Gatwick has got space for another runway without demolishing an entire town, it has got a main railway line running right through the airport and a motorway serving it that isnt jammed solid the whole time. Its a no brainer. Gatwick.
lol. It's on entirely the wrong side of London for 80% of the country. It's nowhere near the M25, nor any other major motorways - unlike Heathrow which is on the M4, M5, M25, etc. Heathrow has peerless connections to central London and Paddington and, crucially, is on Crossrail (the Elizabeth Line). Gatwick is a slow crawl to south London, and won't be on Crossrail.
Gatwick is a not a world class hub, and will never be; Heathrow already is, and can get even better.
If we choose Gatwick, we are choosing to be a 2nd class trading nation with 2nd class transport links.
I don't think we can afford that choice, not after Brexit.
Expand City airport. Demolish Canary Wharf - we won't need it after the financial industry decamps to the Eurozone.
Have you been to Canary Wharf recently? It's difficult to move due to the high volumes of people working there.
If they were working, they would all be closeted away at their desks tapping at their keyboards. The crowds are people shopping, not working!
It was the lunch hour IIRC.
Nevertheless docklands is very different from the windswept wasteland it was when the first flats went up (which during the 90s they couldn't sell, but which with hindsight would have been an amazing investment). There's a whole shopping centre under the main towers, lots of restaurants, cinema at west India quay. I know plenty of people who regularly go there for leisure (reduced a bit when Westfield opened, to be fair) who don't work anywhere near Canary Wharf.
Docklands is now a triumph of urbanism. Not flawless, and certainly not the finished article, but just incredible when you remember (as I can) when it was total wasteland. I lived in Wapping in a "hard-to-let" flat (ex-council, £1 a month, literally) when I was a student here in 1981. It was like one enormous bombsite, with the odd standing slum.
The 2 bed hovel near Garnet Street where I lived for one quid a month would now cost around £1 million. The cobbles in the road are the same.
I had a girlfriend who lived there. The Prospect of Whitby was nearby.
"The bosses of several of America’s biggest banks and corporations have warned Theresa May they will pre-emptively shift operations into Europe unless she can provide early clarity on the future shape of EU-UK relations.
Seems to me from this that the banks really, really don't want to set up European offices and are begging May to tell them they don't need to.
Of course May cannot tell them at this point whether they'll have to. Even is she was prepared to bend over backwards to protect passporting, it is not within her power to guarantee it. If I were on the executive team of one of those banks, I wouldn't be waiting for May to tell me what the negotiating position would be. I'd just open an office in the EU, but hold off on incurring larger costs of a move of certain operations until the situation clarified. Not sure what the problem is with that.
Unless getting information was never the banks' real reason for the meeting, but rather they were there to lobby May to guarantee passporting.
Walking back from Kew Gardens to Kew Station,
There is no "Kew station", it's Kew Gardens station (or a longer walk to Kew Bridge station).
Outside of the south east, the UK is very happy with its existing global hub airport - Amsterdam Schiphol. And Manchester isn't doing too badly for global flights these days.
Yes, KLM's fleet of little Fokkers does a great job of connecting Britain's regional airports to a global hub across the Channel.
For the longer haul hub, Emirates are now flying the A380 into the recently extended Birmingham, there's something like 12 A380s and 8 777s a day heading from UK to Dubai, plus the BA, Virgin and Royal Brunei flights from LHR. Don't take the last one if you have the choice, unless you like a dry flight!
Gatwick has got space for another runway without demolishing an entire town, it has got a main railway line running right through the airport and a motorway serving it that isnt jammed solid the whole time. Its a no brainer. Gatwick.
lol. It's on entirely the wrong side of London for 80% of the country. It's nowhere near the M25, nor any other major motorways - unlike Heathrow which is on the M4, M5, M25, etc. Heathrow has peerless connections to central London and Paddington and, crucially, is on Crossrail (the Elizabeth Line). Gatwick is a slow crawl to south London, and won't be on Crossrail.
Gatwick is a not a world class hub, and will never be; Heathrow already is, and can get even better.
If we choose Gatwick, we are choosing to be a 2nd class trading nation with 2nd class transport links.
I don't think we can afford that choice, not after Brexit.
Expand City airport. Demolish Canary Wharf - we won't need it after the financial industry decamps to the Eurozone.
Have you been to Canary Wharf recently? It's difficult to move due to the high volumes of people working there.
If they were working, they would all be closeted away at their desks tapping at their keyboards. The crowds are people shopping, not working!
It was the lunch hour IIRC.
Nevertheless docklands is very different from the windswept wasteland it was when the first flats went up (which during the 90s they couldn't sell, but which with hindsight would have been an amazing investment). There's a whole shopping centre under the main towers, lots of restaurants, cinema at west India quay. I know plenty of people who regularly go there for leisure (reduced a bit when Westfield opened, to be fair) who don't work anywhere near Canary Wharf.
Docklands is now a triumph of urbanism. Not flawless, and certainly not the finished article, but just incredible when you remember (as I can) when it was total wasteland. I lived in Wapping in a "hard-to-let" flat (ex-council, £1 a month, literally) when I was a student here in 1981. It was like one enormous bombsite, with the odd standing slum.
The 2 bed hovel near Garnet Street where I lived for one quid a month would now cost around £1 million. The cobbles in the road are the same.
This video of a trip on the Docklands Light Railway in 1988 shows what a total wasteland it was at that time.
6 mins 30 secs is a view of the Canary Wharf area:
Gatwick has got space for another runway without demolishing an entire town, it has got a main railway line running right through the airport and a motorway serving it that isnt jammed solid the whole time. Its a no brainer. Gatwick.
lol. It's on entirely the wrong side of London for 80% of the country. It's nowhere near the M25, nor any other major motorways - unlike Heathrow which is on the M4, M5, M25, etc. Heathrow has peerless connections to central London and Paddington and, crucially, is on Crossrail (the Elizabeth Line). Gatwick is a slow crawl to south London, and won't be on Crossrail.
Gatwick is a not a world class hub, and will never be; Heathrow already is, and can get even better.
If we choose Gatwick, we are choosing to be a 2nd class trading nation with 2nd class transport links.
I don't think we can afford that choice, not after Brexit.
Boris island (or something similar) is the right long-term choice. Evacuated underground train lines are the right choice in the long term too. (And possibly if really good make the former redundant). Kent needs a boost, the area near Heathrow could be gentrified, and HS2's budget could be used for proper trains.
It we're going totally blue sky, then Luton is the right choice. By the M25, and M1. 15 minutes from St Pancras and the Eurostar (with a high speed train). Best side of London for 90% of the UK. Surrounded by poor people who want the jobs and won't complain
But to scale up Luton you have to level a couple of hills apparently. So it won't be Luton. It will be LHR if Theresa has any cullions.
Admittedly, whose idea it was 70 years ago, it was barmy. To build your major airport west of the most populous city where the prevailing winds are from the west was a mad decision.
Gatwick, Luton, Stansted in that sense are better locations.
Gatwick and Stansted are sadly in the wrong place. Luton could do it but a place that would be ideal would be somewhere between the M4 and M40, east of Oxford.
Gatwick has got space for another runway without demolishing an entire town, it has got a main railway line running right through the airport and a motorway serving it that isnt jammed solid the whole time. Its a no brainer. Gatwick.
lol. It's on entirely the wrong side of London for 80% of the country. It's nowhere near the M25, nor any other major motorways - unlike Heathrow which is on the M4, M5, M25, etc. Heathrow has peerless connections to central London and Paddington and, crucially, is on Crossrail (the Elizabeth Line). Gatwick is a slow crawl to south London, and won't be on Crossrail.
Gatwick is a not a world class hub, and will never be; Heathrow already is, and can get even better.
If we choose Gatwick, we are choosing to be a 2nd class trading nation with 2nd class transport links.
I don't think we can afford that choice, not after Brexit.
Expand City airport. Demolish Canary Wharf - we won't need it after the financial industry decamps to the Eurozone.
Have you been to Canary Wharf recently? It's difficult to move due to the high volumes of people working there.
If they were working, they would all be closeted away at their desks tapping at their keyboards. The crowds are people shopping, not working!
It was the lunch hour IIRC.
Nevertheless docklands is very different from the windswept wasteland it was when the first flats went up (which during the 90s they couldn't sell, but which with hindsight would have been an amazing investment). There's a whole shopping centre under the main towers, lots of restaurants, cinema at west India quay. I know plenty of people who regularly go there for leisure (reduced a bit when Westfield opened, to be fair) who don't work anywhere near Canary Wharf.
Docklands is now a triumph of urbanism. Not flawless, and certainly not the finished article, but just incredible when you remember (as I can) when it was total wasteland. I lived in Wapping in a "hard-to-let" flat (ex-council, £1 a month, literally) when I was a student here in 1981. It was like one enormous bombsite, with the odd standing slum.
The 2 bed hovel near Garnet Street where I lived for one quid a month would now cost around £1 million. The cobbles in the road are the same.
I had a girlfriend who lived there. The Prospect of Whitby was nearby.
When I last went to the Prospect of Whitby, I went in a 1947 Ford Pop and had to pay a couple of urchins six-pence to guard my car.
Gatwick has got space for another runway without demolishing an entire town, it has got a main railway line running right through the airport and a motorway serving it that isnt jammed solid the whole time. Its a no brainer. Gatwick.
lol. It's on entirely the wrong side of London for 80% of the country. It's nowhere near the M25, nor any other major motorways - unlike Heathrow which is on the M4, M5, M25, etc. Heathrow has peerless connections to central London and Paddington and, crucially, is on Crossrail (the Elizabeth Line). Gatwick is a slow crawl to south London, and won't be on Crossrail.
