge hints he was about to call one and then backed out.
There is no reason to have a GE. We live in a Parliamentary democracy and the PM can be changed at any time by the governing party.
May has said 'No' and from all we read about her, that'll be the end of the matter.
She'll regret it if she doesn't increase her majority while she has a chance.
We can only really speculate on Andrea's reasons for dropping out.
Whether or not May is the person for the job, the way the establishment candidate is being crowned should make anyone who cares about living in a democracy very uneasy.
Not all that uneasy about it. After all, we're not in a presidential democracy (much though various PMs have tried to make it so). Saying that, a snap GE would be nice, perhaps once Labour has sorted themselves out.
You're not uneasy because you got the result you wanted. That misses the wood for the trees.
We should have a general election, even more so no that Theresa has not won any direct membership election. It was a mistake for Brown not to call one, and I believe Theresa criticised him for it at the time. She needs her own mandate.
Brown's mistake was to give huge hints he was about to call one and then backed out.
There is no reason to have a GE. We live in a Parliamentary democracy and the PM can be changed at any time by the governing party.
May has said 'No' and from all we read about her, that'll be the end of the matter.
She'll regret it if she doesn't increase her majority while she has a chance.
Current state of Labour the chances are an election now would be a majority of 200 andin 2020 a majority of 180. There isn't a great gain to going now.
Indeed. Yet it has been done: HK International Airport being the most famous example.
Can we afford to be left behind, or is everyone else getting it wrong?
Heathrow presented a two runway plan, one of the reasons I think the NW option is being given the go ahead is because that was the plan that allowed for a four runway solution in the future as well as the least disruption to wildlife.
I like the idea of BI as well, but for a variety of reasons it's not going to happen. Hopefully the PM is realistic and gets on with LHR3 at least.
From my memory, the LHR3+4 option makes the costings go even more sky-high. Even with LHR3+4, capacity will be nowhere near what our competitors are building.
Yes, we should get on with LHR3. But I fear a great opportunity has been lost. Or perhaps the projections for the potential market are all wrong.
I think with four runways we'd have enough capacity to take us to the point where air travel as we know it may be looking dated.
You need to look at the infrastructure outside the Airport too !
The biggest problem for Heathrow will always be there - it is situated on the western edge of a highly populated city where the prevailing winds are from the west. 80% of landings fly over the entire length of the city.
Gatwick and Stansted do not have that problem.
Gatwick and Stansted are both on the wrong side of London though. The beauty of Heathrow's position is that people coming in from the west can drive there without having to take the M25 for very long, people from London almost always go on public transport, people from the north fly in and people from the midlands also don't have to take the M25 for very long if you arrive from the M40. Love it or hate it, Heathrow is in the right part of London. I say this as a West Londoner. The Luton solution was probably the best idea IMO, but as you said, it's dead now.
Stansted isn't on the wrong side of London for me, Essex, Herts and Cambridgeshire.
IANAE, but I think the problem is that airlines want to call into hubs, where passengers can connect to other flights. If Heathrow gets larger competitors then they will become the hub, removing hub traffic from Heathrow.
Once the hub status is lost by an airport, it still is a spoke, but the amount of traffic coming in is much reduced. And with it a large amount of money.
Oddly, if we don't increase capacity at Heathrow or a.n.other hub airport, we might not need any expansion as the hub traffic will go elsewhere - probably to Paris, but possibly Frankfurt.
That is, if you believe the hub-and-spoke philosophy. But it's ruled the roost for sixty years or so.
Well giving Stansted and Gatwick additional runways is to provide internal competition, neither will ever be very much more than holiday airports. Gatwick launched a route to China with a lot of fanfare, I believe it is gone now. The transfer traffic will always go to Heathrow because BA are at Heathrow and bring in the bulk of the transatlantic traffic. People coming in on an Easyjet flight from Malaga aren't likely to then transfer to a flight that goes to Singapore or Tokyo.
Indeed. Yet it has been done: HK International Airport being the most famous example.
Expansion of Heathrow is only a medium-term measure. I predict before runway 3 is complete they'l be looking for a fourth, and that's when it starts getting *really* expensive.
And to compete, we need to look at what other countries are doing. As an example, the new Istanbul airport already being built has three runways, and is planned to have 6. From Wiki, Heathrow has 75 million passengers per annum; Istanbul with be able to cope with 150 million, with expansion possible to 200 million.
This doesn't mean we should get into a pi**ing contest with other countries. But its clear that other countries see a vast increase in passenger numbers (although they are also competing for the hub markets).
Can we afford to be left behind, or is everyone else getting it wrong?
Heathrow presented a two runway plan, one of the reasons I think the NW option is being given the go ahead is because that was the plan that allowed for a four runway solution in the future as well as the least disruption to wildlife.
I like the idea of BI as well, but for a variety of reasons it's not going to happen. Hopefully the PM is realistic and gets on with LHR3 at least.
From my memory, the LHR3+4 option makes the costings go even more sky-high. Even with LHR3+4, capacity will be nowhere near what our competitors are building.
Yes, we should get on with LHR3. But I fear a great opportunity has been lost. Or perhaps the projections for the potential market are all wrong.
I think with four runways we'd have enough capacity to take us to the point where air travel as we know it may be looking dated.
You need to look at the infrastructure outside the Airport too !
The biggest problem for Heathrow will always be there - it is situated on the western edge of a highly populated city where the prevailing winds are from the west. 80% of landings fly over the entire length of the city.
Gatwick and Stansted do not have that problem.
Neither does Manchester. Why should I have to travel to London to catch a flight? (Not that I do: I've only ever been through Heathrow once in my life, Gatwick never and Standsted once - and that because my then girlfriend lived near Cambridge).
We can only really speculate on Andrea's reasons for dropping out.
Whether or not May is the person for the job, the way the establishment candidate is being crowned should make anyone who cares about living in a democracy very uneasy.
Not all that uneasy about it. After all, we're not in a presidential democracy (much though various PMs have tried to make it so). Saying that, a snap GE would be nice, perhaps once Labour has sorted themselves out.
You're not uneasy because you got the result you wanted. That misses the wood for the trees.
