Mr. Urquhart, that may be because what you read was indeed ludicrous, but also doesn't bear much relation to reality.
It seems that there's been a lot of reporting that PUBG are claiming legal ownership of the battle royale format. However, that seems not to be the case. Six minutes of the first (12 minutes) video is dedicated to explaining why this isn't the case. It sounds far more reasonable.
PUBG are just pissed that they have been overshawdowed by Forenite. They were a huge thing when they were the only one around, and just look like yesterdays news now.
(I actually do prefer to play PubG, as I'm not a 12 year old boy).
The big problem with PubG is it is still as buggy as hell...also it runs like dogshit on Xbox. Where as although I have little time for Fortnite, the one thing they have is a game that runs extremely smoothly on all platforms.
“There is not an issue of general distrust towards the UK. That’s not the issue, but the EU is a rules-based system. Why is that? It’s because 28 member states do not trust each other spontaneously; they trust each other because they work on the basis of agreed common rules with common enforcement, common supervision and under a European court that will make sure they all apply the same rules in the same manner. They trust each other because there are remedies available. If you don’t have these remedies, you’re a third country.”
People have often scratched their heads at the complexity of the EU but maybe it's really very simple. Why do we have such difficulty understanding this?
A rules based system that let Greece into Eurozone, that let Germany and France break the fiscal rules for 5+ years? That rules based system.
The rules may be bent but only in favour of integration. Why don't we just accept this and stop trying to be the tennis player who won't abide by the club membership rules but expects most of its perks.
We did, in June 2016. It's the remainers who won't accept it.
Plenty of Leavers seem to think we are owed a good deal.
It's a good laugh. A hilarious read from the backwards NIMBY-in-chief.
I don't really get the environmental argument. Flights will just go elsewhere surely, not reduce globally because the UK didn't build enough airport capacity.
Mr. Slackbladder, I agree that PUBG will be significantly peeved to be overshadowed, however, it does look like they have at least a case worth looking at.
It's a good laugh. A hilarious read from the backwards NIMBY-in-chief.
I can tell you haven't actually read it.
People nearest Heathrow are likely to critically examine the case as they have more "skin in the game". Those further away are likely to simply accept the case put forward by Heathrow Airport without examination and airily dismiss an criticism as a good laugh and NimbyIsm. Your mind is made up so there's no point in discussing it with you any further.
A woman who accused a Labour MP of sexual harassment has said she and other complainants are losing faith in the party’s processes to deal with the issue.
This is some of the most insipid infighing I've ever seen. It's like watching people on ketamine play PUBG. I get the impression that all them know it's all fucked and they can't really be bothered.
It's a good laugh. A hilarious read from the backwards NIMBY-in-chief.
I don't really get the environmental argument. Flights will just go elsewhere surely, not reduce globally because the UK didn't build enough airport capacity.
Well, if you restrict airport capacity then the price of using that capacity will increase and, at the margin, you will decrease demand.
You might argue that the increase in price would make it economic to add an extra runway in Amsterdam or Paris, which would have the result you state, but I suppose the environmental argument would be to campaign for a restriction of airport capacity everywhere.
“There is not an issue of general distrust towards the UK. That’s not the issue, but the EU is a rules-based system. Why is that? It’s because 28 member states do not trust each other spontaneously; they trust each other because they work on the basis of agreed common rules with common enforcement, common supervision and under a European court that will make sure they all apply the same rules in the same manner. They trust each other because there are remedies available. If you don’t have these remedies, you’re a third country.”
People have often scratched their heads at the complexity of the EU but maybe it's really very simple. Why do we have such difficulty understanding this?
A rules based system that let Greece into Eurozone, that let Germany and France break the fiscal rules for 5+ years? That rules based system.
The rules may be bent but only in favour of integration. Why don't we just accept this and stop trying to be the tennis player who won't abide by the club membership rules but expects most of its perks.
We did, in June 2016. It's the remainers who won't accept it.
Plenty of Leavers seem to think we are owed a good deal.
Not at all, most leavers think it would be in our best interests to ensure free trade with the EU. It's the remainers who are trying their damnedest to over rule the public vote and undermine our relationship with the EU after we leave.
It's a good laugh. A hilarious read from the backwards NIMBY-in-chief.