Gatwick is a not a world class hub, and will never be; Heathrow already is, and can get even better.
If we choose Gatwick, we are choosing to be a 2nd class trading nation with 2nd class transport links.
I don't think we can afford that choice, not after Brexit.
Boris island (or something similar) is the right long-term choice. Evacuated underground train lines are the right choice in the long term too. (And possibly if really good make the former redundant). Kent needs a boost, the area near Heathrow could be gentrified, and HS2's budget could be used for proper trains.
It we're going totally blue sky, then Luton is the right choice. By the M25, and M1. 15 minutes from St Pancras and the Eurostar (with a high speed train). Best side of London for 90% of the UK. Surrounded by poor people who want the jobs and won't complain
But to scale up Luton you have to level a couple of hills apparently. So it won't be Luton. It will be LHR if Theresa has any cullions.
Admittedly, whose idea it was 70 years ago, it was barmy. To build your major airport west of the most populous city where the prevailing winds are from the west was a mad decision.
Gatwick, Luton, Stansted in that sense are better locations.
Gatwick and Stansted are sadly in the wrong place. Luton could do it but a place that would be ideal would be somewhere between the M4 and M40, east of Oxford.
Outside of the south east, the UK is very happy with its existing global hub airport - Amsterdam Schiphol. And Manchester isn't doing too badly for global flights these days.
Yes, KLM's fleet of little Fokkers does a great job of connecting Britain's regional airports to a global hub across the Channel.
For the longer haul hub, Emirates are now flying the A380 into the recently extended Birmingham.
Yes, we need to take that business right back. Fuck Schiphol.
We don't have any choice now, after Brexit.
Cutting the North off from its most accessible international hub is not going to help them.
"The bosses of several of America’s biggest banks and corporations have warned Theresa May they will pre-emptively shift operations into Europe unless she can provide early clarity on the future shape of EU-UK relations.
Seems to me from this that the banks really, really don't want to set up European offices and are begging May to tell them they don't need to.
Of course May cannot tell them at this point whether they'll have to. Even is she was prepared to bend over backwards to protect passporting, it is not within her power to guarantee it. If I were on the executive team of one of those banks, I wouldn't be waiting for May to tell me what the negotiating position would be. I'd just open an office in the EU, but hold off on incurring larger costs of a move of certain operations until the situation clarified. Not sure what the problem is with that.
Unless getting information was never the banks' real reason for the meeting, but rather they were there to lobby May to guarantee passporting.
Walking back from Kew Gardens to Kew Station, this sweet early autumn evening, past the multimillion quid houses of the bankers (and lawyers and art dealers and software moguls and lucky inheritors) who live in lovely Kew, with its organic butchers and chattering wine bars and dinky little bookshops and beautiful Georgian houses, it struck me just how intensely desirable London is, IF YOU ARE RICH
No European city comes close. Frankfurt is a laughable comparison, Berlin is eerily provincial, Amsterdam is tiny, even Paris seems a bit stiff and dull and annoying. And French speaking. And which self respecting trillionaire would happily move to... Dublin?
Those London bankers REALLY don't want to move. They have glorious lifestyles in London. Of course they WILL move in the end, if needs be, and the money demands. But the UK govt has inertia on its side. An intriguing battle.
I love this Telegraph article by David Thomas. He mentions how his father bought a detached house just outside Kew Gardens in 1964 for £8,000. That would be about £150,000 in today's money.
Gatwick has got space for another runway without demolishing an entire town, it has got a main railway line running right through the airport and a motorway serving it that isnt jammed solid the whole time. Its a no brainer. Gatwick.
lol. It's on entirely the wrong side of London for 80% of the country. It's nowhere near the M25, nor any other major motorways - unlike Heathrow which is on the M4, M5, M25, etc. Heathrow has peerless connections to central London and Paddington and, crucially, is on Crossrail (the Elizabeth Line). Gatwick is a slow crawl to south London, and won't be on Crossrail.
Gatwick is a not a world class hub, and will never be; Heathrow already is, and can get even better.
If we choose Gatwick, we are choosing to be a 2nd class trading nation with 2nd class transport links.
I don't think we can afford that choice, not after Brexit.
Boris island (or something similar) is the right long-term choice. Evacuated underground train lines are the right choice in the long term too. (And possibly if really good make the former redundant). Kent needs a boost, the area near Heathrow could be gentrified, and HS2's budget could be used for proper trains.
It we're going totally blue sky, then Luton is the right choice. By the M25, and M1. 15 minutes from St Pancras and the Eurostar (with a high speed train). Best side of London for 90% of the UK. Surrounded by poor people who want the jobs and won't complain
But to scale up Luton you have to level a couple of hills apparently. So it won't be Luton. It will be LHR if Theresa has any cullions.
Luton is further from the M25 than Gatwick is. It is also a mile from the nearest railway station with just a bus link. It is a hole that is more like a bus station than an airport and not capable of taking much bigger planes than Croydon Airport was.
Also most trains take over half an hour to get to Luton Airport Parkway from St Pancras. Include the bus link and it is quicker from St Pancras to Gatwick with just as many trains.
If you are going to rant at least get the basic facts right!
Gatwick has got space for another runway without demolishing an entire town, it has got a main railway line running right through the airport and a motorway serving it that isnt jammed solid the whole time. Its a no brainer. Gatwick.
lol. it.
Expand City airport. Demolish Canary Wharf - we won't need it after the financial industry decamps to the Eurozone.
Have you been to Canary Wharf recently? It's difficult to move due to the high volumes of people working there.
If they were working, they would all be closeted away at their desks tapping at their keyboards. The crowds are people shopping, not working!
It was the lunch hour IIRC.
Never. There's a whole shopping centre under the main towers, lots of restaurants, cinema at west India quay. I know plenty of people who regularly go there for leisure (reduced a bit when Westfield opened, to be fair) who don't work anywhere near Canary Wharf.
Docklands is now a triumph of urbanism. Not flawless, and certainly not the finished article, but just incredible when you remember (as I can) when it was total wasteland. I lived in Wapping in a "hard-to-let" flat (ex-council, £1 a month, literally) when I was a student here in 1981. It was like one enormous bombsite, with the odd standing slum.
The 2 bed hovel near Garnet Street where I lived for one quid a month would now cost around £1 million. The cobbles in the road are the same.
I had a girlfriend who lived there. The Prospect of Whitby was nearby.
It's an astonishing transformation.
I can remember waking up in my horrible flat and literally walking through swirls of Dickensian river-mist, in total silence, through the deserted wharves, past the empty slums, to Wapping Station, which was a dim blue glow in the fog.
The only sound was my own footsteps, echoing in the wintry dullness. Not another soul.
I realise now it was one last glimpse of dying postwar London, the emptying city. The population began to grow again, under Thatcher in about 1985. And has never looked back.
I believe that London's population either just has, or is just about to, pass its previous peak which was way back in 1939. After the war the population was already significantly reduced, and it continued to drop gradually until the mid 70s as I recall. Moving to the suburbs or Home Counties was the thing to do back then, once you could. Hence I come from a London family but was brought up in Kent.
Outside of the south east, the UK is very happy with its existing global hub airport - Amsterdam Schiphol. And Manchester isn't doing too badly for global flights these days.
I agree. 4 flights a day from Bham, and the efficiency of Schipol means it is the best hub for me.
Heathrow is dreadful to get to. Gatwick takes hardly any longer.
More flights from Bham or Manchester would suit me better.
Gatwick has got space for another runway without demolishing an entire town, it has got a main railway line running right through the airport and a motorway serving it that isnt jammed solid the whole time. Its a no brainer. Gatwick.
lol. It's on entirely the wrong side of London for 80% of the country. It's nowhere near the M25, nor any other major motorways - unlike Heathrow which is on the M4, M5, M25, etc. Heathrow has peerless connections to central London and Paddington and, crucially, is on Crossrail (the Elizabeth Line). Gatwick is a slow crawl to south London, and won't be on Crossrail.
Gatwick is a not a world class hub, and will never be; Heathrow already is, and can get even better.
If we choose Gatwick, we are choosing to be a 2nd class trading nation with 2nd class transport links.
I don't think we can afford that choice, not after Brexit.
Boris island (or something similar) is the right long-term choice. Evacuated underground train lines are the right choice in the long term too. (And possibly if really good make the former redundant). Kent needs a boost, the area near Heathrow could be gentrified, and HS2's budget could be used for proper trains.
It we're going totally blue sky, then Luton is the right choice. By the M25, and M1. 15 minutes from St Pancras and the Eurostar (with a high speed train). Best side of London for 90% of the UK. Surrounded by poor people who want the jobs and won't complain
But to scale up Luton you have to level a couple of hills apparently. So it won't be Luton. It will be LHR if Theresa has any cullions.
Admittedly, whose idea it was 70 years ago, it was barmy. To build your major airport west of the most populous city where the prevailing winds are from the west was a mad decision.
Gatwick, Luton, Stansted in that sense are better locations.
Gatwick and Stansted are sadly in the wrong place. Luton could do it but a place that would be ideal would be somewhere between the M4 and M40, east of Oxford.
