You're right. Instead, let's put the airport in the middle of 'somewhere' by demolishing Central London. If we get the position right we wont have to bother about the cost of renovating the Houses of Parliament either.
If we were picking a new ideal site then somewhere around Watford is the ideal spot. Loads of transport links, fast links to Euston, the Met line is a lot faster than the Piccadilly line and the flight path could be directed over empty land. Between the A41 and M25 is what I remember researching at one time.
But you would have to have 1 million flights a year over houses. Whereas a Boris island could have very few over house - just some domestic flights.
May's decision in Richmond suggests to me she is still more worried about having sufficient HoC votes for Brexit with her small majority than anything else.
I take this to mean she is still not planning to hold an early GE. But DYOR.
She came to a deal with Goldsmith, obviously. Politics as usual, so dull.
What an appalling, atrocious, and cowardly decision by Mrs May. She's yellow, sack up woman and defend your Heathrow decision. You wouldn't see Mrs Thatcher doing this with the wets.
Will we see Boris Johnson campaigning against his own government's policy in a by election?
Boris' Estury plan for a new airport was the most sensible from a growth and expansion point of view.
Truly, it wasn't.
Oh it was. But the British have lost the will to decide something important for it's future for decades now.
No, it was on the wrong side of London and regardless of the £40-50bn needed to build it (needing about £2bn per year in returns to be viable, Heathrow makes ~£600m) there were too many technical issues. A new airport would have to be south of St Albans but North of London to be viable in cost and location terms. Anything which isn't accessible by car is a non-starter.
Why would it have mattered which side it was on as long as you have a fast rail link to central London? Also it would have meant that you could have all the latest facilities instead of adding them on to antiquated buildings and infrastructure at Heathrow.
Because a lot of people drive.
In 10+ years they can be driven (driverless) to the nearest links to fast connections to Boris Island.
Carney says MPC will take Sterling depreciation into account at next meeting. Chances of a further interest rate cut are pretty close to nil in that case. Also rules out negative rates, saying there is something "unnatural" about them. Very sensible.
Reuters were reporting a couple of interesting side effects today of sterling's moves.
Tata are believed to be turning an operating profit of £10m pcm at Port Talbot now, while the British Steel pension deficit of £700m has nearly been wiped out, standing at just £50m now.
A reduction of over 90% since March.
I'm afraid the depreciation of Sterling has not been the major factor, more the fact that Hot Rolled Coil has increased from $376/tonne at the start of the year to $546/tonne now.
Sterling depreciation can only have a modest effect because 75% of Port Talbot's operating expenses are Iron Ore and Coal, both of which are imported and are priced in US Dollars.
Cheaper Sterling affects only the labour element of costs. (If I remember correctly, Port Talbot's debt is US Dollar denominated, so it's gotten larger even as the plant has become more profitable,)
You're right. Instead, let's put the airport in the middle of 'somewhere' by demolishing Central London. If we get the position right we wont have to bother about the cost of renovating the Houses of Parliament either.
If we were picking a new ideal site then somewhere around Watford is the ideal spot. Loads of transport links, fast links to Euston, the Met line is a lot faster than the Piccadilly line and the flight path could be directed over empty land. Between the A41 and M25 is what I remember researching at one time.
But you would have to have 1 million flights a year over houses. Whereas a Boris island could have very few over house - just some domestic flights.
No, the take off direction could be over the countryside where there are few to no residents. That's why a similar site has previously been considered.
What an appalling, atrocious, and cowardly decision by Mrs May. She's yellow, sack up woman and defend your Heathrow decision. You wouldn't see Mrs Thatcher doing this with the wets.
Will we see Boris Johnson campaigning against his own government's policy in a by election?
Boris' Estury plan for a new airport was the most sensible from a growth and expansion point of view.
Truly, it wasn't.
Oh it was. But the British have lost the will to decide something important for it's future for decades now.
No, it was on the wrong side of London and regardless of the £40-50bn needed to build it (needing about £2bn per year in returns to be viable, Heathrow makes ~£600m) there were too many technical issues. A new airport would have to be south of St Albans but North of London to be viable in cost and location terms. Anything which isn't accessible by car is a non-starter.
just flatten Slough and build a brand new airport from scratch.
it will be cheaper.
Much of the cost of a new airport could be defrayed by selling Heathrow as prime building land - brilliant communications with the rest of London, power, water etc etc. Plus the locals would have no problem with noisy construction.... How much would Heathrow be worth in that form - 30 billion? More?
absolutely.
build a new airport from scratch and estate agents will have a field day in redeveloping west London
it's not as if there's anything much worth preserving in the capital :-)
It's just I never understood this idea that if you moved the airport from Heathrow, the results would be a howling wasteland at Heathrow. The land is too valuable.....
The idea of Boris island was the point when I started taking Boris seriously as a Leader. He has a sense of real vision and insight into tackling major issues.
By sticking an airport in the middle of nowhere?
As recommended by the government in 1973 when they selected Maplin Sands.
What an appalling, atrocious, and cowardly decision by Mrs May. She's yellow, sack up woman and defend your Heathrow decision. You wouldn't see Mrs Thatcher doing this with the wets.
Will we see Boris Johnson campaigning against his own government's policy in a by election?
Boris' Estury plan for a new airport was the most sensible from a growth and expansion point of view.
Truly, it wasn't.
Oh it was. But the British have lost the will to decide something important for it's future for decades now.
No, it was on the wrong side of London and regardless of the £40-50bn needed to build it (needing about £2bn per year in returns to be viable, Heathrow makes ~£600m) there were too many technical issues. A new airport would have to be south of St Albans but North of London to be viable in cost and location terms. Anything which isn't accessible by car is a non-starter.
just flatten Slough and build a brand new airport from scratch.
it will be cheaper.
Much of the cost of a new airport could be defrayed by selling Heathrow as prime building land - brilliant communications with the rest of London, power, water etc etc. Plus the locals would have no problem with noisy construction.... How much would Heathrow be worth in that form - 30 billion? More?
absolutely.
build a new airport from scratch and estate agents will have a field day in redeveloping west London
it's not as if there's anything much worth preserving in the capital :-)
It's just I never understood this idea that if you moved the airport from Heathrow, the results would be a howling wasteland at Heathrow. The land is too valuable.....
The idea of Boris island was the point when I started taking Boris seriously as a Leader. He has a sense of real vision and insight into tackling major issues.
You have got to be joking. It was only a political stunt.
.....and the alternative for 50+ years, from 2026 is?
What an appalling, atrocious, and cowardly decision by Mrs May. She's yellow, sack up woman and defend your Heathrow decision. You wouldn't see Mrs Thatcher doing this with the wets.
Will we see Boris Johnson campaigning against his own government's policy in a by election?
Boris' Estury plan for a new airport was the most sensible from a growth and expansion point of view.
Truly, it wasn't.
Oh it was. But the British have lost the will to decide something important for it's future for decades now.
No, it was on the wrong side of London and regardless of the £40-50bn needed to build it (needing about £2bn per year in returns to be viable, Heathrow makes ~£600m) there were too many technical issues. A new airport would have to be south of St Albans but North of London to be viable in cost and location terms. Anything which isn't accessible by car is a non-starter.
Why would it have mattered which side it was on as long as you have a fast rail link to central London? Also it would have meant that you could have all the latest facilities instead of adding them on to antiquated buildings and infrastructure at Heathrow.
Because the thousands of people who work supporting an airport don't live in central London. Because an island in the middle of nowhere has no infrastructure, no transport links, no supporting industry/hotels etc., no passengers nearby, no nothing. Except loads of birds which is a serious problem for any type of aircraft.
It mystifies me why otherwise sensible people take Boris's proposal at face value. It was naked politics, pure and simple.
What an appalling, atrocious, and cowardly decision by Mrs May. She's yellow, sack up woman and defend your Heathrow decision. You wouldn't see Mrs Thatcher doing this with the wets.
Will we see Boris Johnson campaigning against his own government's policy in a by election?
Boris' Estury plan for a new airport was the most sensible from a growth and expansion point of view.
Truly, it wasn't.
Oh it was. But the British have lost the will to decide something important for it's future for decades now.