I can tell you haven't actually read it.
People nearest Heathrow are likely to critically examine the case as they have more "skin in the game". Those further away are likely to simply accept the case put forward by Heathrow Airport without examination and airily dismiss an criticism as a good laugh and NimbyIsm. Your mind is made up so there's no point in discussing it with you any further.
How can you tell? Are you a mind-reader? Do you have spy software on my computers? Are you in some way omnipotent?
Hint: I did read it.
Actually, there are lots of people around Heathrow who work for it, and want to see it succeed. Including an ex of mine. So don't think you speak for all the locals ...
I've explained my thought processes about this many times in the past, and it's ridiculous to say I 'simply accept the case put forward by Heathrow'. I don't see Heathrow as the *best* answer to the problem. But your NIMBY answer - of chucking the problem away with you to Gatwick - is worse, and other NIMBY'[s will just do what you are doing.
You don't actually have an answer.
I look forward to discussing it with you, and educating you some more.
It's a good laugh. A hilarious read from the backwards NIMBY-in-chief.
I don't really get the environmental argument. Flights will just go elsewhere surely, not reduce globally because the UK didn't build enough airport capacity.
Well, if you restrict airport capacity then the price of using that capacity will increase and, at the margin, you will decrease demand.
You might argue that the increase in price would make it economic to add an extra runway in Amsterdam or Paris, which would have the result you state, but I suppose the environmental argument would be to campaign for a restriction of airport capacity everywhere.
Yes - the flights will just go elsewhere. If we want to reduce flights we need to tax them internationally, not stop building airports.
But ultimately there isn't really an alternative to long haul flights. Hopefully planes can be made less polluting, but more reduction potential on petrol cars, meat, coal combustion etc.
@HYUFD - did you really live in Aberystwyth at any time? Because you're talking total nonsense.
My suspicion is that you spent a couple of semesters at the university, living solely in PJM with a load of other English interlopers, did your shopping at the Co-op on the Waun, and went into town about once a month. That doesn't give you the capacity to judge what feelings will be like in the town.
I lived there for seven years, four of them in a flat in Morfa Mawr and two in Gray's Inn Road, was choirmaster and organist of one of the local churches, sat on the board of a local charity and worked in several different bars as well as spending three years as a lecturer at the university.
Yes, there is a 'them and us' mentality. Often, people in Aber get bent out by Cardiff. But they will have wanted this. Aber is famously the greenest town in the UK, for many years it was the only town to have elected a Green MP, and there has always been a push to enhance energy efficiency and cleanliness.
Moreover, if they look at Cardiff with suspicion they look at London with hatred. When London clashes with Cardiff they will only want one winner.
Feel free to disagree based on your minimal knowledge of the town. Just be aware that you're completely wrong.
Late to the game, but what did you teach?
I lived in Aber as a student in the late 1990s. Loved the place, but couldn't live there full time (my profession needs a city, so back to Liverpool for me). Haven't been back for years now.
Lived in Trefloyne in year 1 and indeed rarely went downtown. But years 2 and 3 spent in Cambrian Street so never out of the town then. Heavily into RPG, so joined WARPS and dodged the live action roleplayers attacking each other with swords in the woods near Dan y-coed.
And did they really elect a green MP? Member of Parliament?
It's a good laugh. A hilarious read from the backwards NIMBY-in-chief.
I don't really get the environmental argument. Flights will just go elsewhere surely, not reduce globally because the UK didn't build enough airport capacity.
It's not primarily the CO2 but the air pollution from aircraft and the ground traffic it generates on the millions of people who live near it and is not costed in the economic case (though the time saved by international travellers using the hub is costed as a benefit).
The main objection is the dodgy economic case (which is rapidly unravelling) and the financial burden and risks this foreign owned company puts on Government and the taxpayer. The opportunity cost to the economy of delaying airport expansion is enormous and it is caused by Heathrow being in bed with Government and pursuing this fatally flawed scheme which is delaying sensible airport expansion. Most MPS and non-Londoners don't care. "Just get on with it, Bloody London Nimbys".
@HYUFD - did you really live in Aberystwyth at any time? Because you're talking total nonsense.