We should have a general election, even more so no that Theresa has not won any direct membership election. It was a mistake for Brown not to call one, and I believe Theresa criticised him for it at the time. She needs her own mandate.
Brown's mistake was to give huge hints he was about to call one and then backed out.
There is no reason to have a GE. We live in a Parliamentary democracy and the PM can be changed at any time by the governing party.
May has said 'No' and from all we read about her, that'll be the end of the matter.
She'll regret it if she doesn't increase her majority while she has a chance.
Current state of Labour the chances are an election now would be a majority of 200 andin 2020 a majority of 180. There isn't a great gain to going now.
The gain is having a working majority between now and 2020. If she doesn't she'll be hobbled by one rebellion after another.
We can only really speculate on Andrea's reasons for dropping out.
Whether or not May is the person for the job, the way the establishment candidate is being crowned should make anyone who cares about living in a democracy very uneasy.
Not all that uneasy about it. After all, we're not in a presidential democracy (much though various PMs have tried to make it so). Saying that, a snap GE would be nice, perhaps once Labour has sorted themselves out.
You're not uneasy because you got the result you wanted. That misses the wood for the trees.
We should have a general election, even more so no that Theresa has not won any direct membership election. It was a mistake for Brown not to call one, and I believe Theresa criticised him for it at the time. She needs her own mandate.
Brown's mistake was to give huge hints he was about to call one and then backed out.
There is no reason to have a GE. We live in a Parliamentary democracy and the PM can be changed at any time by the governing party.
May has said 'No' and from all we read about her, that'll be the end of the matter.
Heck, this is pb.com. Whatever a Labour PM does is wrong, whatever a Tory one does is right.
The polling evidence does suggest that the electorate took a dim view of Brown's Duke of York impression in 2007.
"Jeremy Corbyn promised to make Labour leaders face mandatory elections every year to avoid the party struggling with a 'personality' leader.
He said it would "bring back democracy into the Labour Party and the Labour movement."
But the embattled Labour leader seems to have radically changed his mind since he unexpectedly became leader of the party last September."
Right now i think jeremy would love to face an election, but others are trying to prevent him from doing so.
Correct. In fact if the PLP demand had been annual leadership elections they'd have had a deal in 10 seconds.
Only if he was automatically on the ballot. Otherwise, no deal.
It seems odd to me that a former MP cannot understand how untenable Corbyn's position is with the PLP.
Nick can understand it; it's that he doesn't think it matters that is odd.
Nick is always loyal - loyal beyond the leader falling from his (never her) horse - even when on the ground and taking blade after blade he is loyal. Even past when the leader's head has been stamped on and then decapitated he is there.
Only when officially declared dead does he move on to the next (worse) guy.
Apart from May's constituency being Maidenhead - has she said anything on this?
Surely she should just get it out of the way ASAP. Say that the government will carry out the findings of the independent review.
Or do something bold like Heathrow and Gatwick.....
Nothing like a bit of infrastructure spending to boost the economy. Both would definitely show that we are open for business, and the option I would prefer.
The best option (IMHO) would be a variation on Boris Island - a variation on concrete oil platform technology. Think a series of tables - flat top, legs with flotation chambers at the bottom. Because they are for shallow water, much lower than an oil platform. Say 350m x 50m and 50m high. Each. Build in various shipyards, float into position. You could build you airport *anywhere*.
When it is done, sell Heathrow for housing. Make money on the deal.
It always amazes me that people think an airport only needs a flat piece of land for aircraft to use.
Around Heathrow there is a whole network of support industry and ancillary activities and a truly massive workforce; there are several west London boroughs where much of the population essentially supports the airport. The idea you can just close it all down and drop it into some marshland miles from London was for the birds (which would have been the other problem).
Indeed. The Heathrow site is huge. I hope that May just pushes ahead with it anyway. Show some leadership early on.
I was at the press conference when Boris launched his Island idea. An early question from a journalist was what would happen to Heathrow. Boris gave the impression he had never thought about it until that moment, blustered for a bit, then said we would keep it as a satellite airport for local flights. Later I saw it reported he had changed his mind and would sell it for housing, as you say. Both ideas were nutty. If Heathrow went, the last thing west London would need is tons of extra housing.
We can only really speculate on Andrea's reasons for dropping out.
Whether or not May is the person for the job, the way the establishment candidate is being crowned should make anyone who cares about living in a democracy very uneasy.
Not all that uneasy about it. After all, we're not in a presidential democracy (much though various PMs have tried to make it so). Saying that, a snap GE would be nice, perhaps once Labour has sorted themselves out.
You're not uneasy because you got the result you wanted. That misses the wood for the trees.
We should have a general election, even more so no that Theresa has not won any direct membership election. It was a mistake for Brown not to call one, and I believe Theresa criticised him for it at the time. She needs her own mandate.
Brown's mistake was to give huge hints he was about to call one and then backed out.
There is no reason to have a GE. We live in a Parliamentary democracy and the PM can be changed at any time by the governing party.
May has said 'No' and from all we read about her, that'll be the end of the matter.
She'll regret it if she doesn't increase her majority while she has a chance.
This would reintroduce uncertainty about one issue where certainly has suddenly blossomed and would signal that party was more important than country,. She won't do it,
Indeed. Yet it has been done: HK International Airport being the most famous example.
Expansion of Heathrow is only a medium-term measure. I predict before runway 3 is complete they'l be looking for a fourth, and that's when it starts getting *really* expensive.
And to compete, we need to look at what other countries are doing. As an example, the new Istanbul airport already being built has three runways, and is planned to have 6. From Wiki, Heathrow has 75 million passengers per annum; Istanbul with be able to cope with 150 million, with expansion possible to 200 million.
This doesn't mean we should get into a pi**ing contest with other countries. But its clear that other countries see a vast increase in passenger numbers (although they are also competing for the hub markets).
Can we afford to be left behind, or is everyone else getting it wrong?
Heathrow presented a two runway plan, one of the reasons I think the NW option is being given the go ahead is because that was the plan that allowed for a four runway solution in the future as well as the least disruption to wildlife.