No, it was on the wrong side of London and regardless of the £40-50bn needed to build it (needing about £2bn per year in returns to be viable, Heathrow makes ~£600m) there were too many technical issues. A new airport would have to be south of St Albans but North of London to be viable in cost and location terms. Anything which isn't accessible by car is a non-starter.
Why would it have mattered which side it was on as long as you have a fast rail link to central London? Also it would have meant that you could have all the latest facilities instead of adding them on to antiquated buildings and infrastructure at Heathrow.
Because a lot of people drive.
In 10+ years they can be driven (driverless) to the nearest links to fast connections to Boris Island.
How very utopian. They'll all be electric as well, I hope.
That's a poor decision given Zack is standing as an Indy.
Got to say, if I lived in Richmond I'd be voting Lib-Dem (even though I voted LEAVE, support Heathrow and T May)
Posh Boy Zack should be thrown out of public life and the Tories need to bloody nose for not fielding their own candidate.
Presumably since the local association is refusing to put up a candidate against Zac then Central Office doesn't have many choices. It can suspend the local party but that would just be pouring salt on a wound, and then having forced a candidate that the local party refused to support, they would get hammered by Zac anyway.
What an appalling, atrocious, and cowardly decision by Mrs May. She's yellow, sack up woman and defend your Heathrow decision. You wouldn't see Mrs Thatcher doing this with the wets.
Will we see Boris Johnson campaigning against his own government's policy in a by election?
Boris' Estury plan for a new airport was the most sensible from a growth and expansion point of view.
Truly, it wasn't.
Oh it was. But the British have lost the will to decide something important for it's future for decades now.
No, it was on the wrong side of London and regardless of the £40-50bn needed to build it (needing about £2bn per year in returns to be viable, Heathrow makes ~£600m) there were too many technical issues. A new airport would have to be south of St Albans but North of London to be viable in cost and location terms. Anything which isn't accessible by car is a non-starter.
Why would it have mattered which side it was on as long as you have a fast rail link to central London? Also it would have meant that you could have all the latest facilities instead of adding them on to antiquated buildings and infrastructure at Heathrow.
Because there's thousands of businesses on the M4 and M3 corridors that are deliberately located close to the airport. A significant number of people leaving LHR travel west, rather than east into London.
According to the latest Baker Atlas, there is a "proposed" rail link from LHR to the GWR main line somewhere near Slough.
You're right. Instead, let's put the airport in the middle of 'somewhere' by demolishing Central London. If we get the position right we wont have to bother about the cost of renovating the Houses of Parliament either.
If we were picking a new ideal site then somewhere around Watford is the ideal spot. Loads of transport links, fast links to Euston, the Met line is a lot faster than the Piccadilly line and the flight path could be directed over empty land. Between the A41 and M25 is what I remember researching at one time.
But you would have to have 1 million flights a year over houses. Whereas a Boris island could have very few over house - just some domestic flights.
No, the take off direction could be over the countryside where there are few to no residents. That's why a similar site has previously been considered.
Interested as to how you have four separate in and out flight paths which start getting noisy 10+ kms away from the airport? I have lived in Richmond, Chiswick and Acton etc so am well aware of the noise etc.
What an appalling, atrocious, and cowardly decision by Mrs May. She's yellow, sack up woman and defend your Heathrow decision. You wouldn't see Mrs Thatcher doing this with the wets.
Will we see Boris Johnson campaigning against his own government's policy in a by election?
Boris' Estury plan for a new airport was the most sensible from a growth and expansion point of view.
Truly, it wasn't.
Oh it was. But the British have lost the will to decide something important for it's future for decades now.
No, it was on the wrong side of London and regardless of the £40-50bn needed to build it (needing about £2bn per year in returns to be viable, Heathrow makes ~£600m) there were too many technical issues. A new airport would have to be south of St Albans but North of London to be viable in cost and location terms. Anything which isn't accessible by car is a non-starter.
Why would it have mattered which side it was on as long as you have a fast rail link to central London? Also it would have meant that you could have all the latest facilities instead of adding them on to antiquated buildings and infrastructure at Heathrow.
Because a lot of people drive.
In 10+ years they can be driven (driverless) to the nearest links to fast connections to Boris Island.
How very utopian. They'll all be electric as well, I hope.
Will Lib Dems parachute Vince Cable in as their candidate?
No. They have a prospective candidate in Sarah Olney, and Vince wants to get his old seat back.
Sarah Olney was selected as Lib Dem candiadte in the event of a snap general election.
She was not selected as a high profile by-election candidate.
Vince Cable would be a better candidate and is an elderly white male, so has a better chance.
I wouldn't campaign for Vince. I'd sit it out.
Why? Not attracted to pale, male and very stale?
Very stale and too much baggage. Not motivational for the activists. Not good for a Labour squeeze. Yesterday's man. And not even local.
This needs a new fresh credible younger person with no baggage, plenty of energy and enthusiasm, very fast learner, good speaker who is at least as personally appealing as Zac. They have that in Sarah Olney whose day job is an accountant with the National Physical Laboratory but you'd never guess that. I'm with Her.
What an appalling, atrocious, and cowardly decision by Mrs May. She's yellow, sack up woman and defend your Heathrow decision. You wouldn't see Mrs Thatcher doing this with the wets.
Will we see Boris Johnson campaigning against his own government's policy in a by election?
Boris' Estury plan for a new airport was the most sensible from a growth and expansion point of view.
Truly, it wasn't.
Oh it was. But the British have lost the will to decide something important for it's future for decades now.
No, it was on the wrong side of London and regardless of the £40-50bn needed to build it (needing about £2bn per year in returns to be viable, Heathrow makes ~£600m) there were too many technical issues. A new airport would have to be south of St Albans but North of London to be viable in cost and location terms. Anything which isn't accessible by car is a non-starter.
Why would it have mattered which side it was on as long as you have a fast rail link to central London? Also it would have meant that you could have all the latest facilities instead of adding them on to antiquated buildings and infrastructure at Heathrow.
Because there's thousands of businesses on the M4 and M3 corridors that are deliberately located close to the airport. A significant number of people leaving LHR travel west, rather than east into London.
According to the latest Baker Atlas, there is a "proposed" rail link from LHR to the GWR main line somewhere near Slough.
What an appalling, atrocious, and cowardly decision by Mrs May. She's yellow, sack up woman and defend your Heathrow decision. You wouldn't see Mrs Thatcher doing this with the wets.
Will we see Boris Johnson campaigning against his own government's policy in a by election?
Boris' Estury plan for a new airport was the most sensible from a growth and expansion point of view.
Truly, it wasn't.
Oh it was. But the British have lost the will to decide something important for it's future for decades now.
No, it was on the wrong side of London and regardless of the £40-50bn needed to build it (needing about £2bn per year in returns to be viable, Heathrow makes ~£600m) there were too many technical issues. A new airport would have to be south of St Albans but North of London to be viable in cost and location terms. Anything which isn't accessible by car is a non-starter.
just flatten Slough and build a brand new airport from scratch.
it will be cheaper.
LOL.
On that topic, a radio advert heard in Dubai today. "Invest in premium London property in Staines-upon-Thames, with prices starting from only £340,000 with rental returns averaging 4.5%, call Knight Frank today"
Some charlatan is selling off-plan studio apartments in Staines to international investors at trumped-up prices on the back of the Sterling devaluation.
I can't work out if the foreign investment is a good thing, or if there will be an almighty backlash from the buyers when they realise what and where they've bought.
I don't remember Staines as being premium London...
I've just had a telephone call from a LibDem activist based in Manchester with a script with all the right questions about LHR and Brexit and asking me whether I would consider voting for the LibDems in the by election. That's quick off the mark!
The Liberals are right back in their old comfort zone enthusing about by-elections. As David Steel once said " Return to your constituencies and prepare for-utterly pointless expensive by-elections that achieve absolutely nothing!"
What an appalling, atrocious, and cowardly decision by Mrs May. She's yellow, sack up woman and defend your Heathrow decision. You wouldn't see Mrs Thatcher doing this with the wets.
Will we see Boris Johnson campaigning against his own government's policy in a by election?