My suspicion is that you spent a couple of semesters at the university, living solely in PJM with a load of other English interlopers, did your shopping at the Co-op on the Waun, and went into town about once a month. That doesn't give you the capacity to judge what feelings will be like in the town.
I lived there for seven years, four of them in a flat in Morfa Mawr and two in Gray's Inn Road, was choirmaster and organist of one of the local churches, sat on the board of a local charity and worked in several different bars as well as spending three years as a lecturer at the university.
Yes, there is a 'them and us' mentality. Often, people in Aber get bent out by Cardiff. But they will have wanted this. Aber is famously the greenest town in the UK, for many years it was the only town to have elected a Green MP, and there has always been a push to enhance energy efficiency and cleanliness.
Moreover, if they look at Cardiff with suspicion they look at London with hatred. When London clashes with Cardiff they will only want one winner.
Feel free to disagree based on your minimal knowledge of the town. Just be aware that you're completely wrong.
Late to the game, but what did you teach?
I lived in Aber as a student in the late 1990s. Loved the place, but couldn't live there full time (my profession needs a city, so back to Liverpool for me). Haven't been back for years now.
Lived in Trefloyne in year 1 and indeed rarely went downtown. But years 2 and 3 spent in Cambrian Street so never out of the town then. Heavily into RPG, so joined WARPS and dodged the live action roleplayers attacking each other with swords in the woods near Dan y-coed.
And did they really elect a green MP? Member of Parliament?
@HYUFD - did you really live in Aberystwyth at any time? Because you're talking total nonsense.
My suspicion is that you spent a couple of semesters at the university, living solely in PJM with a load of other English interlopers, did your shopping at the Co-op on the Waun, and went into town about once a month. That doesn't give you the capacity to judge what feelings will be like in the town.
I lived there for seven years, four of them in a flat in Morfa Mawr and two in Gray's Inn Road, was choirmaster and organist of one of the local churches, sat on the board of a local charity and worked in several different bars as well as spending three years as a lecturer at the university.
Yes, there is a 'them and us' mentality. Often, people in Aber get bent out by Cardiff. But they will have wanted this. Aber is famously the greenest town in the UK, for many years it was the only town to have elected a Green MP, and there has always been a push to enhance energy efficiency and cleanliness.
Moreover, if they look at Cardiff with suspicion they look at London with hatred. When London clashes with Cardiff they will only want one winner.
Feel free to disagree based on your minimal knowledge of the town. Just be aware that you're completely wrong.
Late to the game, but what did you teach?
I lived in Aber as a student in the late 1990s. Loved the place, but couldn't live there full time (my profession needs a city, so back to Liverpool for me). Haven't been back for years now.
Lived in Trefloyne in year 1 and indeed rarely went downtown. But years 2 and 3 spent in Cambrian Street so never out of the town then. Heavily into RPG, so joined WARPS and dodged the live action roleplayers attacking each other with swords in the woods near Dan y-coed.
And did they really elect a green MP? Member of Parliament?
I thought Caroline Lucas was the first Green MP.
Aber is iirc in Ceredigion constituency. In 1990s they had a Green-Plaid joint ticket candidate/alliance for a while.
It's a good laugh. A hilarious read from the backwards NIMBY-in-chief.
I don't really get the environmental argument. Flights will just go elsewhere surely, not reduce globally because the UK didn't build enough airport capacity.
It's not primarily the CO2 but the air pollution from aircraft and the ground traffic it generates on the millions of people who live near it and is not costed in the economic case (though the time saved by international travellers using the hub is costed as a benefit).
The main objection is the dodgy economic case (which is rapidly unravelling) and the financial burden and risks this foreign owned company puts on Government and the taxpayer. The opportunity cost to the economy of delaying airport expansion is enormous and it is caused by Heathrow being in bed with Government and pursuing this fatally flawed scheme which is delaying sensible airport expansion. Most MPS and non-Londoners don't care. "Just get on with it, Bloody London Nimbys".
What is the dodgy economic case? Surely it's only a bad idea economically if the runway doesn't actually get used. But it's not plausible that there will be loads of extra flights, but that there won't be an economic benefit. I don't care whether we expand Gatwick or Heathrow, my prior would have been that it's best to expand both.
@HYUFD - did you really live in Aberystwyth at any time? Because you're talking total nonsense.