Gatwick has got space for another runway without demolishing an entire town, it has got a main railway line running right through the airport and a motorway serving it that isnt jammed solid the whole time. Its a no brainer. Gatwick.
lol. It's on entirely the wrong side of London for 80% of the country. It's nowhere near the M25, nor any other major motorways - unlike Heathrow which is on the M4, M5, M25, etc. Heathrow has peerless connections to central London and Paddington and, crucially, is on Crossrail (the Elizabeth Line). Gatwick is a slow crawl to south London, and won't be on Crossrail.
Gatwick is a not a world class hub, and will never be; Heathrow already is, and can get even better.
If we choose Gatwick, we are choosing to be a 2nd class trading nation with 2nd class transport links.
I don't think we can afford that choice, not after Brexit.
Boris island (or something similar) is the right long-term choice. Evacuated underground train lines are the right choice in the long term too. (And possibly if really good make the former redundant). Kent needs a boost, the area near Heathrow could be gentrified, and HS2's budget could be used for proper trains.
It we're going totally blue sky, then Luton is the right choice. By the M25, and M1. 15 minutes from St Pancras and the Eurostar (with a high speed train). Best side of London for 90% of the UK. Surrounded by poor people who want the jobs and won't complain
But to scale up Luton you have to level a couple of hills apparently. So it won't be Luton. It will be LHR if Theresa has any cullions.
Admittedly, whose idea it was 70 years ago, it was barmy. To build your major airport west of the most populous city where the prevailing winds are from the west was a mad decision.
Gatwick, Luton, Stansted in that sense are better locations.
Gatwick and Stansted are sadly in the wrong place. Luton could do it but a place that would be ideal would be somewhere between the M4 and M40, east of Oxford.
Most interesting part of this poll is the "expand Heathrow" question. It's popular AND the right thing to do for the nation.
Build the damn thing. Give it the green light, Theresa. Do it.
The only policy where SeanT and I agree.
Fuck Sadiq and Boris and LUDICROUS Gatwick.
Build it.
?
It is n2/
It is very easy to sit at your keyboard on a Saturday night with a glass of wine and and bang the table and say "damn it - just build it".
Well, I'm not just sitting at my table sipping wine, I'm going by the multi-million quid Davies Commission which was very expensively employed by the prime minister to exhaustively analyse all the various options pertaining to this exact question - Gatwick, Stansted, Heathrow, Boris Island? - and which decided, with great fanfare, and after much elaborate deliberation, that we should build a new runway at Heathrow.
So I think, in this instance, we are allowed to say, FFS, just do it already
The Airports Commission preference for Heathrow expansion over alternatives rests heavily on claims of substantially higher economic benefits at Heathrow. This differential rests on a report produced by PwC. It is in the technical notes. I have read it.
Equivalent numbers produced under the normally accepted government methodology (WebTAG) show minimal variance between the Heathrow and Gatwick schemes.
The use of numbers generated by the PwC report has been criticised by the Airports Commission’s own economic advisers, Professor Peter Mackie and Brian Pearce.
let all the possible airports expand the number of runways, and then let market forces decide which and how many airports to build.
Burocrats, politicians and lobbyists all have there own interests, and the, idea that between them they will come to the optimal solution is silly, not least the delay in just making a diction. I don't know how may runways are needed, or where they should go, or what times scale they should be built, and I'm dame shore that however may reports have been done nobody really know. But you now who has the best incentive to make the most objectively rational solution? an investor who is putting in his own money!
"The bosses of several of America’s biggest banks and corporations have warned Theresa May they will pre-emptively shift operations into Europe unless she can provide early clarity on the future shape of EU-UK relations.
Seems to me from this that the banks really, really don't want to set up European offices and are begging May to tell them they don't need to.
Of course May cannot tell them at this point whether they'll have to. Even is she was prepared to bend over backwards to protect passporting, it is not within her power to guarantee it. If I were on the executive team of one of those banks, I wouldn't be waiting for May to tell me what the negotiating position would be. I'd just open an office in the EU, but hold off on incurring larger costs of a move of certain operations until the situation clarified. Not sure what the problem is with that.
Unless getting information was never the banks' real reason for the meeting, but rather they were there to lobby May to guarantee passporting.
Walking back from Kew Gardens to Kew Station, this sweet early autumn evening, past the multimillion quid houses of the bankers (and lawyers and art dealers and software moguls and lucky inheritors) who live in lovely Kew, with its organic butchers and chattering wine bars and dinky little bookshops and beautiful Georgian houses, it struck me just how intensely desirable London is, IF YOU ARE RICH
No European city comes close. Frankfurt is a laughable comparison, Berlin is eerily provincial, Amsterdam is tiny, even Paris seems a bit stiff and dull and annoying. And French speaking. And which self respecting trillionaire would happily move to... Dublin?
Those London bankers REALLY don't want to move. They have glorious lifestyles in London. Of course they WILL move in the end, if needs be, and the money demands. But the UK govt has inertia on its side. An intriguing battle.
I love this Telegraph article by David Thomas. He mentions how his father bought a detached house just outside Kew Gardens in 1964 for £8,000. That would be about £150,000 in today's money.
"The bosses of several of America’s biggest banks and corporations have warned Theresa May they will pre-emptively shift operations into Europe unless she can provide early clarity on the future shape of EU-UK relations.
Seems to me from this that the banks really, really don't want to set up European offices and are begging May to tell them they don't need to.
Of course May cannot tell them at this point whether they'll have to. Even is she was prepared to bend over backwards to protect passporting, it is not within her power to guarantee it. If I were on the executive team of one of those banks, I wouldn't be waiting for May to tell me what the negotiating position would be. I'd just open an office in the EU, but hold off on incurring larger costs of a move of certain operations until the situation clarified. Not sure what the problem is with that.
Unless getting information was never the banks' real reason for the meeting, but rather they were there to lobby May to guarantee passporting.
Walking back from Kew Gardens to Kew Station, this sweet early autumn evening, past the multimillion quid houses of the bankers (and lawyers and art dealers and software moguls and lucky inheritors) who live in lovely Kew, with its organic butchers and chattering wine bars and dinky little bookshops and beautiful Georgian houses, it struck me just how intensely desirable London is, IF YOU ARE RICH
No European city comes close. Frankfurt is a laughable comparison, Berlin is eerily provincial, Amsterdam is tiny, even Paris seems a bit stiff and dull and annoying. And French speaking. And which self respecting trillionaire would happily move to... Dublin?
Those London bankers REALLY don't want to move. They have glorious lifestyles in London. Of course they WILL move in the end, if needs be, and the money demands. But the UK govt has inertia on its side. An intriguing battle.
I love this Telegraph article by David Thomas. He mentions how his father bought a detached house just outside Kew Gardens in 1964 for £8,000. That would be about £150,000 in today's money.
London has been through long cycles when it has been a popular, then unpopular, place to live. Right now it's incredibly popular. But you wonder whether in time this might change; as well as its creaking infrastructure I guess terrorism might be one thing that puts people off, if it continues.
Gatwick has got space for another runway without demolishing an entire town, it has got a main railway line running right through the airport and a motorway serving it that isnt jammed solid the whole time. Its a no brainer. Gatwick.
lol. It's on entirely the wrong side of London for 80% of the country. It's nowhere near the M25, nor any other major motorways - unlike Heathrow which is on the M4, M5, M25, etc. Heathrow has peerless connections to central London and Paddington and, crucially, is on Crossrail (the Elizabeth Line). Gatwick is a slow crawl to south London, and won't be on Crossrail.
Gatwick is a not a world class hub, and will never be; Heathrow already is, and can get even better.
If we choose Gatwick, we are choosing to be a 2nd class trading nation with 2nd class transport links.
I don't think we can afford that choice, not after Brexit.
Expand City airport. Demolish Canary Wharf - we won't need it after the financial industry decamps to the Eurozone.
Have you been to Canary Wharf recently? It's difficult to move due to the high volumes of people working there.
If they were working, they would all be closeted away at their desks tapping at their keyboards. The crowds are people shopping, not working!
It was the lunch hour IIRC.
.
Docklands is now a triumph of urbanism. Not flawless, and certainly not the finished article, but just incredible when you remember (as I can) when it was total wasteland. I lived in Wapping in a "hard-to-let" flat (ex-council, £1 a month, literally) when I was a student here in 1981. It was like one enormous bombsite, with the odd standing slum.
The 2 bed hovel near Garnet Street where I lived for one quid a month would now cost around £1 million. The cobbles in the road are the same.
I had a girlfriend who lived there. The Prospect of Whitby was nearby.
When I last went to the Prospect of Whitby, I went in a 1947 Ford Pop and had to pay a couple of urchins six-pence to guard my car.
We had our works christmas lunch in there last year.
Gatwick has got space for another runway without demolishing an entire town, it has got a main railway line running right through the airport and a motorway serving it that isnt jammed solid the whole time. Its a no brainer. Gatwick.
lol. It's on entirely the wrong side of London for 80% of the country. It's nowhere near the M25, nor any other major motorways - unlike Heathrow which is on the M4, M5, M25, etc. Heathrow has peerless connections to central London and Paddington and, crucially, is on Crossrail (the Elizabeth Line). Gatwick is a slow crawl to south London, and won't be on Crossrail.
Gatwick is a not a world class hub, and will never be; Heathrow already is, and can get even better.
If we choose Gatwick, we are choosing to be a 2nd class trading nation with 2nd class transport links.
I don't think we can afford that choice, not after Brexit.
Boris island (or something similar) is the right long-term choice. Evacuated underground train lines are the right choice in the long term too. (And possibly if really good make the former redundant). Kent needs a boost, the area near Heathrow could be gentrified, and HS2's budget could be used for proper trains.