Boris' Estury plan for a new airport was the most sensible from a growth and expansion point of view.
Truly, it wasn't.
Oh it was. But the British have lost the will to decide something important for it's future for decades now.
No, it was on the wrong side of London and regardless of the £40-50bn needed to build it (needing about £2bn per year in returns to be viable, Heathrow makes ~£600m) there were too many technical issues. A new airport would have to be south of St Albans but North of London to be viable in cost and location terms. Anything which isn't accessible by car is a non-starter.
just flatten Slough and build a brand new airport from scratch.
it will be cheaper.
Much of the cost of a new airport could be defrayed by selling Heathrow as prime building land - brilliant communications with the rest of London, power, water etc etc. Plus the locals would have no problem with noisy construction.... How much would Heathrow be worth in that form - 30 billion? More?
absolutely. build a new airport from scratch and estate agents will have a field day in redeveloping west London it's not as if there's anything much worth preserving in the capital :-)
One plane crash on the way down to Heathrow would be cataclysmic. How do they get by elf and safety?
I've just had a telephone call from a LibDem activist based in Manchester with a script with all the right questions about LHR and Brexit and asking me whether I would consider voting for the LibDems. That's quick off the mark!
Great to have you on the site with the inside scoop.
I agree with your estimate of odds on the previous thread. But, do you think Zac will struggle with his ground game? He won't have access to the Tory machine and foot soldiers (or will he?).
You're right. Instead, let's put the airport in the middle of 'somewhere' by demolishing Central London. If we get the position right we wont have to bother about the cost of renovating the Houses of Parliament either.
If we were picking a new ideal site then somewhere around Watford is the ideal spot. Loads of transport links, fast links to Euston, the Met line is a lot faster than the Piccadilly line and the flight path could be directed over empty land. Between the A41 and M25 is what I remember researching at one time.
But that's an argument for doing nothing, as there's no chance of getting a new 4-runway airport (and that's the minimum needed) anywhere in the Home Counties; yet alone with the required transport links and other infrastructure.
And I LOL at the idea that the noise footprint for an airport in that area being over 'empty' land.
What an appalling, atrocious, and cowardly decision by Mrs May. She's yellow, sack up woman and defend your Heathrow decision. You wouldn't see Mrs Thatcher doing this with the wets.
Will we see Boris Johnson campaigning against his own government's policy in a by election?
Boris' Estury plan for a new airport was the most sensible from a growth and expansion point of view.
Truly, it wasn't.
Oh it was. But the British have lost the will to decide something important for it's future for decades now.
No, it was on the wrong side of London and regardless of the £40-50bn needed to build it (needing about £2bn per year in returns to be viable, Heathrow makes ~£600m) there were too many technical issues. A new airport would have to be south of St Albans but North of London to be viable in cost and location terms. Anything which isn't accessible by car is a non-starter.
just flatten Slough and build a brand new airport from scratch.
it will be cheaper.
Much of the cost of a new airport could be defrayed by selling Heathrow as prime building land - brilliant communications with the rest of London, power, water etc etc. Plus the locals would have no problem with noisy construction.... How much would Heathrow be worth in that form - 30 billion? More?
absolutely. build a new airport from scratch and estate agents will have a field day in redeveloping west London it's not as if there's anything much worth preserving in the capital :-)
One plane crash on the way down to Heathrow would be cataclysmic. How do they get by elf and safety?
What an appalling, atrocious, and cowardly decision by Mrs May. She's yellow, sack up woman and defend your Heathrow decision. You wouldn't see Mrs Thatcher doing this with the wets.
Will we see Boris Johnson campaigning against his own government's policy in a by election?
Boris' Estury plan for a new airport was the most sensible from a growth and expansion point of view.
Truly, it wasn't.
Oh it was. But the British have lost the will to decide something important for it's future for decades now.
No, it was on the wrong side of London and regardless of the £40-50bn needed to build it (needing about £2bn per year in returns to be viable, Heathrow makes ~£600m) there were too many technical issues. A new airport would have to be south of St Albans but North of London to be viable in cost and location terms. Anything which isn't accessible by car is a non-starter.
just flatten Slough and build a brand new airport from scratch.
it will be cheaper.
LOL.
On that topic, a radio advert heard in Dubai today. "Invest in premium London property in Staines-upon-Thames, with prices starting from only £340,000 with rental returns averaging 4.5%, call Knight Frank today"
Some charlatan is selling off-plan studio apartments in Staines to international investors at trumped-up prices on the back of the Sterling devaluation.
I can't work out if the foreign investment is a good thing, or if there will be an almighty backlash from the buyers when they realise what and where they've bought.
I don't remember Staines as being premium London...
Me neither, that's what made me laugh out loud at the ad. No doubt a few rich Arabs and Indians here will be parted from their cash though.
What an appalling, atrocious, and cowardly decision by Mrs May. She's yellow, sack up woman and defend your Heathrow decision. You wouldn't see Mrs Thatcher doing this with the wets.
Will we see Boris Johnson campaigning against his own government's policy in a by election?
Boris' Estury plan for a new airport was the most sensible from a growth and expansion point of view.
Truly, it wasn't.
Oh it was. But the British have lost the will to decide something important for it's future for decades now.
No, it was on the wrong side of London and regardless of the £40-50bn needed to build it (needing about £2bn per year in returns to be viable, Heathrow makes ~£600m) there were too many technical issues. A new airport would have to be south of St Albans but North of London to be viable in cost and location terms. Anything which isn't accessible by car is a non-starter.
just flatten Slough and build a brand new airport from scratch.
it will be cheaper.
Much of the cost of a new airport could be defrayed by selling Heathrow as prime building land - brilliant communications with the rest of London, power, water etc etc. Plus the locals would have no problem with noisy construction.... How much would Heathrow be worth in that form - 30 billion? More?
absolutely. build a new airport from scratch and estate agents will have a field day in redeveloping west London it's not as if there's anything much worth preserving in the capital :-)
One plane crash on the way down to Heathrow would be cataclysmic. How do they get by elf and safety?
What an appalling, atrocious, and cowardly decision by Mrs May. She's yellow, sack up woman and defend your Heathrow decision. You wouldn't see Mrs Thatcher doing this with the wets.
Will we see Boris Johnson campaigning against his own government's policy in a by election?
Boris' Estury plan for a new airport was the most sensible from a growth and expansion point of view.
Truly, it wasn't.
Oh it was. But the British have lost the will to decide something important for it's future for decades now.
No, it was on the wrong side of London and regardless of the £40-50bn needed to build it (needing about £2bn per year in returns to be viable, Heathrow makes ~£600m) there were too many technical issues. A new airport would have to be south of St Albans but North of London to be viable in cost and location terms. Anything which isn't accessible by car is a non-starter.
Why would it have mattered which side it was on as long as you have a fast rail link to central London? Also it would have meant that you could have all the latest facilities instead of adding them on to antiquated buildings and infrastructure at Heathrow.
Because there's thousands of businesses on the M4 and M3 corridors that are deliberately located close to the airport. A significant number of people leaving LHR travel west, rather than east into London.
According to the latest Baker Atlas, there is a "proposed" rail link from LHR to the GWR main line somewhere near Slough.
What an appalling, atrocious, and cowardly decision by Mrs May. She's yellow, sack up woman and defend your Heathrow decision. You wouldn't see Mrs Thatcher doing this with the wets.
Will we see Boris Johnson campaigning against his own government's policy in a by election?
Boris' Estury plan for a new airport was the most sensible from a growth and expansion point of view.
Truly, it wasn't.
Oh it was. But the British have lost the will to decide something important for it's future for decades now.
No, it was on the wrong side of London and regardless of the £40-50bn needed to build it (needing about £2bn per year in returns to be viable, Heathrow makes ~£600m) there were too many technical issues. A new airport would have to be south of St Albans but North of London to be viable in cost and location terms. Anything which isn't accessible by car is a non-starter.
just flatten Slough and build a brand new airport from scratch.
it will be cheaper.