My suspicion is that you spent a couple of semesters at the university, living solely in PJM with a load of other English interlopers, did your shopping at the Co-op on the Waun, and went into town about once a month. That doesn't give you the capacity to judge what feelings will be like in the town.
I lived there for seven years, four of them in a flat in Morfa Mawr and two in Gray's Inn Road, was choirmaster and organist of one of the local churches, sat on the board of a local charity and worked in several different bars as well as spending three years as a lecturer at the university.
Yes, there is a 'them and us' mentality. Often, people in Aber get bent out by Cardiff. But they will have wanted this. Aber is famously the greenest town in the UK, for many years it was the only town to have elected a Green MP, and there has always been a push to enhance energy efficiency and cleanliness.
Moreover, if they look at Cardiff with suspicion they look at London with hatred. When London clashes with Cardiff they will only want one winner.
Feel free to disagree based on your minimal knowledge of the town. Just be aware that you're completely wrong.
Late to the game, but what did you teach?
I lived in Aber as a student in the late 1990s. Loved the place, but couldn't live there full time (my profession needs a city, so back to Liverpool for me). Haven't been back for years now.
Lived in Trefloyne in year 1 and indeed rarely went downtown. But years 2 and 3 spent in Cambrian Street so never out of the town then. Heavily into RPG, so joined WARPS and dodged the live action roleplayers attacking each other with swords in the woods near Dan y-coed.
And did they really elect a green MP? Member of Parliament?
I have just checked, and Ceredigion has never elected a green MP !
It's a good laugh. A hilarious read from the backwards NIMBY-in-chief.
I don't really get the environmental argument. Flights will just go elsewhere surely, not reduce globally because the UK didn't build enough airport capacity.
It's not primarily the CO2 but the air pollution from aircraft and the ground traffic it generates on the millions of people who live near it and is not costed in the economic case (though the time saved by international travellers using the hub is costed as a benefit).
The main objection is the dodgy economic case (which is rapidly unravelling) and the financial burden and risks this foreign owned company puts on Government and the taxpayer. The opportunity cost to the economy of delaying airport expansion is enormous and it is caused by Heathrow being in bed with Government and pursuing this fatally flawed scheme which is delaying sensible airport expansion. Most MPS and non-Londoners don't care. "Just get on with it, Bloody London Nimbys".
Yes, because non-Londoners cannot have a view on national infrastructure. Obviously.
Question for @Dura_Ace, how much extra money per year over how many years do you think it would take for the armed forces to live up to the public perception of what it is/should be?
I've estimated a permanent budget rise of £4bn in real terms and a 7 year procurement budget of £23bn (around £3bn per year). Does that sound reasonable or would it require more to turn the ship around?
The voices of millions of taxpayers have been analyzed and stored by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) without consent, privacy campaigners say. Big Brother Watch says HMRC's Voice ID system has collected 5.1 million audio signatures and accuses the department of creating "biometric ID cards by the back door." The Voice ID scheme, which was launched last year, asks callers to repeat the phrase "my voice is my password" to register. Once this task is complete, they can use the phrase to confirm their identity when managing their taxes
Just caught a snatch of Women's Hour on Radio Four this morning.
In an open question survey by Com Res, the person most associated with women's rights is Theresa May. They were shocked and in disbelief that this could be so.
What is the dodgy economic case? Surely it's only a bad idea economically if the runway doesn't actually get used. But it's not plausible that there will be loads of extra flights, but that there won't be an economic benefit. I don't care whether we expand Gatwick or Heathrow, my prior would have been that it's best to expand both.
The economic case is the difference between the benefits (e,g, of extra flights) and the costs.
I quote from Zac:
"The 2014 Airports Commission, on which the Government’s decision was based, estimated that Heathrow expansion would deliver £147 billion of total economic benefit.
The Government lapped it up. But then in last year’s draft NPS, they quietly revised the figure down to £72.8.
Today’s NPS uses the same figure, but admits it is a gross figure and does not include the actual economic and financial costs of the proposal. But it also gives the Net Present Value (NPV) – a metric which does include the costs and benefits – a range of just £2.9 billion to minus £2.5 billion over a 60-year period.
So the benefit has gone from £147 billion, to possibly minus £2.5 billion – and yet the Government’s appetite for pushing ahead with it hasn’t budged.