I like the idea of BI as well, but for a variety of reasons it's not going to happen. Hopefully the PM is realistic and gets on with LHR3 at least.
From my memory, the LHR3+4 option makes the costings go even more sky-high. Even with LHR3+4, capacity will be nowhere near what our competitors are building.
Yes, we should get on with LHR3. But I fear a great opportunity has been lost. Or perhaps the projections for the potential market are all wrong.
I think with four runways we'd have enough capacity to take us to the point where air travel as we know it may be looking dated.
You need to look at the infrastructure outside the Airport too ! The biggest problem for Heathrow will always be there - it is situated on the western edge of a highly populated city where the prevailing winds are from the west. 80% of landings fly over the entire length of the city.
I fear that one sad day a plane will crash into central London. After that the question will be why the planes always flew in that direction.
Leadsom was an empty vessel into which rightwingers poured their hopes and aspirations.
Thing is, they got carried away, probably as much to the surprise of Leadsom as anyone else. Which led to unnecessary CV spinning, loose talk about her beliefs, etc, which would never have occurred with a more experienced or capable operator.
Because sadly they picked the wrong candidate. Leadsom herself was simply not up to it. Everyone, whether from past lives, or her current one, said the same thing. Deeply mediocre at best. Now, there's nothing wrong with living your life as a nothing special backbencher. Plenty of them around. But PM takes something more. Leadsom didn't have it. Not wholly her fault, although she was also culpable.
May, meanwhile, is fulfilling the same function for the mildly-europhile, wettish wing. Projecting onto her the safe pair of hands, not rocking the boat, let's not do anything too EU bonkers candidate.
While she is no way as good an operator as Dave, she is miles ahead of Andrea so we are in with a better chance.
May depresses me. A humourless and charmless battleaxe with no ideas of her own who has risen without trace or talent. She prospers by doing very little other than survive.
She does have the advantage of both her internal party and external enemies vanish from the field of play. Perhaps she is a witch after all.
Politicians don't have talent, that is a natural ability to do things such as artists or athletes.
When people describe politicians as talented they mean they agree with them.
I wouldn't say that. Gove clearly has talent as does BoJo, though both rather erratically, Jeremy Hunt too. I wouldn't vote for any of them though.
Indeed. Yet it has been done: HK International Airport being the most famous example.
Expansion of Heathrow is only a medium-term measure. I predict before runway 3 is complete they'l be looking for a fourth, and that's when it starts getting *really* expensive.
And to compete, we need to look at what other countries are doing. As an example, the new Istanbul airport already being built has three runways, and is planned to have 6. From Wiki, Heathrow has 75 million passengers per annum; Istanbul with be able to cope with 150 million, with expansion possible to 200 million.
This doesn't mean we should get into a pi**ing contest with other countries. But its clear that other countries see a vast increase in passenger numbers (although they are also competing for the hub markets).
Can we afford to be left behind, or is everyone else getting it wrong?
Heathrow presented a two runway plan, one of the reasons I think the NW option is being given the go ahead is because that was the plan that allowed for a four runway solution in the future as well as the least disruption to wildlife.
I like the idea of BI as well, but for a variety of reasons it's not going to happen. Hopefully the PM is realistic and gets on with LHR3 at least.
From my memory, the LHR3+4 option makes the costings go even more sky-high. Even with LHR3+4, capacity will be nowhere near what our competitors are building.
Yes, we should get on with LHR3. But I fear a great opportunity has been lost. Or perhaps the projections for the potential market are all wrong.
I think with four runways we'd have enough capacity to take us to the point where air travel as we know it may be looking dated.
You need to look at the infrastructure outside the Airport too ! The biggest problem for Heathrow will always be there - it is situated on the western edge of a highly populated city where the prevailing winds are from the west. 80% of landings fly over the entire length of the city.
I fear that one sad day a plane will crash into central London. After that the question will be why the planes always flew in that direction.
I was at the press conference when Boris launched his Island idea. An early question from a journalist was what would happen to Heathrow. Boris gave the impression he had never thought about it until that moment, blustered for a bit, then said we would keep it as a satellite airport for local flights. Later I saw it reported he had changed his mind and would sell it for housing, as you say. Both ideas were nutty. If Heathrow went, the last thing west London would need is tons of extra housing.
It was classic Boris, half think through a good idea and make it look stupid. If he had lined up potential partners for BI including BAA and other private investors, lined up industrial and scientific companies to take over the Heathrow site creating thousands of highly paid jobs and done the research properly on where to put the airport and transport links to it, he may have got a better hearing. As it stood he had a vague plan for a four runway airport (not enough) with pie in the sky transport links and no plan for what to do at the Heathrow site to replace the thousands of lost jobs when it shutters.
Leadsom was an empty vessel into which rightwingers poured their hopes and aspirations.
Thing is, they got carried away, probably as much to the surprise of Leadsom as anyone else. Which led to unnecessary CV spinning, loose talk about her beliefs, etc, which would never have occurred with a more experienced or capable operator.
Because sadly they picked the wrong candidate. Leadsom herself was simply not up to it. Everyone, whether from past lives, or her current one, said the same thing. Deeply mediocre at best. Now, there's nothing wrong with living your life as a nothing special backbencher. Plenty of them around. But PM takes something more. Leadsom didn't have it. Not wholly her fault, although she was also culpable.
May, meanwhile, is fulfilling the same function for the mildly-europhile, wettish wing. Projecting onto her the safe pair of hands, not rocking the boat, let's not do anything too EU bonkers candidate.
While she is no way as good an operator as Dave, she is miles ahead of Andrea so we are in with a better chance.
May depresses me. A humourless and charmless battleaxe with no ideas of her own who has risen without trace or talent. She prospers by doing very little other than survive.
She does have the advantage of both her internal party and external enemies vanish from the field of play. Perhaps she is a witch after all.
Politicians don't have talent, that is a natural ability to do things such as artists or athletes.
When people describe politicians as talented they mean they agree with them.
And when you rubbish politicians on here on a daily basis, its because you don't agree with them.
Yes, exactly that and I'll explain why. They are public servants, paid to serve us, we have a duty to hold them to account. When I see or hear them doing things that are in their own interest and not ours, I believe we have a responsibility to point it out. I don't favour one party when dishing my abuse either.