Much of the cost of a new airport could be defrayed by selling Heathrow as prime building land - brilliant communications with the rest of London, power, water etc etc. Plus the locals would have no problem with noisy construction.... How much would Heathrow be worth in that form - 30 billion? More?
absolutely. build a new airport from scratch and estate agents will have a field day in redeveloping west London it's not as if there's anything much worth preserving in the capital :-)
One plane crash on the way down to Heathrow would be cataclysmic. How do they get by elf and safety?
What an appalling, atrocious, and cowardly decision by Mrs May. She's yellow, sack up woman and defend your Heathrow decision. You wouldn't see Mrs Thatcher doing this with the wets.
Will we see Boris Johnson campaigning against his own government's policy in a by election?
Boris' Estury plan for a new airport was the most sensible from a growth and expansion point of view.
Truly, it wasn't.
Oh it was. But the British have lost the will to decide something important for it's future for decades now.
No, it was on the wrong side of London and regardless of the £40-50bn needed to build it (needing about £2bn per year in returns to be viable, Heathrow makes ~£600m) there were too many technical issues. A new airport would have to be south of St Albans but North of London to be viable in cost and location terms. Anything which isn't accessible by car is a non-starter.
just flatten Slough and build a brand new airport from scratch.
it will be cheaper.
Much of the cost of a new airport could be defrayed by selling Heathrow as prime building land - brilliant communications with the rest of London, power, water etc etc. Plus the locals would have no problem with noisy construction.... How much would Heathrow be worth in that form - 30 billion? More?
absolutely. build a new airport from scratch and estate agents will have a field day in redeveloping west London it's not as if there's anything much worth preserving in the capital :-)
One plane crash on the way down to Heathrow would be cataclysmic. How do they get by elf and safety?
What an appalling, atrocious, and cowardly decision by Mrs May. She's yellow, sack up woman and defend your Heathrow decision. You wouldn't see Mrs Thatcher doing this with the wets.
Will we see Boris Johnson campaigning against his own government's policy in a by election?
Boris' Estury plan for a new airport was the most sensible from a growth and expansion point of view.
Truly, it wasn't.
Oh it was. But the British have lost the will to decide something important for it's future for decades now.
No, it was on the wrong side of London and regardless of the £40-50bn needed to build it (needing about £2bn per year in returns to be viable, Heathrow makes ~£600m) there were too many technical issues. A new airport would have to be south of St Albans but North of London to be viable in cost and location terms. Anything which isn't accessible by car is a non-starter.
just flatten Slough and build a brand new airport from scratch.
it will be cheaper.
Much of the cost of a new airport could be defrayed by selling Heathrow as prime building land - brilliant communications with the rest of London, power, water etc etc. Plus the locals would have no problem with noisy construction.... How much would Heathrow be worth in that form - 30 billion? More?
absolutely. build a new airport from scratch and estate agents will have a field day in redeveloping west London it's not as if there's anything much worth preserving in the capital :-)
One plane crash on the way down to Heathrow would be cataclysmic. How do they get by elf and safety?
Lib Dem Press Office ✔ @LibDemPress .@TimFarron: Victory for Lib Dems in #RichmondPark would put huge pressure on Theresa May to abandon plans for a disastrous hard Brexit
Lib Dem Press Office ✔ @LibDemPress .@TimFarron: Victory for Lib Dems in #RichmondPark would put huge pressure on Theresa May to abandon plans for a disastrous hard Brexit
I've just had a telephone call from a LibDem activist based in Manchester with a script with all the right questions about LHR and Brexit and asking me whether I would consider voting for the LibDems. That's quick off the mark!
Great to have you on the site with the inside scoop.
I agree with your estimate of odds on the previous thread. But, do you think Zac will struggle with his ground game? He won't have access to the Tory machine and foot soldiers (or will he?).
I'm sure he will. He has an enthusiastic following and they will respect the fact that he honoured his promise to trigger a by election (even though he now regrets having made it). I think he will have full access to the Tory machine. They will want him to win. He is a Tory after all, but temporarily under a different brand name.
Lib Dem Press Office ✔ @LibDemPress .@TimFarron: Victory for Lib Dems in #RichmondPark would put huge pressure on Theresa May to abandon plans for a disastrous hard Brexit
Coffee House The LibDems will make the Richmond Park by-election into a referendum on Brexit James Forsyth "So more is at stake for the Lib Dems than the Tories – if they can’t win their old seat back in these circumstances, it is hard to see how they will ever be a significant force in UK politics again." http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/zac-goldsmith-stand-independent-tories-wont-contest/
I've just had a telephone call from a LibDem activist based in Manchester with a script with all the right questions about LHR and Brexit and asking me whether I would consider voting for the LibDems. That's quick off the mark!
Great to have you on the site with the inside scoop.
I agree with your estimate of odds on the previous thread. But, do you think Zac will struggle with his ground game? He won't have access to the Tory machine and foot soldiers (or will he?).
I'm sure he will. He has an enthusiastic following and they will respect the fact that he honoured his promise to trigger a by election (even though he now regrets having made it). I think he will have full access to the Tory machine. They will want him to win. He is a Tory after all, but temporarily under a different brand name.
He will need to be very careful with his expenses declaration if he anticipates getting help from Tory HQ on the quiet.
I've just had a telephone call from a LibDem activist based in Manchester with a script with all the right questions about LHR and Brexit and asking me whether I would consider voting for the LibDems. That's quick off the mark!
Great to have you on the site with the inside scoop.
I agree with your estimate of odds on the previous thread. But, do you think Zac will struggle with his ground game? He won't have access to the Tory machine and foot soldiers (or will he?).
I have little doubt that this has been agreed at the top of the party and that the local party machine will get behind Zac, though maybe not officially
Coffee House The LibDems will make the Richmond Park by-election into a referendum on Brexit James Forsyth "So more is at stake for the Lib Dems than the Tories – if they can’t win their old seat back in these circumstances, it is hard to see how they will ever be a significant force in UK politics again." http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/zac-goldsmith-stand-independent-tories-wont-contest/
Lib Dem Press Office ✔ @LibDemPress .@TimFarron: Victory for Lib Dems in #RichmondPark would put huge pressure on Theresa May to abandon plans for a disastrous hard Brexit
They are very sad if they think a victory in a strong remain area will lead to Theresa May compromising on her task to restore sovereignty to this Country. Also I thought Zac had a large local following and the conservatives in the area are unlikely to swop Zac for one of Farron's foot soldiers
Lib Dem Press Office ✔ @LibDemPress .@TimFarron: Victory for Lib Dems in #RichmondPark would put huge pressure on Theresa May to abandon plans for a disastrous hard Brexit
Lib Dems need to be looking at 70% to match the remain vote in that neck of the woods, don't they?
I've just had a telephone call from a LibDem activist based in Manchester with a script with all the right questions about LHR and Brexit and asking me whether I would consider voting for the LibDems. That's quick off the mark!
Great to have you on the site with the inside scoop.
I agree with your estimate of odds on the previous thread. But, do you think Zac will struggle with his ground game? He won't have access to the Tory machine and foot soldiers (or will he?).
I'm sure he will. He has an enthusiastic following and they will respect the fact that he honoured his promise to trigger a by election (even though he now regrets having made it). I think he will have full access to the Tory machine. They will want him to win. He is a Tory after all, but temporarily under a different brand name.
He will need to be very careful with his expenses declaration if he anticipates getting help from Tory HQ on the quiet.
I've just had a telephone call from a LibDem activist based in Manchester with a script with all the right questions about LHR and Brexit and asking me whether I would consider voting for the LibDems. That's quick off the mark!
Great to have you on the site with the inside scoop.
I agree with your estimate of odds on the previous thread. But, do you think Zac will struggle with his ground game? He won't have access to the Tory machine and foot soldiers (or will he?).
I'm sure he will. He has an enthusiastic following and they will respect the fact that he honoured his promise to trigger a by election (even though he now regrets having made it). I think he will have full access to the Tory machine. They will want him to win. He is a Tory after all, but temporarily under a different brand name.
He will need to be very careful with his expenses declaration if he anticipates getting help from Tory HQ on the quiet.
Can he use Tory election data?