It we're going totally blue sky, then Luton is the right choice. By the M25, and M1. 15 minutes from St Pancras and the Eurostar (with a high speed train). Best side of London for 90% of the UK. Surrounded by poor people who want the jobs and won't complain
But to scale up Luton you have to level a couple of hills apparently. So it won't be Luton. It will be LHR if Theresa has any cullions.
Admittedly, whose idea it was 70 years ago, it was barmy. To build your major airport west of the most populous city where the prevailing winds are from the west was a mad decision.
Gatwick, Luton, Stansted in that sense are better locations.
Gatwick and Stansted are sadly in the wrong place. Luton could do it but a place that would be ideal would be somewhere between the M4 and M40, east of Oxford.
Barnesian: Let me ask a serious question. What is the prospect for the Lib Dems ?
Improving - I think. Couldn't get much worse. More upside than downside. I have no deep insights and have lost confidence in my political judgment (though I did win on Brexit and Theresa May :-))
"The bosses of several of America’s biggest banks and corporations have warned Theresa May they will pre-emptively shift operations into Europe unless she can provide early clarity on the future shape of EU-UK relations.
Seems to me from this that the banks really, really don't want to set up European offices and are begging May to tell them they don't need to.
Of course May cannot tell them at this point whether they'll have to. Even is she was prepared to bend over backwards to protect passporting, it is not within her power to guarantee it. If I were on the executive team of one of those banks, I wouldn't be waiting for May to tell me what the negotiating position would be. I'd just open an office in the EU, but hold off on incurring larger costs of a move of certain operations until the situation clarified. Not sure what the problem is with that.
Unless getting information was never the banks' real reason for the meeting, but rather they were there to lobby May to guarantee passporting.
Walking back from Kew Gardens to Kew Station, this sweet early autumn evening, past the multimillion quid houses of the bankers (and lawyers and art dealers and software moguls and lucky inheritors) who live in lovely Kew, with its organic butchers and chattering wine bars and dinky little bookshops and beautiful Georgian houses, it struck me just how intensely desirable London is, IF YOU ARE RICH
No European city comes close. Frankfurt is a laughable comparison, Berlin is eerily provincial, Amsterdam is tiny, even Paris seems a bit stiff and dull and annoying. And French speaking. And which self respecting trillionaire would happily move to... Dublin?
Those London bankers REALLY don't want to move. They have glorious lifestyles in London. Of course they WILL move in the end, if needs be, and the money demands. But the UK govt has inertia on its side. An intriguing battle.
I love this Telegraph article by David Thomas. He mentions how his father bought a detached house just outside Kew Gardens in 1964 for £8,000. That would be about £150,000 in today's money.
Gatwick has got space for another runway without demolishing an entire town, it has got a main railway line running right through the airport and a motorway serving it that isnt jammed solid the whole time. Its a no brainer. Gatwick.
lol. It's on entirely the wrong side of London for 80% of the country. It's nowhere near the M25, nor any other major motorways - unlike Heathrow which is on the M4, M5, M25, etc. Heathrow has peerless connections to central London and Paddington and, crucially, is on Crossrail (the Elizabeth Line). Gatwick is a slow crawl to south London, and won't be on Crossrail.
Gatwick is a not a world class hub, and will never be; Heathrow already is, and can get even better.
If we choose Gatwick, we are choosing to be a 2nd class trading nation with 2nd class transport links.
I don't think we can afford that choice, not after Brexit.
Boris island (or something similar) is the right long-term choice. Evacuated underground train lines are the right choice in the long term too. (And possibly if really good make the former redundant). Kent needs a boost, the area near Heathrow could be gentrified, and HS2's budget could be used for proper trains.
It we're going totally blue sky, then Luton is the right choice. By the M25, and M1. 15 minutes from St Pancras and the Eurostar (with a high speed train). Best side of London for 90% of the UK. Surrounded by poor people who want the jobs and won't complain
But to scale up Luton you have to level a couple of hills apparently. So it won't be Luton. It will be LHR if Theresa has any cullions.
Admittedly, whose idea it was 70 years ago, it was barmy. To build your major airport west of the most populous city where the prevailing winds are from the west was a mad decision.
Gatwick, Luton, Stansted in that sense are better locations.
Gatwick and Stansted are sadly in the wrong place. Luton could do it but a place that would be ideal would be somewhere between the M4 and M40, east of Oxford.
A completely green field airport would probably go just south east of Bletchley and north of Ayslesbury, with a spur to the WCML and a motorway joining the M1 and M40 for road access. That's almost as likely to happen as the Thames estuary plan.
LHR Is where it is, now hurry up and make it bigger.
Gatwick has got space for another runway without demolishing an entire town, it has got a main railway line running right through the airport and a motorway serving it that isnt jammed solid the whole time. Its a no brainer. Gatwick.
lol. It's on entirely the wrong side of London for 80% of the country. It's nowhere near the M25, nor any other major motorways - unlike Heathrow which is on the M4, M5, M25, etc. Heathrow has peerless connections to central London and Paddington and, crucially, is on Crossrail (the Elizabeth Line). Gatwick is a slow crawl to south London, and won't be on Crossrail.
Gatwick is a not a world class hub, and will never be; Heathrow already is, and can get even better.
If we choose Gatwick, we are choosing to be a 2nd class trading nation with 2nd class transport links.
I don't think we can afford that choice, not after Brexit.
Expand City airport. Demolish Canary Wharf - we won't need it after the financial industry decamps to the Eurozone.
Have you been to Canary Wharf recently? It's difficult to move due to the high volumes of people working there.
If they were working, they would all be closeted away at their desks tapping at their keyboards. The crowds are people shopping, not working!
It was the lunch hour IIRC.
.
Docklands is now a triumph of urbanism. Not flawless, and certainly not the finished article, but just incredible when you remember (as I can) when it was total wasteland. I lived in Wapping in a "hard-to-let" flat (ex-council, £1 a month, literally) when I was a student here in 1981. It was like one enormous bombsite, with the odd standing slum.
The 2 bed hovel near Garnet Street where I lived for one quid a month would now cost around £1 million. The cobbles in the road are the same.
I had a girlfriend who lived there. The Prospect of Whitby was nearby.
When I last went to the Prospect of Whitby, I went in a 1947 Ford Pop and had to pay a couple of urchins six-pence to guard my car.
We had our works christmas lunch in there last year.
My last visit was over fifty years ago. I got involved in a fight. I was a bit younger then.
Gatwick has got space for another runway without demolishing an entire town, it has got a main railway line running right through the airport and a motorway serving it that isnt jammed solid the whole time. Its a no brainer. Gatwick.
lol. It's on entirely the wrong side of London for 80% of the country. It's nowhere near the M25, nor any other major motorways - unlike Heathrow which is on the M4, M5, M25, etc. Heathrow has peerless connections to central London and Paddington and, crucially, is on Crossrail (the Elizabeth Line). Gatwick is a slow crawl to south London, and won't be on Crossrail.
Gatwick is a not a world class hub, and will never be; Heathrow already is, and can get even better.
If we choose Gatwick, we are choosing to be a 2nd class trading nation with 2nd class transport links.
I don't think we can afford that choice, not after Brexit.
Boris island (or something similar) is the right long-term choice. Evacuated underground train lines are the right choice in the long term too. (And possibly if really good make the former redundant). Kent needs a boost, the area near Heathrow could be gentrified, and HS2's budget could be used for proper trains.
Boris island is idiotic. Its only purpose was to give Boris something to argue for that didn't impact on west London. There is nothing there except birds. Birds and planes don't mix, at all. There is no workforce, and no housing for the huge workforce a new airport would need. And not too many passengers coming from south east of London. All the supporting industry and infrastructure (catering, engineering, postage, shipping, car hire, hotels, you name it) is in west London. And it would cost a fortune. As well as put half of west Londoners out of a job.
So, lukewarm then.
The point of it clearly is that there's nothing there. Birds can be chaperoned elsewhere. Workers can be asked to arrive. The whole point is to just do it right, and what we have now isn't that. You build a train that can put you in central London in as close to 'no time' as is possible.
"The bosses of several of America’s biggest banks and corporations have warned Theresa May they will pre-emptively shift operations into Europe unless she can provide early clarity on the future shape of EU-UK relations.
Seems to me from this that the banks really, really don't want to set up European offices and are begging May to tell them they don't need to.
Of course May cannot tell them at this point whether they'll have to. Even is she was prepared to bend over backwards to protect passporting, it is not within her power to guarantee it. If I were on the executive team of one of those banks, I wouldn't be waiting for May to tell me what the negotiating position would be. I'd just open an office in the EU, but hold off on incurring larger costs of a move of certain operations until the situation clarified. Not sure what the problem is with that.
Unless getting information was never the banks' real reason for the meeting, but rather they were there to lobby May to guarantee passporting.
Walking back from Kew Gardens to Kew Station, this sweet early autumn evening, past the multimilliriguing battle.
I love this Telegraph article by David Thomas. He mentions how his father bought a detached house just outside Kew
hange; as well as its creaking infrastructure I guess terrorism might be one thing that puts people off, if it continues.
London most definitely does NOT have "creaking infrastructure". It positively GLEAMS. London probably has the best public transport system in the western hemisphere, perhaps the world, when you take into account its size and importance (i.e. small Dutch cities like Amsterdam might edge London, but you can't really compare).
The mayor of Toronto recently came to London
"“I wept a bit when I saw this,” he said, sharing a map of London’s underground network. The mayor was also pleased with the financial district’s futuristic efficiency, with DLR trains departing from Canary Wharf’s platform every minute. What an age to be alive!"