Indeed. Yet it has been done: HK International Airport being the most famous example.
Expansion of Heathrow is only a medium-term measure. I predict before runway 3 is complete they'l be looking for a fourth, and that's when it starts getting *really* expensive.
And to compete, we need to look at what other countries are doing. As an example, the new Istanbul airport already being built has three runways, and is planned to have 6. From Wiki, Heathrow has 75 million passengers per annum; Istanbul with be able to cope with 150 million, with expansion possible to 200 million.
This doesn't mean we should get into a pi**ing contest with other countries. But its clear that other countries see a vast increase in passenger numbers (although they are also competing for the hub markets).
Can we afford to be left behind, or is everyone else getting it wrong?
Heathrow presented a two runway plan, one of the reasons I think the NW option is being given the go ahead is because that was the plan that allowed for a four runway solution in the future as well as the least disruption to wildlife.
I like the idea of BI as well, but for a variety of reasons it's not going to happen. Hopefully the PM is realistic and gets on with LHR3 at least.
From my memory, the LHR3+4 option makes the costings go even more sky-high. Even with LHR3+4, capacity will be nowhere near what our competitors are building.
Yes, we should get on with LHR3. But I fear a great opportunity has been lost. Or perhaps the projections for the potential market are all wrong.
I think with four runways we'd have enough capacity to take us to the point where air travel as we know it may be looking dated.
You need to look at the infrastructure outside the Airport too ! The biggest problem for Heathrow will always be there - it is situated on the western edge of a highly populated city where the prevailing winds are from the west. 80% of landings fly over the entire length of the city.
I fear that one sad day a plane will crash into central London. After that the question will be why the planes always flew in that direction.
The terrorists are working on it...
What I fear is that and a technical fault. It is madness to fly in this way.
Indeed. Yet it has been done: HK International Airport being the most famous example.
Expansion of Heathrow is only a medium-term measure. I predict before runway 3 is complete they'l be looking for a fourth, and that's when it starts getting *really* expensive.
And to compete, we need to look at what other countries are doing. As an example, the new Istanbul airport already being built has three runways, and is planned to have 6. From Wiki, Heathrow has 75 million passengers per annum; Istanbul with be able to cope with 150 million, with expansion possible to 200 million.
This doesn't mean we should get into a pi**ing contest with other countries. But its clear that other countries see a vast increase in passenger numbers (although they are also competing for the hub markets).
Can we afford to be left behind, or is everyone else getting it wrong?
Heathrow presented a two runway plan, one of the reasons I think the NW option is being given the go ahead is because that was the plan that allowed for a four runway solution in the future as well as the least disruption to wildlife.
I like the idea of BI as well, but for a variety of reasons it's not going to happen. Hopefully the PM is realistic and gets on with LHR3 at least.
From my memory, the LHR3+4 option makes the costings go even more sky-high. Even with LHR3+4, capacity will be nowhere near what our competitors are building.
Yes, we should get on with LHR3. But I fear a great opportunity has been lost. Or perhaps the projections for the potential market are all wrong.
I think with four runways we'd have enough capacity to take us to the point where air travel as we know it may be looking dated.
You need to look at the infrastructure outside the Airport too ! The biggest problem for Heathrow will always be there - it is situated on the western edge of a highly populated city where the prevailing winds are from the west. 80% of landings fly over the entire length of the city.
I fear that one sad day a plane will crash into central London. After that the question will be why the planes always flew in that direction.
At least they are coming in to land with mostly empty tanks. It would be far worse if they had just taken off with full fuel loads.
We can only really speculate on Andrea's reasons for dropping out.
Whether or not May is the person for the job, the way the establishment candidate is being crowned should make anyone who cares about living in a democracy very uneasy.
Not all that uneasy about it. After all, we're not in a presidential democracy (much though various PMs have tried to make it so). Saying that, a snap GE would be nice, perhaps once Labour has sorted themselves out.
You're not uneasy because you got the result you wanted. That misses the wood for the trees.
We should have a general election, even more so no that Theresa has not won any direct membership election. It was a mistake for Brown not to call one, and I believe Theresa criticised him for it at the time. She needs her own mandate.
Brown's mistake was to give huge hints he was about to call one and then backed out.
There is no reason to have a GE. We live in a Parliamentary democracy and the PM can be changed at any time by the governing party.
May has said 'No' and from all we read about her, that'll be the end of the matter.
She'll regret it if she doesn't increase her majority while she has a chance.
This would reintroduce uncertainty about one issue where certainly has suddenly blossomed and would signal that party was more important than country,. She won't do it,
I'm not sure what you mean. How would it increase uncertainty if the Government had a reliable majority in the Commons?
Indeed. Yet it has been done: HK International Airport being the most famous example.
Expansion of Heathrow is only a medium-term measure. I predict before runway 3 is complete they'l be looking for a fourth, and that's when it starts getting *really* expensive.
And to compete, we need to look at what other countries are doing. As an example, the new Istanbul airport already being built has three runways, and is planned to have 6. From Wiki, Heathrow has 75 million passengers per annum; Istanbul with be able to cope with 150 million, with expansion possible to 200 million.
This doesn't mean we should get into a pi**ing contest with other countries. But its clear that other countries see a vast increase in passenger numbers (although they are also competing for the hub markets).
Can we afford to be left behind, or is everyone else getting it wrong?
Heathrow presented a two runway plan, one of the reasons I think the NW option is being given the go ahead is because that was the plan that allowed for a four runway solution in the future as well as the least disruption to wildlife.
I like the idea of BI as well, but for a variety of reasons it's not going to happen. Hopefully the PM is realistic and gets on with LHR3 at least.
From my memory, the LHR3+4 option makes the costings go even more sky-high. Even with LHR3+4, capacity will be nowhere near what our competitors are building.
Yes, we should get on with LHR3. But I fear a great opportunity has been lost. Or perhaps the projections for the potential market are all wrong.
I think with four runways we'd have enough capacity to take us to the point where air travel as we know it may be looking dated.
You need to look at the infrastructure outside the Airport too !