It would be most unusual, but I guess in principle the party can agree to give its information to whoever they want. They have quite a few procedural issues to deal with, it seems to me.
What an appalling, atrocious, and cowardly decision by Mrs May. She's yellow, sack up woman and defend your Heathrow decision. You wouldn't see Mrs Thatcher doing this with the wets.
Will we see Boris Johnson campaigning against his own government's policy in a by election?
Boris' Estury plan for a new airport was the most sensible from a growth and expansion point of view.
Truly, it wasn't.
Oh it was. But the British have lost the will to decide something important for it's future for decades now.
No, it was on the wrong side of London and regardless of the £40-50bn needed to build it (needing about £2bn per year in returns to be viable, Heathrow makes ~£600m) there were too many technical issues. A new airport would have to be south of St Albans but North of London to be viable in cost and location terms. Anything which isn't accessible by car is a non-starter.
just flatten Slough and build a brand new airport from scratch.
it will be cheaper.
LOL.
On that topic, a radio advert heard in Dubai today. "Invest in premium London property in Staines-upon-Thames, with prices starting from only £340,000 with rental returns averaging 4.5%, call Knight Frank today"
Some charlatan is selling off-plan studio apartments in Staines to international investors at trumped-up prices on the back of the Sterling devaluation.
I can't work out if the foreign investment is a good thing, or if there will be an almighty backlash from the buyers when they realise what and where they've bought.
Lib Dem Press Office ✔ @LibDemPress .@TimFarron: Victory for Lib Dems in #RichmondPark would put huge pressure on Theresa May to abandon plans for a disastrous hard Brexit
Lib Dems need to be looking at 70% to match the remain vote in that neck of the woods, don't they?
50.1% will do nicely, as Sunil will tell you.
The fly in the ointment is Goldsmith's so-called principled stand, and whether residents feel moved to back him because of his effective opposition to LHR3 or, alternatively, decide that he's a useless posh boy who failed to stop the runway and is only resigning because if he didn't he would be toast in 2020 (or sooner). Right now I have nothing on which to judge, apart from hearing a few random calls to LBC.
If May were a competent leader, she would hold a vote in the full cabinet and if she won it, tell the minority to lump it or leave. If she lost it, then she herself would either lump it or leave. Instead we're going to have months of the media presenting as the "opposition" something that's occurring within Tory ranks. First it was the "wets", then the "bastards", and now it's the runway opponents. In between, it was the Blairites versus the Brownites, whatever on earth that may have denoted, during a decade of having the same two men as PM and chancellor. Sure, the airport contract is big money, but how important is it compared to major issues in the country? The Tory party is so pathetic that it can't run a candidate against some silly boy who's resigned his seat to stick two fingers up at the government? Hasn't anyone in it got the courage of their convictions? Maybe just hand the government over to Zac Goldsmith?
I've just had a telephone call from a LibDem activist based in Manchester with a script with all the right questions about LHR and Brexit and asking me whether I would consider voting for the LibDems. That's quick off the mark!
Great to have you on the site with the inside scoop.
I agree with your estimate of odds on the previous thread. But, do you think Zac will struggle with his ground game? He won't have access to the Tory machine and foot soldiers (or will he?).
I'm sure he will. He has an enthusiastic following and they will respect the fact that he honoured his promise to trigger a by election (even though he now regrets having made it). I think he will have full access to the Tory machine. They will want him to win. He is a Tory after all, but temporarily under a different brand name.
He will need to be very careful with his expenses declaration if he anticipates getting help from Tory HQ on the quiet.
Can he use Tory election data?
It would be most unusual, but I guess in principle the party can agree to give its information to whoever they want. They have quite a few procedural issues to deal with, it seems to me.
Under the Data Protection Act, personal data may only be used for the purpose for which it was collected.
I've just had a telephone call from a LibDem activist based in Manchester with a script with all the right questions about LHR and Brexit and asking me whether I would consider voting for the LibDems. That's quick off the mark!
Great to have you on the site with the inside scoop.
I agree with your estimate of odds on the previous thread. But, do you think Zac will struggle with his ground game? He won't have access to the Tory machine and foot soldiers (or will he?).
I'm sure he will. He has an enthusiastic following and they will respect the fact that he honoured his promise to trigger a by election (even though he now regrets having made it). I think he will have full access to the Tory machine. They will want him to win. He is a Tory after all, but temporarily under a different brand name.
He will need to be very careful with his expenses declaration if he anticipates getting help from Tory HQ on the quiet.
Can he use Tory election data?
It would be most unusual, but I guess in principle the party can agree to give its information to whoever they want. They have quite a few procedural issues to deal with, it seems to me.
Can it give your personal voting information to third parties?
I've just had a telephone call from a LibDem activist based in Manchester with a script with all the right questions about LHR and Brexit and asking me whether I would consider voting for the LibDems. That's quick off the mark!
Great to have you on the site with the inside scoop.
I agree with your estimate of odds on the previous thread. But, do you think Zac will struggle with his ground game? He won't have access to the Tory machine and foot soldiers (or will he?).
How much personal money is he allowed to throw at it?
I've just had a telephone call from a LibDem activist based in Manchester with a script with all the right questions about LHR and Brexit and asking me whether I would consider voting for the LibDems. That's quick off the mark!
Great to have you on the site with the inside scoop.
I agree with your estimate of odds on the previous thread. But, do you think Zac will struggle with his ground game? He won't have access to the Tory machine and foot soldiers (or will he?).
I'm sure he will. He has an enthusiastic following and they will respect the fact that he honoured his promise to trigger a by election (even though he now regrets having made it). I think he will have full access to the Tory machine. They will want him to win. He is a Tory after all, but temporarily under a different brand name.
He will need to be very careful with his expenses declaration if he anticipates getting help from Tory HQ on the quiet.
Can he use Tory election data?
It would be most unusual, but I guess in principle the party can agree to give its information to whoever they want. They have quite a few procedural issues to deal with, it seems to me.
Do they need to give the data to any third party? Couldn't they just decide to use the data themselves to campaign for him without involving him?
I've just had a telephone call from a LibDem activist based in Manchester with a script with all the right questions about LHR and Brexit and asking me whether I would consider voting for the LibDems. That's quick off the mark!
Great to have you on the site with the inside scoop.
I agree with your estimate of odds on the previous thread. But, do you think Zac will struggle with his ground game? He won't have access to the Tory machine and foot soldiers (or will he?).
I'm sure he will. He has an enthusiastic following and they will respect the fact that he honoured his promise to trigger a by election (even though he now regrets having made it). I think he will have full access to the Tory machine. They will want him to win. He is a Tory after all, but temporarily under a different brand name.
He will need to be very careful with his expenses declaration if he anticipates getting help from Tory HQ on the quiet.
Can he use Tory election data?
Most definitely not. Data Protection Act is quite clear on this. He needs to recruit activists with good memory of the last election.
If May were a competent leader, she would hold a vote in the full cabinet and if she won it, tell the minority to lump it or leave. If she lost it, then she herself would either lump it or leave. Instead we're going to have months of the media presenting as the "opposition" something that's occurring within Tory ranks. First it was the "wets", then the "bastards", and now it's the runway opponents. In between, it was the Blairites versus the Brownites, whatever on earth that may have denoted, during a decade of having the same two men as PM and chancellor. Sure, the airport contract is big money, but how important is it compared to major issues in the country? The Tory party is so pathetic that it can't run a candidate against some silly boy who's resigned his seat to stick two fingers up at the government? Hasn't anyone in it got the courage of their convictions? Maybe just hand the government over to Zac Goldsmith?
If May were a competent leader, she would hold a vote in the full cabinet and if she won it, tell the minority to lump it or leave. If she lost it, then she herself would either lump it or leave. Instead we're going to have months of the media presenting as the "opposition" something that's occurring within Tory ranks. First it was the "wets", then the "bastards", and now it's the runway opponents. In between, it was the Blairites versus the Brownites, whatever on earth that may have denoted, during a decade of having the same two men as PM and chancellor. Sure, the airport contract is big money, but how important is it compared to major issues in the country? The Tory party is so pathetic that it can't run a candidate against some silly boy who's resigned his seat to stick two fingers up at the government? Hasn't anyone in it got the courage of their convictions? Maybe just hand the government over to Zac Goldsmith?