Gatwick has got space for another runway without demolishing an entire town, it has got a main railway line running right through the airport and a motorway serving it that isnt jammed solid the whole time. Its a no brainer. Gatwick.
lol. It's on entirely the wrong side of London for 80% of the country. It's nowhere near the M25, nor any other major motorways - unlike Heathrow which is on the M4, M5, M25, etc. Heathrow has peerless connections to central London and Paddington and, crucially, is on Crossrail (the Elizabeth Line). Gatwick is a slow crawl to south London, and won't be on Crossrail.
Gatwick is a not a world class hub, and will never be; Heathrow already is, and can get even better.
If we choose Gatwick, we are choosing to be a 2nd class trading nation with 2nd class transport links.
I don't think we can afford that choice, not after Brexit.
Expand City airport. Demolish Canary Wharf - we won't need it after the financial industry decamps to the Eurozone.
Have you been to Canary Wharf recently? It's difficult to move due to the high volumes of people working there.
If they were working, they would all be closeted away at their desks tapping at their keyboards. The crowds are people shopping, not working!
It was the lunch hour IIRC.
.
Docklands is now a triumph of urbanism. Not flawless, and certainly not the finished article, but just incredible when you remember (as I can) when it was total wasteland. I lived in Wapping in a "hard-to-let" flat (ex-council, £1 a month, literally) when I was a student here in 1981. It was like one enormous bombsite, with the odd standing slum.
The 2 bed hovel near Garnet Street where I lived for one quid a month would now cost around £1 million. The cobbles in the road are the same.
I had a girlfriend who lived there. The Prospect of Whitby was nearby.
When I last went to the Prospect of Whitby, I went in a 1947 Ford Pop and had to pay a couple of urchins six-pence to guard my car.
We had our works christmas lunch in there last year.
My last visit was over fifty years ago. I got involved in a fight. I was a bit younger then.
Its still got a fair bit of atmosphere but fights, nah. Wapping is uber tory these days.
Gatwick has got space for another runway without demolishing an entire town, it has got a main railway line running right through the airport and a motorway serving it that isnt jammed solid the whole time. Its a no brainer. Gatwick.
lol. It's on entirely the wrong side of London for 80% of the country. It's nowhere near the M25, nor any other major motorways - unlike Heathrow which is on the M4, M5, M25, etc. Heathrow has peerless connections to central London and Paddington and, crucially, is on Crossrail (the Elizabeth Line). Gatwick is a slow crawl to south London, and won't be on Crossrail.
Gatwick is a not a world class hub, and will never be; Heathrow already is, and can get even better.
If we choose Gatwick, we are choosing to be a 2nd class trading nation with 2nd class transport links.
I don't think we can afford that choice, not after Brexit.
Boris island (or something similar) is the right long-term choice. Evacuated underground train lines are the right choice in the long term too. (And possibly if really good make the former redundant). Kent needs a boost, the area near Heathrow could be gentrified, and HS2's budget could be used for proper trains.
It we're going totally blue sky, then Luton is the right choice. By the M25, and M1. 15 minutes from St Pancras and the Eurostar (with a high speed train). Best side of London for 90% of the UK. Surrounded by poor people who want the jobs and won't complain
But to scale up Luton you have to level a couple of hills apparently. So it won't be Luton. It will be LHR if Theresa has any cullions.
Admittedly, whose idea it was 70 years ago, it was barmy. To build your major airport west of the most populous city where the prevailing winds are from the west was a mad decision.
Gatwick, Luton, Stansted in that sense are better locations.
Gatwick and Stansted are sadly in the wrong place. Luton could do it but a place that would be ideal would be somewhere between the M4 and M40, east of Oxford.
"The bosses of several of America’s biggest banks and corporations have warned Theresa May they will pre-emptively shift operations into Europe unless she can provide early clarity on the future shape of EU-UK relations.
hange; as well as its creaking infrastructure I guess terrorism might be one thing that puts people off, if it continues.
London most definitely does NOT have "creaking infrastructure". It positively GLEAMS. London probably has the best public transport system in the western hemisphere, perhaps the world, when you take into account its size and importance (i.e. small Dutch cities like Amsterdam might edge London, but you can't really compare).
The mayor of Toronto recently came to London
"“I wept a bit when I saw this,” he said, sharing a map of London’s underground network. The mayor was also pleased with the financial district’s futuristic efficiency, with DLR trains departing from Canary Wharf’s platform every minute. What an age to be alive!"
"The bosses of several of America’s biggest banks and corporations have warned Theresa May they will pre-emptively shift operations into Europe unless she can provide early clarity on the future shape of EU-UK relations.
hange; as well as its creaking infrastructure I guess terrorism might be one thing that puts people off, if it continues.
London most definitely does NOT have "creaking infrastructure". It positively GLEAMS. London probably has the best public transport system in the western hemisphere, perhaps the world, when you take into account its size and importance (i.e. small Dutch cities like Amsterdam might edge London, but you can't really compare).
The mayor of Toronto recently came to London
"“I wept a bit when I saw this,” he said, sharing a map of London’s underground network. The mayor was also pleased with the financial district’s futuristic efficiency, with DLR trains departing from Canary Wharf’s platform every minute. What an age to be alive!"
"The bosses of several of America’s biggest banks and corporations have warned Theresa May they will pre-emptively shift operations into Europe unless she can provide early clarity on the future shape of EU-UK relations.
hange; as well as its creaking infrastructure I guess terrorism might be one thing that puts people off, if it continues.
London most definitely does NOT have "creaking infrastructure". It positively GLEAMS. London probably has the best public transport system in the western hemisphere, perhaps the world, when you take into account its size and importance (i.e. small Dutch cities like Amsterdam might edge London, but you can't really compare).
The mayor of Toronto recently came to London
"“I wept a bit when I saw this,” he said, sharing a map of London’s underground network. The mayor was also pleased with the financial district’s futuristic efficiency, with DLR trains departing from Canary Wharf’s platform every minute. What an age to be alive!"
I don't much care when they build the new runway as long as they do and the managements of both Gatwick and Heathrow stop spending money putting pointless adverts for themselves on the Tube.
"The bosses of several of America’s biggest banks and corporations have warned Theresa May they will pre-emptively shift operations into Europe unless she can provide early clarity on the future shape of EU-UK relations.
hange; as well as its creaking infrastructure I guess terrorism might be one thing that puts people off, if it continues.
London most definitely does NOT have "creaking infrastructure". It positively GLEAMS. London probably has the best public transport system in the western hemisphere, perhaps the world, when you take into account its size and importance (i.e. small Dutch cities like Amsterdam might edge London, but you can't really compare).
The mayor of Toronto recently came to London
"“I wept a bit when I saw this,” he said, sharing a map of London’s underground network. The mayor was also pleased with the financial district’s futuristic efficiency, with DLR trains departing from Canary Wharf’s platform every minute. What an age to be alive!"
Today's dead tree Mail more or less sums up British politics. Flickers of modernity stands. A charming retired Gay couple have won it's ' Garden of the Year ' competition. The associated Blue Plaque featured in the otherwise conservative photos of the couple's Italian themed garden. All else from cover to cover is the Soft/Hard Brexit civil war. No other political topic matters and it's happening as an entirely intra Conservative fight. There is no greater hegemony than for a party to be able to *safely* function as opposition and government at the same time. And so conservativism triumphs. Assimilate in the end counter culture like gays who can't be stopped. Shape ruthlessly and utterly all else.
Craig Oliver's written a book. That sounds like it might be worth buying!
It is, and it's Sir Craig Oliver.
Craig Oliver was a trusted lieutenant of Cameron. In the Coalition even the LibDems thought he was flaky. He's now trying to earn a buck by betraying his former boss. He should go back to la-la land.
Gatwick has got space for another runway without demolishing an entire town, it has got a main railway line running right through the airport and a motorway serving it that isnt jammed solid the whole time. Its a no brainer. Gatwick.
It is a no brainer. Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted.
Craig Oliver's written a book. That sounds like it might be worth buying!
It is, and it's Sir Craig Oliver.
Craig Oliver was a trusted lieutenant of Cameron. In the Coalition even the LibDems thought he was flaky. He's now trying to earn a buck by betraying his former boss. He should go back to la-la land.
I'm still waiting for Lord Cooper to write a book explaining how all his polling went down the pan...
Lots of cancelled service as they try to play catch up with essential maintenance.
That doesn't sound good. What happened, did they have problems with maintenance for years, or think that trains and tracks would last forever so not bother with looking after them?
Today's dead tree Mail more or less sums up British politics. Flickers of modernity stands. A charming retired Gay couple have won it's ' Garden of the Year ' competition. The associated Blue Plaque featured in the otherwise conservative photos of the couple's Italian themed garden. All else from cover to cover is the Soft/Hard Brexit civil war. No other political topic matters and it's happening as an entirely intra Conservative fight. There is no greater hegemony than for a party to be able to *safely* function as opposition and government at the same time. And so conservativism triumphs. Assimilate in the end counter culture like gays who can't be stopped. Shape ruthlessly and utterly all else.
If only Labour, the LibDems, UKIP were up to the job of Opposition, eh?
Lots of cancelled service as they try to play catch up with essential maintenance.
That doesn't sound good. What happened, did they have problems with maintenance for years, or think that trains and tracks would last forever so not bother with looking after them?
Bean counters thinking that maintenance is pointless. And the Federal Government having a meddling oversight (however justified) in DC and regional infrastructure financing. The lines of accountability are a mess.