The biggest problem for Heathrow will always be there - it is situated on the western edge of a highly populated city where the prevailing winds are from the west. 80% of landings fly over the entire length of the city.
Gatwick and Stansted do not have that problem.
Take offs make more noise. Better they are to the west.
Unless your constituency is to the west of Heathrow, like say, oh I dunno - Maidenhead, for example......
We can only really speculate on Andrea's reasons for dropping out.
Whether or not May is the person for the job, the way the establishment candidate is being crowned should make anyone who cares about living in a democracy very uneasy.
Not all that uneasy about it. After all, we're not in a presidential democracy (much though various PMs have tried to make it so). Saying that, a snap GE would be nice, perhaps once Labour has sorted themselves out.
You're not uneasy because you got the result you wanted. That misses the wood for the trees.
We should have a general election, even more so no that Theresa has not won any direct membership election. It was a mistake for Brown not to call one, and I believe Theresa criticised him for it at the time. She needs her own mandate.
Brown's mistake was to give huge hints he was about to call one and then backed out.
There is no reason to have a GE. We live in a Parliamentary democracy and the PM can be changed at any time by the governing party.
May has said 'No' and from all we read about her, that'll be the end of the matter.
Heck, this is pb.com. Whatever a Labour PM does is wrong, whatever a Tory one does is right.
I heard Len McCluskey on R4 this morning on the subject of Labour's Leader. The key problem for Labour is that Unite have backed Labour's last 3 Leaders - all failures. Unite specifically helped Labour's last two Leaders, Ed Miliband and Corbyn get elected. Both against the wishes of most Labour MPs. It is the impact of Unite that Labour need to address - but he who pays the piper calls the tunes.
We can only really speculate on Andrea's reasons for dropping out.
Whether or not May is the person for the job, the way the establishment candidate is being crowned should make anyone who cares about living in a democracy very uneasy.
Not all that uneasy about it. After all, we're not in a presidential democracy (much though various PMs have tried to make it so). Saying that, a snap GE would be nice, perhaps once Labour has sorted themselves out.
You're not uneasy because you got the result you wanted. That misses the wood for the trees.
We should have a general election, even more so no that Theresa has not won any direct membership election. It was a mistake for Brown not to call one, and I believe Theresa criticised him for it at the time. She needs her own mandate.
Brown's mistake was to give huge hints he was about to call one and then backed out.
There is no reason to have a GE. We live in a Parliamentary democracy and the PM can be changed at any time by the governing party.
May has said 'No' and from all we read about her, that'll be the end of the matter.
She'll regret it if she doesn't increase her majority while she has a chance.
This would reintroduce uncertainty about one issue where certainly has suddenly blossomed and would signal that party was more important than country,. She won't do it,
I'm not sure what you mean. How would it increase uncertainty if the Government had a reliable majority in the Commons?
An election introduces uncertainty. I think she should get the Heads of Terms done and then go to the country either with a second referendum or a GE.
We can only really speculate on Andrea's reasons for dropping out.
Whether or not May is the person for the job, the way the establishment candidate is being crowned should make anyone who cares about living in a democracy very uneasy.
Not all that uneasy about it. After all, we're not in a presidential democracy (much though various PMs have tried to make it so). Saying that, a snap GE would be nice, perhaps once Labour has sorted themselves out.
You're not uneasy because you got the result you wanted. That misses the wood for the trees.
We should have a general election, even more so no that Theresa has not won any direct membership election. It was a mistake for Brown not to call one, and I believe Theresa criticised him for it at the time. She needs her own mandate.
Brown's mistake was to give huge hints he was about to call one and then backed out.
There is no reason to have a GE. We live in a Parliamentary democracy and the PM can be changed at any time by the governing party.
May has said 'No' and from all we read about her, that'll be the end of the matter.
She'll regret it if she doesn't increase her majority while she has a chance.
This would reintroduce uncertainty about one issue where certainly has suddenly blossomed and would signal that party was more important than country,. She won't do it,
I'm not sure what you mean. How would it increase uncertainty if the Government had a reliable majority in the Commons?
It's during the period between calling an election and getting a result,
From Nov 14 Other leading Tories with south-eastern constituencies who have spoken out against a third runway at Heathrow include the home secretary, Theresa May, who is MP for Maidenhead; the international development secretary, Justine Greening, who is the member for Putney; and the Northern Ireland secretary, Theresa Villiers, MP for Chipping Barnet. The Conservatives went into the last election ruling out expansion of Heathrow, but the prospect was revived in the middle of the parliament after pressure for a rethink from the chancellor, George Osborne.
Government insiders and aviation experts now believe that the extent of opposition to the Heathrow option from politicians of all parties may tilt the advantage in favour of expanding Gatwick, which would have less environmental impact.
Indeed. Yet it has been done: HK International Airport being the most famous example.
Expansion of Heathrow is only a medium-term measure. I predict before runway 3 is complete they'l be looking for a fourth, and that's when it starts getting *really* expensive.
And to compete, we need to look at what other countries are doing. As an example, the new Istanbul airport already being built has three runways, and is planned to have 6. From Wiki, Heathrow has 75 million passengers per annum; Istanbul with be able to cope with 150 million, with expansion possible to 200 million.
This doesn't mean we should get into a pi**ing contest with other countries. But its clear that other countries see a vast increase in passenger numbers (although they are also competing for the hub markets).
Can we afford to be left behind, or is everyone else getting it wrong?
Heathrow presented a two runway plan, one of the reasons I think the NW option is being given the go ahead is because that was the plan that allowed for a four runway solution in the future as well as the least disruption to wildlife.
I like the idea of BI as well, but for a variety of reasons it's not going to happen. Hopefully the PM is realistic and gets on with LHR3 at least.
From my memory, the LHR3+4 option makes the costings go even more sky-high. Even with LHR3+4, capacity will be nowhere near what our competitors are building.
Yes, we should get on with LHR3. But I fear a great opportunity has been lost. Or perhaps the projections for the potential market are all wrong.
I think with four runways we'd have enough capacity to take us to the point where air travel as we know it may be looking dated.