You may well be right - but does anyone (voters, not business) outside of West London/SW London actually care about Heathrow?
If May were a competent leader, she would hold a vote in the full cabinet and if she won it, tell the minority to lump it or leave. If she lost it, then she herself would either lump it or leave. Instead we're going to have months of the media presenting as the "opposition" something that's occurring within Tory ranks. First it was the "wets", then the "bastards", and now it's the runway opponents. In between, it was the Blairites versus the Brownites, whatever on earth that may have denoted, during a decade of having the same two men as PM and chancellor. Sure, the airport contract is big money, but how important is it compared to major issues in the country? The Tory party is so pathetic that it can't run a candidate against some silly boy who's resigned his seat to stick two fingers up at the government? Hasn't anyone in it got the courage of their convictions? Maybe just hand the government over to Zac Goldsmith?
You may well be right - but does anyone (voters, not business) outside of West London/SW London actually care about Heathrow?
I've just had a telephone call from a LibDem activist based in Manchester with a script with all the right questions about LHR and Brexit and asking me whether I would consider voting for the LibDems. That's quick off the mark!
Great to have you on the site with the inside scoop.
I agree with your estimate of odds on the previous thread. But, do you think Zac will struggle with his ground game? He won't have access to the Tory machine and foot soldiers (or will he?).
I'm sure he will. He has an enthusiastic following and they will respect the fact that he honoured his promise to trigger a by election (even though he now regrets having made it). I think he will have full access to the Tory machine. They will want him to win. He is a Tory after all, but temporarily under a different brand name.
He will need to be very careful with his expenses declaration if he anticipates getting help from Tory HQ on the quiet.
Can he use Tory election data?
It would be most unusual, but I guess in principle the party can agree to give its information to whoever they want. They have quite a few procedural issues to deal with, it seems to me.
Do they need to give the data to any third party? Couldn't they just decide to use the data themselves to campaign for him without involving him?
I've just had a telephone call from a LibDem activist based in Manchester with a script with all the right questions about LHR and Brexit and asking me whether I would consider voting for the LibDems. That's quick off the mark!
Great to have you on the site with the inside scoop.
I agree with your estimate of odds on the previous thread. But, do you think Zac will struggle with his ground game? He won't have access to the Tory machine and foot soldiers (or will he?).
I'm sure he will. He has an enthusiastic following and they will respect the fact that he honoured his promise to trigger a by election (even though he now regrets having made it). I think he will have full access to the Tory machine. They will want him to win. He is a Tory after all, but temporarily under a different brand name.
He will need to be very careful with his expenses declaration if he anticipates getting help from Tory HQ on the quiet.
Can he use Tory election data?
Most definitely not. Data Protection Act is quite clear on this. He needs to recruit activists with good memory of the last election.
To whom does the data , and indeed Association funds, belong? RP etc Association or the Conservative Central HQ.
If May were a competent leader, she would hold a vote in the full cabinet and if she won it, tell the minority to lump it or leave. If she lost it, then she herself would either lump it or leave. Instead we're going to have months of the media presenting as the "opposition" something that's occurring within Tory ranks. First it was the "wets", then the "bastards", and now it's the runway opponents. In between, it was the Blairites versus the Brownites, whatever on earth that may have denoted, during a decade of having the same two men as PM and chancellor. Sure, the airport contract is big money, but how important is it compared to major issues in the country? The Tory party is so pathetic that it can't run a candidate against some silly boy who's resigned his seat to stick two fingers up at the government? Hasn't anyone in it got the courage of their convictions? Maybe just hand the government over to Zac Goldsmith?
You may well be right - but does anyone (voters, not business) outside of West London/SW London actually care about Heathrow?
Everyone ultimately cares about competent economic and infrastructure policies, whether they're aware of individual decisions or not.
Whether Zac ends up standing as a Conservative or not, who's going to come and campaign for him? The Lib Dems will bus people in from all corners like they did for Witney and win this.
I've just had a telephone call from a LibDem activist based in Manchester with a script with all the right questions about LHR and Brexit and asking me whether I would consider voting for the LibDems. That's quick off the mark!
Great to have you on the site with the inside scoop.
I agree with your estimate of odds on the previous thread. But, do you think Zac will struggle with his ground game? He won't have access to the Tory machine and foot soldiers (or will he?).
I'm sure he will. He has an enthusiastic following and they will respect the fact that he honoured his promise to trigger a by election (even though he now regrets having made it). I think he will have full access to the Tory machine. They will want him to win. He is a Tory after all, but temporarily under a different brand name.
He will need to be very careful with his expenses declaration if he anticipates getting help from Tory HQ on the quiet.
Can he use Tory election data?
Most definitely not. Data Protection Act is quite clear on this. He needs to recruit activists with good memory of the last election.
To whom does the data , and indeed Association funds, belong? RP etc Association or the Conservative Central HQ.
If the data is in RPCA systems, then it belongs to them. If it's in CCHQ systems then it belongs to the Centre. Expect an LD complaint to the Electoral Commission and Data Protection Commissioner on the first day of the campaign, if they think an independent candidate's team are using voter data from the Conservative Party.
If May were a competent leader, she would hold a vote in the full cabinet and if she won it, tell the minority to lump it or leave. If she lost it, then she herself would either lump it or leave. Instead we're going to have months of the media presenting as the "opposition" something that's occurring within Tory ranks. First it was the "wets", then the "bastards", and now it's the runway opponents. In between, it was the Blairites versus the Brownites, whatever on earth that may have denoted, during a decade of having the same two men as PM and chancellor. Sure, the airport contract is big money, but how important is it compared to major issues in the country? The Tory party is so pathetic that it can't run a candidate against some silly boy who's resigned his seat to stick two fingers up at the government? Hasn't anyone in it got the courage of their convictions? Maybe just hand the government over to Zac Goldsmith?
Well put.
We keep hearing this sh!t of 'courage of their convictions' sometimes people with courage of their convictions are dangerous people with views that no one can change,better to have a listening PM.
On the tories not running against Zac,well done Theresa,this will turn into a remain/leave fight - especially from the lib dems and the tories need all the leave MP's they can get.
Let the courage of his convictions candidate sort this mess out with a little help from the high command.
Whatever else this election ends up about (Brexit, Zac's dog whistle campaign, a verdict on the Lib Dems) I don't see how it's about LHR as it will be fought by two candidates both opposed
So exactly what is the point of calling the by-election? Surely if Zac really cared about blocking the airport he would not stand again - then it becomes Lib Dem anti LHR vs official Tory candidate.
I've just had a telephone call from a LibDem activist based in Manchester with a script with all the right questions about LHR and Brexit and asking me whether I would consider voting for the LibDems. That's quick off the mark!
Great to have you on the site with the inside scoop.
I agree with your estimate of odds on the previous thread. But, do you think Zac will struggle with his ground game? He won't have access to the Tory machine and foot soldiers (or will he?).
I'm sure he will. He has an enthusiastic following and they will respect the fact that he honoured his promise to trigger a by election (even though he now regrets having made it). I think he will have full access to the Tory machine. They will want him to win. He is a Tory after all, but temporarily under a different brand name.
He will need to be very careful with his expenses declaration if he anticipates getting help from Tory HQ on the quiet.
Can he use Tory election data?
It would be most unusual, but I guess in principle the party can agree to give its information to whoever they want. They have quite a few procedural issues to deal with, it seems to me.
Under the Data Protection Act, personal data may only be used for the purpose for which it was collected.
OK, I see the point, you are right that there is a potential challenge here. Even if, ironically, the data was collected originally for the purpose of electing a certain Mr Z Goldsmith.
I've just had a telephone call from a LibDem activist based in Manchester with a script with all the right questions about LHR and Brexit and asking me whether I would consider voting for the LibDems. That's quick off the mark!
Great to have you on the site with the inside scoop.
I agree with your estimate of odds on the previous thread. But, do you think Zac will struggle with his ground game? He won't have access to the Tory machine and foot soldiers (or will he?).