Today's dead tree Mail more or less sums up British politics. Flickers of modernity stands. A charming retired Gay couple have won it's ' Garden of the Year ' competition. The associated Blue Plaque featured in the otherwise conservative photos of the couple's Italian themed garden. All else from cover to cover is the Soft/Hard Brexit civil war. No other political topic matters and it's happening as an entirely intra Conservative fight. There is no greater hegemony than for a party to be able to *safely* function as opposition and government at the same time. And so conservativism triumphs. Assimilate in the end counter culture like gays who can't be stopped. Shape ruthlessly and utterly all else.
The last time we were in anything like this situation was when 2002-03 when New Labour was dominant and the Tories were led by IDS and the only topic of political conversation was the Iraq War when Blair faced more opposition from his own benches and the likes of Claire Short and Robin Cook than the official opposition
To be serious for a moment. If this continues the perception that we'll lose Passporting and € Derivative trading will be so firms firms will start acting accordingly before A50 is even triggered. The rEU will have secured a key negotiating aim without a shot being fired. Then the A50 talks begin with us already have taken the first economic hit. Given we've already played our two strongest cards, the threat to leave and the clear statement we are leaving, the result could be suboptimal. Interesting times.
Lots of cancelled service as they try to play catch up with essential maintenance.
I thought SeanT was suggesting London's infrastructure was gleamingly good, not that it wasn't the worst in the world!
Still, the next time a train is unexpectedly terminated because the track is blocked by a broken-down train, and I have to take a lengthy walk instead, or the next time a signalling fault means the train doesn't turn up at all, and there's no hint of any information either, I'll console myself with the thought that things may be worse in Washington DC.
Who needs the employment and tax revenues of the banking and financial services when we've got sovereignty back?
I mean sovereignty will put money in people's pockets.
Yeah, 'cos they're the only ones paying tax. How's RBS getting on, are they going to leave?
I'm more concerned about the foreign owned ones, the ones that do contribute a lot to the Exchequer.
I'm sure we'll survive, I'm sure they'll enjoy Paris or whether it is they're going to foxtrot oscar to.
Well it's only £15 to 60 billion pounds worth of taxes directly.
But presumably some of that is for work they do in this country. Sure, they can move to Europe, but wouldn't they risk losing the British part of their business (not that I'd know how much that would be)?
Today's dead tree Mail more or less sums up British politics. Flickers of modernity stands. A charming retired Gay couple have won it's ' Garden of the Year ' competition. The associated Blue Plaque featured in the otherwise conservative photos of the couple's Italian themed garden. All else from cover to cover is the Soft/Hard Brexit civil war. No other political topic matters and it's happening as an entirely intra Conservative fight. There is no greater hegemony than for a party to be able to *safely* function as opposition and government at the same time. And so conservativism triumphs. Assimilate in the end counter culture like gays who can't be stopped. Shape ruthlessly and utterly all else.
If only Labour, the LibDems, UKIP were up to the job of Opposition, eh?
Our only functioning opposition party, the SNP, was to destroy the country.
Today's dead tree Mail more or less sums up British politics. Flickers of modernity stands. A charming retired Gay couple have won it's ' Garden of the Year ' competition. The associated Blue Plaque featured in the otherwise conservative photos of the couple's Italian themed garden. All else from cover to cover is the Soft/Hard Brexit civil war. No other political topic matters and it's happening as an entirely intra Conservative fight. There is no greater hegemony than for a party to be able to *safely* function as opposition and government at the same time. And so conservativism triumphs. Assimilate in the end counter culture like gays who can't be stopped. Shape ruthlessly and utterly all else.
The last time we were in anything like this situation was when 2002-03 when New Labour was dominant and the Tories were led by IDS and the only topic of political conversation was the Iraq War when Blair faced more opposition from his own benches and the likes of Claire Short and Robin Cook than the official opposition
Yes. It's the TV/GBies all over again. And despite the utter dysfunction they won three elections.
London was gleaming this weekend, but no-one would say that its infrastructure gleams if they had been near a Southern train. They creak both literally and figuratively.
I formally announce the dissolution of the organisation DUCE from midnight tonight. Dont Unseat Corbyn Early has fulfilled its purpose and is no longer needed. Goodnight Labour. Sleep well.
I formally announce the dissolution of the organisation DUCE from midnight tonight. Dont Unseat Corbyn Early has fulfilled its purpose and is no longer needed. Goodnight Labour. Sleep well.
It has always been pretty nasty. But now everything has turned inside out, with centrists marginalised and eccentrics empowered, on both the left and the right, it's worse than ever.
Today's dead tree Mail more or less sums up British politics. Flickers of modernity stands. A charming retired Gay couple have won it's ' Garden of the Year ' competition. The associated Blue Plaque featured in the otherwise conservative photos of the couple's Italian themed garden. All else from cover to cover is the Soft/Hard Brexit civil war. No other political topic matters and it's happening as an entirely intra Conservative fight. There is no greater hegemony than for a party to be able to *safely* function as opposition and government at the same time. And so conservativism triumphs. Assimilate in the end counter culture like gays who can't be stopped. Shape ruthlessly and utterly all else.
If you're going to get all your political analysis and comment from the Mail, it's no surprise. It's a Conservative newspaper for Conservative-inclined voters and in Theresa May it has its own demographic leading the country. The editorial rips into George Osborne but the refrain that a Conservative Government has to govern in a Conservative (i.e: like Margaret Thatcher) way has been a constant refrain of the rag since the 1990s.
It will turn even on May if she isn't suitably Conservative for them.
The Brexit process is vital but to call it an entirely Government issue is misleading. It affects the entire body politic and as we've seen tonight, well beyond.
The irony of huge City job losses decimating the Conservative heartland under a Conservative Government - as is often said here, you'd have to have a heart of stone...
London was gleaming this weekend, but no-one would say that its infrastructure gleams if they had been near a Southern train. They creak both literally and figuratively.
Luckily I completed "doing" the Southern network back in May.
From a purely utilitarian point of view all of Britain's non nationalist left parties, and preferably them as well, are now just covering fire for the Soft Brexit wing of the Conservative Party. Until someone less toxic emerges George Osborne is the deadline facto leader of Britain's Left. We're sort of like the Kurds. Divided by Sykes-Picot lines of the mind, stateless, not strong enough to achieve statehood but essential allies of bigger forces who can move lines on maps. And perhaps destined to perpetually pick the lesser of myriad evils.
Today's dead tree Mail more or less sums up British politics. Flickers of modernity stands. A charming retired Gay couple have won it's ' Garden of the Year ' competition. The associated Blue Plaque featured in the otherwise conservative photos of the couple's Italian themed garden. All else from cover to cover is the Soft/Hard Brexit civil war. No other political topic matters and it's happening as an entirely intra Conservative fight. There is no greater hegemony than for a party to be able to *safely* function as opposition and government at the same time. And so conservativism triumphs. Assimilate in the end counter culture like gays who can't be stopped. Shape ruthlessly and utterly all else.
The last time we were in anything like this situation was when 2002-03 when New Labour was dominant and the Tories were led by IDS and the only topic of political conversation was the Iraq War when Blair faced more opposition from his own benches and the likes of Claire Short and Robin Cook than the official opposition
Yes. It's the TV/GBies all over again. And despite the utter dysfunction they won three elections.
Yes, as New Labour won then even despite in-fighting so the Tories now are the only show in town
Their own rulebook, maybe. But they seem utterly clueless about the rules the voters will follow....
I really don't think even they believe they could win in 2020. For them the important thing is to take over and now they are in situ. They believe the revolution has started.
As David Herdson keeps pointing out - it is a battle over the structures and the succession, for now.
Think of Corbyn as the John the Baptist figure for them. He has preached in the wilderness and ultimately prepared the ground. Then it is a matter of holding on to it long enough for the Messiah to come...
FWIW if there is one - some left-wing version of Tony Blair, a British and more socialist-leaning version of Trudeau Jr or one of the Kennedies - then it'd probably be next but one. Imagine whoever is anointed next, say Lisa Nandy, seems more likely in the gameplan to be a "steadying the ship" candidate until The One comes along.
The 'One' seems to be Clive Lewis, Lisa Nandy of course backed Owen Smith and so is really a Tory! A more likely 'steadying the ship' candidate is John McDonnell. However Trudeau Jr and the Kennedies, Obama and Blair were all reasonably centrist, not full on socialist like Corbyn and his acolytes. For Corbynism to win we would need something like the 25% unemployment rate Greece had when Syriza won in January 2015 rather than the 5% unemployment rate we have now
Not sure if Clive Lewis is The One, or even whether The One is in parliament yet.
And yes, I meant someone with persona and popularity like a leftier Blair or Trudeau or Kennedy - but not with the same politics. Against a split Tory party and with an inspirational and credible leader, I don't think it would take 20% unemployment and an economic collapse for someone with the politics of Foot or Benn or Corbyn to be competitive in a GE. It's the "only need to be lucky once" strategy, you have to give the stars a chance to align first. That's why control of structures and succession matter.
Not sure I'd write Nandy off - she's not a Corbynite but whoever follows Corbyn won't be be a mere continuation. She's of the Left, to the extent that without Corbyn and to some extent Ed M nailing down the coffin of New Labour, she wouldn't be seen as a viable future leader. She isn't a Corbyn fan, but she likes winning and likes competence which may be handy traits in a leader. Only if the Lab selectorate forgive her for her resignation though... Lewis might be more likely. McDonnell might be getting on a bit to be the replacement, but in terms of steady hands and political skills I imagine that some on Labour's parliamentary Left wish that Buggin's Turn to be "no-hope token left-wing candidate" in the 2015 contest had fallen the other way.