You need to look at the infrastructure outside the Airport too ! The biggest problem for Heathrow will always be there - it is situated on the western edge of a highly populated city where the prevailing winds are from the west. 80% of landings fly over the entire length of the city.
I fear that one sad day a plane will crash into central London. After that the question will be why the planes always flew in that direction.
At least they are coming in to land with mostly empty tanks. It would be far worse if they had just taken off with full fuel loads.
Who would fly over a populus city as a sensible health and safety choice?
A French question: if someone's a noble of X (assuming it doesn't start with a vowel or H), then is it du Placename if masculine, and de la Placename if feminine?
What happens to the Labour leadership election if Theresa May does call an early election? Do the challengers carry on... or do they drop the leadership election until afterwards?
Would it be easier to get rid of Corbyn after a bad GE result?
I heard Len McCluskey on R4 this morning on the subject of Labour's Leader. The key problem for Labour is that Unite have backed Labour's last 3 Leaders - all failures. Unite specifically helped Labour's last two Leaders, Ed Miliband and Corbyn get elected. Both against the wishes of most Labour MPs. It is the impact of Unite that Labour need to address - but he who pays the piper calls the tunes.
"Jeremy Corbyn promised to make Labour leaders face mandatory elections every year to avoid the party struggling with a 'personality' leader.
He said it would "bring back democracy into the Labour Party and the Labour movement."
But the embattled Labour leader seems to have radically changed his mind since he unexpectedly became leader of the party last September."
Right now i think jeremy would love to face an election, but others are trying to prevent him from doing so.
Correct. In fact if the PLP demand had been annual leadership elections they'd have had a deal in 10 seconds.
Only if he was automatically on the ballot. Otherwise, no deal.
It seems odd to me that a former MP cannot understand how untenable Corbyn's position is with the PLP.
Them's the rules. Either
i) the Labour Party is utterly incompetent in drafting its own rules, or ii) the current scenario was contemplated with equanimity, and the PLP are supposed to knuckle-under whoever the mass membership chooses as leader [or challenge him squarely or piss off].
What happens to the Labour leadership election if Theresa May does call an early election? Do the challengers carry on... or do they drop the leadership election until afterwards?
Would it be easier to get rid of Corbyn after a bad GE result?
Not right now because the Corbyites would blame the moderates on the loss because of infighting.
LOL The plan by some on the NEC to keep Jezza off the nomination in a secret ballot has fallen at the first hurdle as it was pointed out that in order for this method to be adopted it would require a majority to agree by show of hands.
The way Heathrow was planned and is situated there is no other way for planes to fly in except from the east. If it had 4 runways two could be made available at certain hours for planes to land and take off from the west, i.e, from and to the Americas direct.
Thanks for that - I had completely overlooked Collins' rationale until now. So very clearly, the Labour Party's system for selecting a leader is designed "to ensure that all candidates who are put to the ballot command a substantial body of support in the PLP"
Every time that a Corbyn cultist claims that he can carry on regardless of the fact that almost the entire PLP thinks he should go, on the grounds that the choice of leadership is solely a matter for anyone in the country choosing to make at least a £3 one-off payment, those words should be quoted back at them.
Surely, somebody who is the existing leader has already amply demonstrated they "command a substantial body of support in the PLP" by virtue of having become leader? The number of nominations for the challenger is to make sure the Leader doesn't face a weekly challenge from a stalking horse.
The current situation was never envisaged by anybody framing the rules. It is just outside anyones thinking that a Leader could plough on regardless, then be unable to collect the same number of nominations as a challenger....
No one drafting the rules could possibly have envisaged:
1. Give sympathy votes to a totally unsuitable candidate 2. The big names totally fail to convince the selectorate 3. TUC wipes the floor with them 4. Most of the shadow cabinet resigns 5. TUC carries on and replaces them/hands out multiple job titles 6. Vote of no confidence by 172 MPs 7. TUC carries on surrounded by acolytes 8. Biggest unions continue to back TUC 9. Meanwhile TUC holds rallies and recruits more supporters
... he's a limpet and his supporters are on a quest.
I criticise you often enough so fair play - that is an excellent post
LOL The plan by some on the NEC to keep Jezza off the nomination in a secret ballot has fallen at the first hurdle as it was pointed out that in order for this method to be adopted it would require a majority to agree by show of hands.
We can only really speculate on Andrea's reasons for dropping out.
Whether or not May is the person for the job, the way the establishment candidate is being crowned should make anyone who cares about living in a democracy very uneasy.
Not all that uneasy about it. After all, we're not in a presidential democracy (much though various PMs have tried to make it so). Saying that, a snap GE would be nice, perhaps once Labour has sorted themselves out.
You're not uneasy because you got the result you wanted. That misses the wood for the trees.
We should have a general election, even more so no that Theresa has not won any direct membership election. It was a mistake for Brown not to call one, and I believe Theresa criticised him for it at the time. She needs her own mandate.
Brown's mistake was to give huge hints he was about to call one and then backed out.
There is no reason to have a GE. We live in a Parliamentary democracy and the PM can be changed at any time by the governing party.
May has said 'No' and from all we read about her, that'll be the end of the matter.
She'll regret it if she doesn't increase her majority while she has a chance.
This would reintroduce uncertainty about one issue where certainly has suddenly blossomed and would signal that party was more important than country,. She won't do it,
I'm not sure what you mean. How would it increase uncertainty if the Government had a reliable majority in the Commons?
An election introduces uncertainty. I think she should get the Heads of Terms done and then go to the country either with a second referendum or a GE.
There wouldn't be much uncertain about an election this autumn. An election or second referendum in a couple of years is much harder to predict.
"Jeremy Corbyn promised to make Labour leaders face mandatory elections every year to avoid the party struggling with a 'personality' leader.
He said it would "bring back democracy into the Labour Party and the Labour movement."
But the embattled Labour leader seems to have radically changed his mind since he unexpectedly became leader of the party last September."
Right now i think jeremy would love to face an election, but others are trying to prevent him from doing so.
Correct. In fact if the PLP demand had been annual leadership elections they'd have had a deal in 10 seconds.
Only if he was automatically on the ballot. Otherwise, no deal.