I'm sure he will. He has an enthusiastic following and they will respect the fact that he honoured his promise to trigger a by election (even though he now regrets having made it). I think he will have full access to the Tory machine. They will want him to win. He is a Tory after all, but temporarily under a different brand name.
He will need to be very careful with his expenses declaration if he anticipates getting help from Tory HQ on the quiet.
Can he use Tory election data?
Most definitely not. Data Protection Act is quite clear on this. He needs to recruit activists with good memory of the last election.
To whom does the data , and indeed Association funds, belong? RP etc Association or the Conservative Central HQ.
If the data is in RPCA systems, then it belongs to them. If it's in CCHQ systems then it belongs to the Centre. Expect an LD complaint to the Electoral Commission and Data Protection Commissioner on the first day of the campaign, if they think an independent candidate's team are using voter data from the Conservative Party.
I realise Zac has enough and to spare to finance his own campaign, but what about the use of Tory premises, clubs etc as local offices? And, I wonder how united RP Torres are at having to fight a by-election. And how many are THAT opposed to the third runway?
If the Tories stand against him, the LibDems might win. Otherwise he'll walk it. Voters like "plucky rebels" and they like incumbents.
He's a Leaver in an uber-Remain constituency who ran a terrible mayoral campaign, and the Lib Dems will have a vastly better ground game - and they can bring out the bar charts this time!
The LDs have a mountain to climb but they may well do it.
Whatever else this election ends up about (Brexit, Zac's dog whistle campaign, a verdict on the Lib Dems) I don't see how it's about LHR as it will be fought by two candidates both opposed
So exactly what is the point of calling the by-election? Surely if Zac really cared about blocking the airport he would not stand again - then it becomes Lib Dem anti LHR vs official Tory candidate.
Plus, if you are a Cons MP you are or should be a supporter of the broad policy range. Not just be a single issue campaigner on your own solipsistic hobby horse.
Whether Zac ends up standing as a Conservative or not, who's going to come and campaign for him? The Lib Dems will bus people in from all corners like they did for Witney and win this.
Win might be a tall order, but certainly an effort will be made. It is all part of Farrons plan to get members involved, so they stay involved for less high profile elections such as next years councils.
Play every game to win, and even if unsuccessful initially, victories will come with time.
As some have intimated, the LHR3 discussion is boring - was always going to be Heathrow. Thanks to Cameron (and Boris) we've merely succeeded in wasting five years in flip flopping on a decision that Gordo rightly made in 2009.
Re: betting on the by-election - the Liberals look too short to bet on, given we don't yet know the candidate (I assume?). Zac looks value. But last time I took the value on Zac he lost, very, very badly.
So why doesn't he just resign the whip? What is the point of the by-election? #bonkers
Zac promised a by-election if Heathrow chosen for third runway.
But what is the point? The man is an idiot. He'll be up against the Lib Dems who don't want a third runway either, so whether he wins or loses won't prove anything. And if he does lose it'll be more because of Brexit, which the Lib Dems will make the by-election into a second referendum on.
As some have intimated, the LHR3 discussion is boring - was always going to be Heathrow. Thanks to Cameron (and Boris) we've merely succeeded in wasting five years in flip flopping on a decision that Gordo rightly made in 2009.
Re: betting on the by-election - the Liberals look too short to bet on, given we don't yet know the candidate (I assume?). Zac looks value. But last time I took the value on Zac he lost, very, very badly.
Hmm.
I see from a quick google the Libs do have a candidate - Sarah Olney. Never heard of her. They seem too short to me, FWIW
I've just had a telephone call from a LibDem activist based in Manchester with a script with all the right questions about LHR and Brexit and asking me whether I would consider voting for the LibDems. That's quick off the mark!
Great to have you on the site with the inside scoop.
I agree with your estimate of odds on the previous thread. But, do you think Zac will struggle with his ground game? He won't have access to the Tory machine and foot soldiers (or will he?).
I'm sure he will. He has an enthusiastic following and they will respect the fact that he honoured his promise to trigger a by election (even though he now regrets having made it). I think he will have full access to the Tory machine. They will want him to win. He is a Tory after all, but temporarily under a different brand name.
He will need to be very careful with his expenses declaration if he anticipates getting help from Tory HQ on the quiet.
Can he use Tory election data?
Most definitely not. Data Protection Act is quite clear on this. He needs to recruit activists with good memory of the last election.
To whom does the data , and indeed Association funds, belong? RP etc Association or the Conservative Central HQ.
If the data is in RPCA systems, then it belongs to them. If it's in CCHQ systems then it belongs to the Centre. Expect an LD complaint to the Electoral Commission and Data Protection Commissioner on the first day of the campaign, if they think an independent candidate's team are using voter data from the Conservative Party.
I realise Zac has enough and to spare to finance his own campaign, but what about the use of Tory premises, clubs etc as local offices? And, I wonder how united RP Torres are at having to fight a by-election. And how many are THAT opposed to the third runway?
As I have said a number of times, the new runway north of the existing two will led to fewer planes overflying Richmond - the locals there should be happy about it!
Zac's expenses will be very carefully watched. Any offices, staff etc will have to be rented by his campaign, or a gift declared as expenses in kind. Electoral law is very clear on these sorts of things, and there are spending limits designed to ensure that every candidate has a fair chance. Zac can't throw millions of his own money at his campaign, even if he wanted to.
I've just had a telephone call from a LibDem activist based in Manchester with a script with all the right questions about LHR and Brexit and asking me whether I would consider voting for the LibDems. That's quick off the mark!
Great to have you on the site with the inside scoop.
I agree with your estimate of odds on the previous thread. But, do you think Zac will struggle with his ground game? He won't have access to the Tory machine and foot soldiers (or will he?).
I'm sure he will. He has an enthusiastic following and they will respect the fact that he honoured his promise to trigger a by election (even though he now regrets having made it). I think he will have full access to the Tory machine. They will want him to win. He is a Tory after all, but temporarily under a different brand name.
He will need to be very careful with his expensef he anticipates getting help from Tory HQ on the quiet.
Can he use Tory election data?
Most definitely not. Data Protection Act is quite clear on this. He needs to recruit activists with good memory of the last election.
To whom does the data , and indeed Association funds, belong? RP etc Association or the Conservative Central HQ.
If the data is in RPCA systems, then it belongs to them. If it's in CCHQ systems then it belongs to the Centre. Expect an LD complaint to the Electoral Commission and Data Protection Commissioner on the first day of the campaign, if they think an independent candidate's team are using voter data from the Conservative Party.
I realise Zac has enough and to spare to finance his own campaign, but what about the use of Tory premises, clubs etc as local offices? And, I wonder how united RP Torres are at having to fight a by-election. And how many are THAT opposed to the third runway?
As I have said a number of times, the new runway north of the existing two will led to fewer planes overflying Richmond - the locals there should be happy about it!
Zac's expenses will be very carefully watched. Any offices, staff etc will have to be rented by his campaign, or a gift declared as expenses in kind. Electoral law is very clear on these sorts of things, and there are spending limits designed to ensure that every candidate has a fair chance. Zac can't throw millions of his own money at his campaign, even if he wanted to.
I recall that Zac sailed close to the wind with his expenses in 2010. Didn't Crick investigate?
Whatever else this election ends up about (Brexit, Zac's dog whistle campaign, a verdict on the Lib Dems) I don't see how it's about LHR as it will be fought by two candidates both opposed
So exactly what is the point of calling the by-election? Surely if Zac really cared about blocking the airport he would not stand again - then it becomes Lib Dem anti LHR vs official Tory candidate.
I presume the reason for calling the by-election is because he made such a big thing of saying he would. That's about it. Maybe on some level he also thinks that it would give him the right to rebel against 3 line whips on the issue without disciplinary action (not sure they would anyway be imposed - the party hierarchy are surely aware of the local sensitivities on the issue).
But other than that it is pointless. There is a strange delusion going about at the moment that individual by-elections can serve as a "proxy" for the wider electorate. We saw it with the suggestion that Witney could send a statement about brexit and we are seeing it again here (whether the issue is Brexit or Heathrow). A constituency elects an MP to cast a single vote in the House of Commons. No more, no less. There are better ways to oppose Heathrow expansion. After all, we are today in pretty much exactly the same position as we were several years ago when, lest we forget, the Labour government made exactly the same decision. And it was defeated then in the courts and, ultimately, at the ballot box.