Today's dead tree Mail more or less sums up British politics. Flickers of modernity stands. A charming retired Gay couple have won it's ' Garden of the Year ' competition. The associated Blue Plaque featured in the otherwise conservative photos of the couple's Italian themed garden. All else from cover to cover is the Soft/Hard Brexit civil war. No other political topic matters and it's happening as an entirely intra Conservative fight. There is no greater hegemony than for a party to be able to *safely* function as opposition and government at the same time. And so conservativism triumphs. Assimilate in the end counter culture like gays who can't be stopped. Shape ruthlessly and utterly all else.
If you're going to get all your political analysis and comment from the Mail, it's no surprise. It's a Conservative newspaper for Conservative-inclined voters and in Theresa May it has its own demographic leading the country. The editorial rips into George Osborne but the refrain that a Conservative Government has to govern in a Conservative (i.e: like Margaret Thatcher) way has been a constant refrain of the rag since the 1990s.
It will turn even on May if she isn't suitably Conservative for them.
The Brexit process is vital but to call it an entirely Government issue is misleading. It affects the entire body politic and as we've seen tonight, well beyond.
The irony of huge City job losses decimating the Conservative heartland under a Conservative Government - as is often said here, you'd have to have a heart of stone...
Firstly, there are not going to be 'huge City job losses decimating the Conservative heartland', whatever losses there are will not stop London being the financial centre of Europe. It should also not be forgotten that many areas of the Home Counties voted Remain. The biggest job losses such as there are will most likely be in manufacturing and working class areas of the Midlands and North which voted Leave
Lots of cancelled service as they try to play catch up with essential maintenance.
That doesn't sound good. What happened, did they have problems with maintenance for years, or think that trains and tracks would last forever so not bother with looking after them?
Bean counters thinking that maintenance is pointless. And the Federal Government having a meddling oversight (however justified) in DC and regional infrastructure financing. The lines of accountability are a mess.
So politicians not understanding how to run stuff, combined with the weird and unique DC governance issues, when none of the governors go near the transit system. Most of them probably only noticed when the junior admin staff started turning up late for work in a dirty office.
Their own rulebook, maybe. But they seem utterly clueless about the rules the voters will follow....
I really don't think even they believe they could win in 2020. d.
As David Herdson keeps pointing out - it is a battle over the structures and the succession, for now.
Think of Corbyn as the John the Baptist figure for them. He has preached in the wilderness and ultimately prepared the ground. Then it is a matter of holding on to it long enough for the Messiah to come...
FWIW if there is one - some left-wing version of Tony Blair, a British and more socialist-leaning version of Trudeau Jr or one of the Kennedies - then it'd probably be next but one. Imagine whoever is anointed next, say Lisa Nandy, seems more likely in the gameplan to be a "steadying the ship" candidate until The One comes along.
The 'One' seems to be Clive Lewis, Lisa Nandy of course backed Owen Smith and so is really a Tory! A more likely 'steadying the ship' candidate is John McDonnell. However Trudeau Jr and the Kennedies, Obama and Blair were all reasonably centrist, not full on socialist like Corbyn and his acolytes. For Corbynism to win we would need something like the 25% unemployment rate Greece had when Syriza won in January 2015 rather than the 5% unemployment rate we have now
Not sure if Clive Lewis is The One, or even whether The One is in parliament yet.
And yes, I meant someone with persona and popularity like a leftier Blair or Trudeau or Kennedy - but not with the same politics. Against a split Tory party and with an inspirational and credible leader, I don't think it would take 20% unemployment and an economic collapse for someone with the politics of Foot or Benn or Corbyn to be competitive in a GE. It's the "only need to be lucky once" strategy, you have to give the stars a chance to align first. That's why control of structures and succession matter.
Not sure I'd write Nandy off - she's not a Corbynite but whoever follows Corbyn won't be be a mere continuation. She's of the Left, to the extent that without Corbyn and to some extent Ed M nailing down the coffin of New Labour, she wouldn't be seen as a viable future leader. She isn't a Corbyn fan, but she likes winning and likes competence which may be handy traits in a leader. Only if the Lab selectorate forgive her for her resignation though... Lewis might be more likely. McDonnell might be getting on a bit to be the replacement, but in terms of steady hands and political skills I imagine that some on Labour's parliamentary Left wish that Buggin's Turn to be "no-hope token left-wing candidate" in the 2015 contest had fallen the other way.
There is no greater hegemony than for a party to be able to *safely* function as opposition and government at the same time. And so conservativism triumphs. Assimilate in the end counter culture like gays who can't be stopped. Shape ruthlessly and utterly all else.
The Conservative Party used to be accused of not liking the country that it wanted to govern. Cameron's lasting gift to the Tories (building upon the initial confrontation of the "Nasty Party" image by none other than the current PM) is having reconciled them with a more diverse society, and thus opened the door for the party to increase its support amongst gay and ethnic minority voters. Although that said, the advent of the Ukip phenomenon also provided the Tories with a very helpful safety valve, as a lot of the more hard line social conservatives departed the membership.
The acceptance of social liberalism (not in its entirety, but certainly in terms of respect for minorities,) combined with the Brexit vote which has left Ukip searching for a new purpose, has been enormously empowering for the Tories. In essence, they have been given the chance both to unify the vast bulk of the Right and to present themselves as a choice that centrists and non-ideological floating voters can embrace, or at least tolerate as a plausible management when no good alternative is available.
The Left, meanwhile, is a splintered, shattered mess, with progressives and socialists hopelessly split between Labour, the surviving Lib Dems, the Greens, and the Celtic nationalist parties. All whilst the sort of non-ideological voters that would once have been receptive to Tony Blair now bolt for safety to the Tories. If Ukip can more effectively exploit Labour's acute disconnect with its lower income support in much of the country beyond the M25 and begin to steal more of its voters, then things will get even worse for them.
In the long run, the idea of the Conservatives as both Government and Opposition may become permanent. A Labour Party sufficiently marginalised after another two heavy election defeats could begin to be disregarded as a threat, and the centre-right and hard-right wings of the Tory party might even go their separate ways over some as yet unimagined future difference. It doesn't take much of a stretch of the imagination to envisage the end point of the next generation of British politics being a soft centre-right Conservative Party and a populist right-wing Freedom Party. The duopoly would be not entirely unlike that of the Liberals and Conservatives in the 19th century, almost as if the Labour Party had never existed. Except that Labour would more than likely still be there in the Commons, holding a few dozen seats in the inner cities and perhaps contesting third party status with the SNP should the Union endure in the longer term.
Their own rulebook, maybe. But they seem utterly clueless about the rules the voters will follow....
I really don't think even they believe they could win blockquote>
As David Herdson keeps pointing out - it is a battle over the structures and the succession, for now.
.
The 'One' seems to be Clive Lewis, Lisa Nandy of course backed Owen Smith and so is really a Tory! A
Not sure if Clive Lewis is The One, or even whether The One is in parliament yet.
And yes, I meant someone wi.
Not sure I'd write Nandy off - she's not a Corbynite but whoever follows Corbyn won't be be a mere continuation. She's of the Left, to the extent that without Corbyn and to some extent Ed M nailing down the coffin of New Labour, she wouldn't be seen as a viable future leader. She isn't a Corbyn fan, but she likes winning and likes competence which may be handy traits in a leader. Only if the Lab selectorate forgive her for her resignation though... Lewis might be more likely. McDonnell might be getting on a bit to be the replacement, but in terms of steady hands and political skills I imagine that some on Labour's parliamentary Left wish that Buggin's Turn to be "no-hope token left-wing candidate" in the 2015 contest had fallen the other way.
The 'One' if Labour ever come to their senses is probably Chuka Umunna but he will not even be considered until after a general election defeat and maybe not even then if the left maintain their stranglehold. If they do then 'The One' most probably would be Lewis but even with a split Tory Party it almost certainly would take an economic collapse or massive unemployment for a Labour Party under his leadership to be competitive, the UK just does not do socialism, apart from once in 1945 and even then that took a world war, the aftermath of the depression and the relatively mild and moderate Clement Attlee to bring about.
Nandy can now be written off, no Corbynista worth their salt will consider someone who resigned from the shadow cabinet and backed Owen Smith as she did. She is of the centre left of the party but that is not left enough for the hard left who now have the party in their grip. If there is a replacement before 2020 it will almost certainly be McDonnell
It has always been pretty nasty. But now everything has turned inside out, with centrists marginalised and eccentrics empowered, on both the left and the right, it's worse than ever.
... in the Labour Party, and it was Labour MP's who brought this major catastrophe upon themselves and the party.
Their own rulebook, maybe. But they seem utterly clueless about the rules the voters will follow....
I really don't think even they believe they could win in 2020. d.
As David
FWIW if there is one - some left-wing version of Tony Blair, a British and more socialist-leaning version of Trudeau Jr or one of the Kennedies - then it'd probably be next but one. Imagine whoever is anointed next, say Lisa Nandy, seems more likely in the gameplan to be a "steadying the ship" candidate until The One comes along.
The 'One' seems to be Clive Lewis, Lisa Nandy of course backed Owen Smith and so is really a Tory! A more likely 'steadying the ship' candidate is John McDonnell. However Trudeau Jr and the Kennedies, Obama and Blair were all reasonably centrist, not full on socialist like Corbyn and his acolytes. For Corbynism to win we would need something like the 25% unemployment rate Greece had when Syriza won in January 2015 rather than the 5% unemployment rate we have now
Not sure if Clive Lewis is The One, or even whether The One is in parliament yet.