It seems odd to me that a former MP cannot understand how untenable Corbyn's position is with the PLP.
Them's the rules. Either
i) the Labour Party is utterly incompetent in drafting its own rules, or ii) the current scenario was contemplated with equanimity, and the PLP are supposed to knuckle-under whoever the mass membership chooses as leader [or piss off].
Indeed. Yet it has been done: HK International Airport being the most famous example.
Expansion of Heathrow is only a medium-term measure. I predict before runway 3 is complete they'l be looking for a fourth, and that's when it starts getting *really* expensive.
And to compete, we need to look at what other countries are doing. As an example, the new Istanbul airport already being built has three runways, and is planned to have 6. From Wiki, Heathrow has 75 million passengers per annum; Istanbul with be able to cope with 150 million, with expansion possible to 200 million.
This doesn't mean we should get into a pi**ing contest with other countries. But its clear that other countries see a vast increase in passenger numbers (although they are also competing for the hub markets).
Can we afford to be left behind, or is everyone else getting it wrong?
Heathrow presented a two runway plan, one of the reasons I think the NW option is being given the go ahead is because that was the plan that allowed for a four runway solution in the future as well as the least disruption to wildlife.
I like the idea of BI as well, but for a variety of reasons it's not going to happen. Hopefully the PM is realistic and gets on with LHR3 at least.
From my memory, the LHR3+4 option makes the costings go even more sky-high. Even with LHR3+4, capacity will be nowhere near what our competitors are building.
Yes, we should get on with LHR3. But I fear a great opportunity has been lost. Or perhaps the projections for the potential market are all wrong.
I think with four runways we'd have enough capacity to take us to the point where air travel as we know it may be looking dated.
You need to look at the infrastructure outside the Airport too ! The biggest problem for Heathrow will always be there - it is situated on the western edge of a highly populated city where the prevailing winds are from the west. 80% of landings fly over the entire length of the city.
I fear that one sad day a plane will crash into central London. After that the question will be why the planes always flew in that direction.
At least they are coming in to land with mostly empty tanks. It would be far worse if they had just taken off with full fuel loads.
Who would fly over a populus city as a sensible health and safety choice?
"Jeremy Corbyn promised to make Labour leaders face mandatory elections every year to avoid the party struggling with a 'personality' leader.
He said it would "bring back democracy into the Labour Party and the Labour movement."
But the embattled Labour leader seems to have radically changed his mind since he unexpectedly became leader of the party last September."
Right now i think jeremy would love to face an election, but others are trying to prevent him from doing so.
Correct. In fact if the PLP demand had been annual leadership elections they'd have had a deal in 10 seconds.
Only if he was automatically on the ballot. Otherwise, no deal.
It seems odd to me that a former MP cannot understand how untenable Corbyn's position is with the PLP.
Them's the rules. Either
i) the Labour Party is utterly incompetent in drafting its own rules, or ii) the current scenario was contemplated with equanimity, and the PLP are supposed to knuckle-under whoever the mass membership chooses as leader [or piss off].
I frankly don't buy i).
You only have to speak to a lawyer to know that many carefully considered contracts still omit to deal with unlikely (but plausible) scenarios.
Indeed. Yet it has been done: HK International Airport being the most famous example.
Expansion of Heathrow is only a medium-term measure. I predict before runway 3 is complete they'l be looking for a fourth, and that's when it starts getting *really* expensive.
Can we afford to be left behind, or is everyone else getting it wrong?
I like the idea of BI as well, but for a variety of reasons it's not going to happen. Hopefully the PM is realistic and gets on with LHR3 at least.
From my memory, the LHR3+4 option makes the costings go even more sky-high. Even with LHR3+4, capacity will be nowhere near what our competitors are building.
Yes, we should get on with LHR3. But I fear a great opportunity has been lost. Or perhaps the projections for the potential market are all wrong.
I think with four runways we'd have enough capacity to take us to the point where air travel as we know it may be looking dated.
IANAE, but I think the problem is that airlines want to call into hubs, where passengers can connect to other flights. If Heathrow gets larger competitors then they will become the hub, removing hub traffic from Heathrow.
Once the hub status is lost by an airport, it still is a spoke, but the amount of traffic coming in is much reduced. And with it a large amount of money.
Oddly, if we don't increase capacity at Heathrow or a.n.other hub airport, we might not need any expansion as the hub traffic will go elsewhere - probably to Paris, but possibly Frankfurt.
That is, if you believe the hub-and-spoke philosophy. But it's ruled the roost for sixty years or so.
The economic benefit of the hub goes mainly to the (foreign) hub airport owner (in the case of Heathrow) rather than the UK economy.
Moreover the £20 billion cost of the third runway at Heathrow will be paid by the passengers.
Airport tax at Heathrow is already around £60 per passenger for short haul, much more for long haul. (I frequently fly to Shannon from Heathrow at a cost of 99p plus £60 airport tax.) This cost could well double when the cost of expansion is loaded onto passengers. In an extraordinary omission, the impact of this extra cost on demand was not modelled in the technical assessment of the case for Heathrow (or Gatwick where the impact is much smaller).
A French question: if someone's a noble of X (assuming it doesn't start with a vowel or H), then is it du Placename if masculine, and de la Placename if feminine?
No. The gender comes from the placename - e.g. De La Rochefoucauld could be a gent or a lady. But some places have no gender - e.g. Ville De Paris. The French aren't as logical as they make themselves out to be
We can only really speculate on Andrea's reasons for dropping out.
Whether or not May is the person for the job, the way the establishment candidate is being crowned should make anyone who cares about living in a democracy very uneasy.
Not all that uneasy about it. After all, we're not in a presidential democracy (much though various PMs have tried to make it so). Saying that, a snap GE would be nice, perhaps once Labour has sorted themselves out.
You're not uneasy because you got the result you wanted. That misses the wood for the trees.
We should have a general election, even more so no that Theresa has not won any direct membership election. It was a mistake for Brown not to call one, and I believe Theresa criticised him for it at the time. She needs her own mandate.
Brown's mistake was to give huge hints he was about to call one and then backed out.