Zac's Muslim-bashing, Hindu gold-hoarding racist campaign will drag itself out of the fetid swamp to which it was cast and sink its rotting gums into his squidgy backside over the next few days, as sure as rotten eggs are rotten eggs.
I've just had a telephone call from a LibDem activist based in Manchester with a script with all the right questions about LHR and Brexit and asking me whether I would consider voting for the LibDems. That's quick off the mark!
Great to have you on the site I agree with your estimate of odds on the previous thread. But, do you think Zac will struggle with his ground game? He won't have access to the Tory machine and foot soldiers (or will he?).
I'm sure he will. He has an enthusiastic following and they will respect the fact that he honoured his promise to trigger a by election (even though he now regrets having made it). I think he will have full access to the Tory machine. They will want him to win. He is a Tory after all, but temporarily under a different brand name.
He will need to be very careful with his expenses declaration if he anticipates getting help from Tory HQ on the quiet.
Can he use Tory election data?
Most definitely not. Data Protection Act is quite clear on this. He needs to recruit activists with good memory of the last election.
To whom does the data , and indeed Association funds, belong? RP etc Association or the Conservative Central HQ.
If the data is in RPCA systems, then it belongs to them. If it's in CCHQ systems then it belongs to the Centre. Expect an LD complaint to the Electoral Commission and Data Protection Commissioner on the first day of the campaign, if they think an independent candidate's team are using voter data from the Conservative Party.
I realise Zac has enough and to spare to finance his own campaign, but what about the use of Tory premises, clubs etc as local offices? And, I wonder how united RP Torres are at having to fight a by-election. And how many are THAT opposed to the third runway?
As I have said a number of times, the new runway north of the existing two will led to fewer planes overflying Richmond - the locals there should be happy about it!
Zac's expenses will be very carefully watched. Any offices, staff etc will have to be rented by his campaign, or a gift declared as expenses in kind. Electoral law is very clear on these sorts of things, and there are spending limits designed to ensure that every candidate has a fair chance. Zac can't throw millions of his own money at his campaign, even if he wanted to.
IIRC Zac pushed the expenses boundaries hard in his campaign against Susan Kramer in 2010.
As some have intimated, the LHR3 discussion is boring - was always going to be Heathrow. Thanks to Cameron (and Boris) we've merely succeeded in wasting five years in flip flopping on a decision that Gordo rightly made in 2009.
Re: betting on the by-election - the Liberals look too short to bet on, given we don't yet know the candidate (I assume?). Zac looks value. But last time I took the value on Zac he lost, very, very badly.
Hmm.
I see from a quick google the Libs do have a candidate - Sarah Olney. Never heard of her. They seem too short to me, FWIW
Seems she's only been a member for a year or so. Just opened her Twitter page and thought Halloween had come early.
Comments
"business flying at Heathrow has fallen by 23% since 2000 – and not because of capacity or the recession. "
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/interactive/2013/dec/16/uk-runways-business-flights-interactive
But as a taxpayer I find this Telegraph article worrying.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/24/heathrow-runway-will-create-16bn-burden-for-transport-for-london/
Even "The Airports Commission estimated that the cost of Heathrow expansion to TfL would be £5.7bn"
Sterling depreciation can only have a modest effect because 75% of Port Talbot's operating expenses are Iron Ore and Coal, both of which are imported and are priced in US Dollars.
Cheaper Sterling affects only the labour element of costs. (If I remember correctly, Port Talbot's debt is US Dollar denominated, so it's gotten larger even as the plant has become more profitable,)
It mystifies me why otherwise sensible people take Boris's proposal at face value. It was naked politics, pure and simple.
This needs a new fresh credible younger person with no baggage, plenty of energy and enthusiasm, very fast learner, good speaker who is at least as personally appealing as Zac. They have that in Sarah Olney whose day job is an accountant with the National Physical Laboratory but you'd never guess that. I'm with Her.
Clinton 37 .. Trump 44
http://www.keloland.com/news/politics/campaign/keloland-campaign-2016-poll/
(edited to add: good evening, everyone)
I agree with your estimate of odds on the previous thread. But, do you think Zac will struggle with his ground game? He won't have access to the Tory machine and foot soldiers (or will he?).
And I LOL at the idea that the noise footprint for an airport in that area being over 'empty' land.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_European_Airways_Flight_548
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26064200
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/westernraillinktoheathrow/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_European_Airways_Flight_548
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-29540785
Lib Dem Press Office ✔ @LibDemPress
.@TimFarron: Victory for Lib Dems in #RichmondPark would put huge pressure on Theresa May to abandon plans for a disastrous hard Brexit
Kewcue.a loss for the LibDems would say STFU on Brexit
Coffee House The LibDems will make the Richmond Park by-election into a referendum on Brexit James Forsyth
"So more is at stake for the Lib Dems than the Tories – if they can’t win their old seat back in these circumstances, it is hard to see how they will ever be a significant force in UK politics again."
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/zac-goldsmith-stand-independent-tories-wont-contest/
edited to sort out blockquotes (hopefully)
They are very sad if they think a victory in a strong remain area will lead to Theresa May compromising on her task to restore sovereignty to this Country. Also I thought Zac had a large local following and the conservatives in the area are unlikely to swop Zac for one of Farron's foot soldiers
Those odds are flat out wrong, IMO.
@ 1/2 Zac would probably still be value if the cons are definitely not standing.
Am I missing something here?
"Conservative" at 49-1 would appear to be throwing your money away? A shame the lay price is out at 1000.
The fly in the ointment is Goldsmith's so-called principled stand, and whether residents feel moved to back him because of his effective opposition to LHR3 or, alternatively, decide that he's a useless posh boy who failed to stop the runway and is only resigning because if he didn't he would be toast in 2020 (or sooner). Right now I have nothing on which to judge, apart from hearing a few random calls to LBC.
(I have no idea how election rules would apply.)
Definitely value.
Well I'm winning whatever (realistically) happens now, which is nice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSGtLW_F1LQ
On the tories not running against Zac,well done Theresa,this will turn into a remain/leave fight - especially from the lib dems and the tories need all the leave MP's they can get.
Let the courage of his convictions candidate sort this mess out with a little help from the high command.
So exactly what is the point of calling the by-election? Surely if Zac really cared about blocking the airport he would not stand again - then it becomes Lib Dem anti LHR vs official Tory candidate.
And, I wonder how united RP Torres are at having to fight a by-election. And how many are THAT opposed to the third runway?
The LDs have a mountain to climb but they may well do it.
Welcome.
Play every game to win, and even if unsuccessful initially, victories will come with time.
Zac 1.7/1.9
LDs 2.08/2.16
As some have intimated, the LHR3 discussion is boring - was always going to be Heathrow. Thanks to Cameron (and Boris) we've merely succeeded in wasting five years in flip flopping on a decision that Gordo rightly made in 2009.
Re: betting on the by-election - the Liberals look too short to bet on, given we don't yet know the candidate (I assume?). Zac looks value. But last time I took the value on Zac he lost, very, very badly.
Hmm.
Zac's expenses will be very carefully watched. Any offices, staff etc will have to be rented by his campaign, or a gift declared as expenses in kind. Electoral law is very clear on these sorts of things, and there are spending limits designed to ensure that every candidate has a fair chance. Zac can't throw millions of his own money at his campaign, even if he wanted to.
But other than that it is pointless. There is a strange delusion going about at the moment that individual by-elections can serve as a "proxy" for the wider electorate. We saw it with the suggestion that Witney could send a statement about brexit and we are seeing it again here (whether the issue is Brexit or Heathrow). A constituency elects an MP to cast a single vote in the House of Commons. No more, no less. There are better ways to oppose Heathrow expansion. After all, we are today in pretty much exactly the same position as we were several years ago when, lest we forget, the Labour government made exactly the same decision. And it was defeated then in the courts and, ultimately, at the ballot box.
May have to lay off at my leisure.