And yes, I meant someone with persona and popularity like a leftier Blair or Trudeau or Kennedy - but not with the same politics. Against a split Tory party and with an inspirational and credible leader, I don't think it would take 20% unemployment and an economic collapse for someone with the politics of Foot or Benn or Corbyn to be competitive in a GE. It's the "only need to be lucky once" strategy, you have to give the stars a chance to align first. That's why control of structures and succession matter.
Not sure I'd write Nandy off - she's not a Corbynite but whoever follows Corbyn won't be be a mere continuation. She's of the Left, to the extent that without Corbyn and to some extent Ed M nailing down the coffin of New Labour, she wouldn't be seen as a viable future leader. She isn't a Corbyn fan, but she likes winning and likes competence which may be handy traits in a leader. Only if the Lab selectorate forgive her for her resignation though... Lewis might be more likely. McDonnell might be getting on a bit to be the replacement, but in terms of steady hands and political skills I imagine that some on Labour's parliamentary Left wish that Buggin's Turn to be "no-hope token left-wing candidate" in the 2015 contest had fallen the other way.
London most definitely does NOT have "creaking infrastructure". It positively GLEAMS.
Ah - so that's why so many rail services are suspended at weekends! To give them more time to polish the infrastructure ...
Infrastructural pressure is the slow burn issue. Someone somewhere is probably planning some sort of chemical attack on a western major city. Hopefully they will be thwarted; own own secret service seems to have done well in heading off threats of a major incident, and the current modus is random individual attacks.
Their own rulebook, maybe. But they seem utterly clueless about the rules the voters will follow....
I really don't think even they believe they could win in 2020. d.
As David
FWIW if there is one - some left-wing version of Tony Blair, a British and more socialist-leaning version of Trudeau Jr or one of the Kennedies - then it'd probably be next but one. Imagine whoever is anointed next, say Lisa Nandy, seems more likely in the gameplan to be a "steadying the ship" candidate until The One comes along.
The 'One' seems to be Clive Lewis, Lisa Nandy of course backed Owen Smith and so is really a Tory! A more likely 'steadying the ship' candidate is John McDonnell. However Trudeau Jr and the Kennedies, Obama and Blair were all reasonably centrist, not full on socialist like Corbyn and his acolytes. For Corbynism to win we would need something like the 25% unemployment rate Greece had when Syriza won in January 2015 rather than the 5% unemployment rate we have now
Not sure if Clive Lewis is The One, or even whether The One is in parliament yet.
And yes, I meant someone with persona and popularity like a leftier Blair or Trudeau or Kennedy - but not with the same politics. Against a split Tory party and with an inspirational and credible leader, I don't think it would take 20% unemployment and an economic collapse for someone with the politics of Foot or Benn or Corbyn to be competitive in a GE. It's the "only need to be lucky once" strategy, you have to give the stars a chance to align first. That's why control of structures and succession matter.
Not sure I'd write Nandy off - she's not a Corbynite but whoever follows Corbyn won't be be a mere continuation. She's of the Left, to the extent that without Corbyn and to some extent Ed M nailing down the coffin of New Labour, she wouldn't be seen as a viable future leader. She isn't a Corbyn fan, but she likes winning and likes competence which may be handy traits in a leader. Only if the Lab selectorate forgive her for her resignation though... Lewis might be more likely. McDonnell might be getting on a bit to be the replacement, but in terms of steady hands and political skills I imagine that some on Labour's parliamentary Left wish that Buggin's Turn to be "no-hope token left-wing candidate" in the 2015 contest had fallen the other way.
Stella.
Stella Creasy? Owen Smith backing Tory
Just suggesting that she may be The One. Her coming is some time off.
@Black_Rook I certainly agree re the ' Nasty Party ' comment. I've argued consistently it was the Conservatives psychological. theological and political metanoia point. The fact that May in the end made it to PM shows that just occasionally there is justice in politics.
Comments
For the longer haul hub, Emirates are now flying the A380 into the recently extended Birmingham, there's something like 12 A380s and 8 777s a day heading from UK to Dubai, plus the BA, Virgin and Royal Brunei flights from LHR. Don't take the last one if you have the choice, unless you like a dry flight!
6 mins 30 secs is a view of the Canary Wharf area:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP1DADTYq98
Not London Oxford Airport?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Airport
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/10377807/Well-never-have-it-so-good-again.html
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/education/Pages/resources/inflationtools/calculator/flash/default.aspx
Also most trains take over half an hour to get to Luton Airport Parkway from St Pancras. Include the bus link and it is quicker from St Pancras to Gatwick with just as many trains.
If you are going to rant at least get the basic facts right!
Heathrow is dreadful to get to. Gatwick takes hardly any longer.
More flights from Bham or Manchester would suit me better.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-37463929
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/779729180334387200
LHR Is where it is, now hurry up and make it bigger.
The point of it clearly is that there's nothing there. Birds can be chaperoned elsewhere. Workers can be asked to arrive. The whole point is to just do it right, and what we have now isn't that. You build a train that can put you in central London in as close to 'no time' as is possible.
Fortunes need to be spent.
West London deserves a shake-up.
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/london-rail-and-tube-services-map.pdf
Roll on Monday!
There!
But you can see the depot from Northumberland Park train station on the line from Liverpool Street via Tottenham Hale out to Cheshunt and beyond.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=Sunil060902+signage&title=Special:Search&go=Go&uselang=en-gb&searchToken=67w6fcf5kyhkt3h7cd01q358u
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=Sunil060902+roundel&title=Special:Search&go=Go&uselang=en-gb&searchToken=37wibfuks8d1t4uw8ulapmrqw
https://twitter.com/matthewlumby/status/779709544192704512
I mean sovereignty will put money in people's pockets.
REMAIN 48%
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/741743746123960320
Oh my
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/fta-safety-blitz-uncovers-more-problems-with-metro-safety/2016/04/18/a2ad239e-05a6-11e6-a12f-ea5aed7958dc_story.html
Lots of cancelled service as they try to play catch up with essential maintenance.
Still, the next time a train is unexpectedly terminated because the track is blocked by a broken-down train, and I have to take a lengthy walk instead, or the next time a signalling fault means the train doesn't turn up at all, and there's no hint of any information either, I'll console myself with the thought that things may be worse in Washington DC.
It's DUJCA
Don't Unseat Jeremy Corbyn Association
It has always been pretty nasty. But now everything has turned inside out, with centrists marginalised and eccentrics empowered, on both the left and the right, it's worse than ever.
It will turn even on May if she isn't suitably Conservative for them.
The Brexit process is vital but to call it an entirely Government issue is misleading. It affects the entire body politic and as we've seen tonight, well beyond.
The irony of huge City job losses decimating the Conservative heartland under a Conservative Government - as is often said here, you'd have to have a heart of stone...
And yes, I meant someone with persona and popularity like a leftier Blair or Trudeau or Kennedy - but not with the same politics. Against a split Tory party and with an inspirational and credible leader, I don't think it would take 20% unemployment and an economic collapse for someone with the politics of Foot or Benn or Corbyn to be competitive in a GE. It's the "only need to be lucky once" strategy, you have to give the stars a chance to align first. That's why control of structures and succession matter.
Not sure I'd write Nandy off - she's not a Corbynite but whoever follows Corbyn won't be be a mere continuation. She's of the Left, to the extent that without Corbyn and to some extent Ed M nailing down the coffin of New Labour, she wouldn't be seen as a viable future leader. She isn't a Corbyn fan, but she likes winning and likes competence which may be handy traits in a leader. Only if the Lab selectorate forgive her for her resignation though... Lewis might be more likely. McDonnell might be getting on a bit to be the replacement, but in terms of steady hands and political skills I imagine that some on Labour's parliamentary Left wish that Buggin's Turn to be "no-hope token left-wing candidate" in the 2015 contest had fallen the other way.
The acceptance of social liberalism (not in its entirety, but certainly in terms of respect for minorities,) combined with the Brexit vote which has left Ukip searching for a new purpose, has been enormously empowering for the Tories. In essence, they have been given the chance both to unify the vast bulk of the Right and to present themselves as a choice that centrists and non-ideological floating voters can embrace, or at least tolerate as a plausible management when no good alternative is available.
The Left, meanwhile, is a splintered, shattered mess, with progressives and socialists hopelessly split between Labour, the surviving Lib Dems, the Greens, and the Celtic nationalist parties. All whilst the sort of non-ideological voters that would once have been receptive to Tony Blair now bolt for safety to the Tories. If Ukip can more effectively exploit Labour's acute disconnect with its lower income support in much of the country beyond the M25 and begin to steal more of its voters, then things will get even worse for them.
In the long run, the idea of the Conservatives as both Government and Opposition may become permanent. A Labour Party sufficiently marginalised after another two heavy election defeats could begin to be disregarded as a threat, and the centre-right and hard-right wings of the Tory party might even go their separate ways over some as yet unimagined future difference. It doesn't take much of a stretch of the imagination to envisage the end point of the next generation of British politics being a soft centre-right Conservative Party and a populist right-wing Freedom Party. The duopoly would be not entirely unlike that of the Liberals and Conservatives in the 19th century, almost as if the Labour Party had never existed. Except that Labour would more than likely still be there in the Commons, holding a few dozen seats in the inner cities and perhaps contesting third party status with the SNP should the Union endure in the longer term.