There is no reason to have a GE. We live in a Parliamentary democracy and the PM can be changed at any time by the governing party.
May has said 'No' and from all we read about her, that'll be the end of the matter.
She'll regret it if she doesn't increase her majority while she has a chance.
This would reintroduce uncertainty about one issue where certainly has suddenly blossomed and would signal that party was more important than country,. She won't do it,
I'm not sure what you mean. How would it increase uncertainty if the Government had a reliable majority in the Commons?
An election introduces uncertainty. I think she should get the Heads of Terms done and then go to the country either with a second referendum or a GE.
There wouldn't be much uncertain about an election this autumn. An election or second referendum in a couple of years is much harder to predict.
A French question: if someone's a noble of X (assuming it doesn't start with a vowel or H), then is it du Placename if masculine, and de la Placename if feminine?
Not seen de la, seen de as in Marquis de Sade. Not sure rules regarding du, de and de la etc
Mr. Jonathan, looking at it from a Conservative Party political perspective, it's certainly arguable that not holding an election makes more sense than calling one. Labour's going through some serious woe now. An election would force them to pretend to be friends. Not calling one means the bloodletting continues.
A French question: if someone's a noble of X (assuming it doesn't start with a vowel or H), then is it du Placename if masculine, and de la Placename if feminine?
I think just de: duc de richelieu, prince de galles, marquis de sade.
Comments
https://twitter.com/RichardBurgon/status/752760847689191424
The current situation was never envisaged by anybody framing the rules. It is just outside anyones thinking that a Leader could plough on regardless, then be unable to collect the same number of nominations as a challenger....
Wrong. You are just talking up your own book with your moralising
If Corbyn cannot command the support of even 50 of his own MPs, having lost a NCV, his candidacy has no moral legitimacy. The only traitors are the Corbynites - traitors to the entire concept of parliamentary democracy and British spirit of fair play and honour.
Cue another intensity weird post from RodCrosby about the bloody Showmen's Guild in 3, 2, 1...
That is what the Labour Party deems to be "substantial". So be it...
Yes, we should get on with LHR3. But I fear a great opportunity has been lost. Or perhaps the projections for the potential market are all wrong.
I worked in a company for a while where our Chairman was a former Govt. Minister. He had the brilliant ability to work a room - move in, have a brief conversation, move out again, without it ever appearing rude or pushy. That is a political talent.
1. Give sympathy votes to a totally unsuitable candidate
2. The big names totally fail to convince the selectorate
3. TUC wipes the floor with them
4. Most of the shadow cabinet resigns
5. TUC carries on and replaces them/hands out multiple job titles
6. Vote of no confidence by 172 MPs
7. TUC carries on surrounded by acolytes
8. Biggest unions continue to back TUC
9. Meanwhile TUC holds rallies and recruits more supporters
... he's a limpet and his supporters are on a quest.
There is no reason to have a GE. We live in a Parliamentary democracy and the PM can be changed at any time by the governing party.
May has said 'No' and from all we read about her, that'll be the end of the matter.
Edit: It's something we'd be in after leaving as well, Norway and Switzerland are in it. Which is why Easyjet moving their HQ is premature.
The biggest problem for Heathrow will always be there - it is situated on the western edge of a highly populated city where the prevailing winds are from the west. 80% of landings fly over the entire length of the city.
Gatwick and Stansted do not have that problem.
Once the hub status is lost by an airport, it still is a spoke, but the amount of traffic coming in is much reduced. And with it a large amount of money.
Oddly, if we don't increase capacity at Heathrow or a.n.other hub airport, we might not need any expansion as the hub traffic will go elsewhere - probably to Paris, but possibly Frankfurt.
That is, if you believe the hub-and-spoke philosophy. But it's ruled the roost for sixty years or so.
It seems odd to me that a former MP cannot understand how untenable Corbyn's position is with the PLP.
The threshold was raised from 12.5% to 15% for nominations in an open contest, in line with the Collins Review, so we have to assume that the rationale put forward was accepted, although there must have been some pushback from MEPs as, contrary to the proposals, they maintained their nominating rights.
Neither would Boris island be.
Heathrow is on the wrong side of London for us.
Only when officially declared dead does he move on to the next (worse) guy.
I think she will be able to navigate the necessities of a small majority.
It's OK for you lot - you're only getting a new Prime Minister. I'm getting a new owner. Hold me.
Other leading Tories with south-eastern constituencies who have spoken out against a third runway at Heathrow include the home secretary, Theresa May, who is MP for Maidenhead; the international development secretary, Justine Greening, who is the member for Putney; and the Northern Ireland secretary, Theresa Villiers, MP for Chipping Barnet. The Conservatives went into the last election ruling out expansion of Heathrow, but the prospect was revived in the middle of the parliament after pressure for a rethink from the chancellor, George Osborne.
Government insiders and aviation experts now believe that the extent of opposition to the Heathrow option from politicians of all parties may tilt the advantage in favour of expanding Gatwick, which would have less environmental impact.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/01/third-runway-heathrow-gatwick-expansion
Do the challengers carry on... or do they drop the leadership election until afterwards?
Would it be easier to get rid of Corbyn after a bad GE result?
i) the Labour Party is utterly incompetent in drafting its own rules, or
ii) the current scenario was contemplated with equanimity, and the PLP are supposed to knuckle-under whoever the mass membership chooses as leader [or challenge him squarely or piss off].
I frankly don't buy i).
You couldn't make it up
The way Heathrow was planned and is situated there is no other way for planes to fly in except from the east. If it had 4 runways two could be made available at certain hours for planes to land and take off from the west, i.e, from and to the Americas direct.
2 unity candidates as we couldn't unite behind either you couldn't make it up
Moreover the £20 billion cost of the third runway at Heathrow will be paid by the passengers.
Airport tax at Heathrow is already around £60 per passenger for short haul, much more for long haul. (I frequently fly to Shannon from Heathrow at a cost of 99p plus £60 airport tax.) This cost could well double when the cost of expansion is loaded onto passengers. In an extraordinary omission, the impact of this extra cost on demand was not modelled in the technical assessment of the case for Heathrow (or Gatwick where the impact is much smaller).