It gets worse.
A New Economics Foundation report shows that three quarters of any new capacity from a third runway will be taken up by international to international transfer passengers; people who never leave the airport.
The Department for Transport (DfT)’s own guidance says they add nothing whatsoever to the economy and shouldn’t be counted. If they are excluded – as the DfT recommends – the net Present Value reduces by a further £5.5bn.
DfT analysis also shows that an overrun in Heathrow’s costs of just 1% could be enough to negate the overall benefits of the scheme.
Meanwhile, none of this takes into account the £15b that Transport for London believe it will cost to adapt surface transport to link an expanded Heathrow up to the grid; a bill that the Government has made no provision for."
The voices of millions of taxpayers have been analyzed and stored by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) without consent, privacy campaigners say. Big Brother Watch says HMRC's Voice ID system has collected 5.1 million audio signatures and accuses the department of creating "biometric ID cards by the back door." The Voice ID scheme, which was launched last year, asks callers to repeat the phrase "my voice is my password" to register. Once this task is complete, they can use the phrase to confirm their identity when managing their taxes
Seems a strange use of the phrase 'without consent', what with the callers having not only consented but actively chosen this option.
The biggest problem for MPs opposed to Heathrow is that they are all almost without exception right next to, in the flightpath or actually in their constituency - certainly that is the case for the most vocal ones. So it looks like NIMBYism, even if Zac's points are valid http://www.zacgoldsmith.com/zacs-speech-on-heathrow/ I think LHR opponents would have been better off having someone with a constituency miles away articulate those points. Because the only argument that has received any coverage in the press is about the poor dears right next to the development, and that is not a reason to not go ahead for anyone living outwith LHR boundaries. Opponents to LHR expansion have played a constituency game on a national pitch.
Boris Johnson's 5,000 majority is looking mighty vulnerable after him reneging on his promises to the voters in Uxbridge over Heathrow.He is perhaps in his weakest ever political place-when it's The Sun that's the only one who's backing you,you are well and truly desperate-and May is on a roll.She shoudda done it a long time ago but now is the best time for her to strike and banish Johnson to the backbenches where he would be better placed to fight to retain his seat.
“There is not an issue of general distrust towards the UK. That’s not the issue, but the EU is a rules-based system. Why is that? It’s because 28 member states do not trust each other spontaneously; they trust each other because they work on the basis of agreed common rules with common enforcement, common supervision and under a European court that will make sure they all apply the same rules in the same manner. They trust each other because there are remedies available. If you don’t have these remedies, you’re a third country.”
People have often scratched their heads at the complexity of the EU but maybe it's really very simple. Why do we have such difficulty understanding this?
A rules based system that let Greece into Eurozone, that let Germany and France break the fiscal rules for 5+ years? That rules based system.
The rules may be bent but only in favour of integration. Why don't we just accept this and stop trying to be the tennis player who won't abide by the club membership rules but expects most of its perks.
We did, in June 2016. It's the remainers who won't accept it.
Plenty of Leavers seem to think we are owed a good deal.
Not at all, most leavers think it would be in our best interests to ensure free trade with the EU. It's the remainers who are trying their damnedest to over rule the public vote and undermine our relationship with the EU after we leave.
The Canada option? Fine. But we've kept hearing from plenty of Leavers how we can have cake and eat it because Germany sells us lots of cars, France sells us lots of food. I heard Digby Jones state that French farmers would put a whole load of manure down the Champs Elysees.
Question for @Dura_Ace, how much extra money per year over how many years do you think it would take for the armed forces to live up to the public perception of what it is/should be?
I've estimated a permanent budget rise of £4bn in real terms and a 7 year procurement budget of £23bn (around £3bn per year). Does that sound reasonable or would it require more to turn the ship around?
I am not sure what the public perception is? A second rank superpower behind the US and China? Better than France? Able to retake the Falklands after a successful Argentinian invasion?
You'd probably have to double the money and triple the time. Remember giving the MoD 2x money doesn't get you 2x capability as they'll waste most of it.
It might be better to start shifting that public perception to something more realistic and stop preening ourselves with the ridiculous deification of past military glories.
Not at all, most leavers think it would be in our best interests to ensure free trade with the EU.
So why are they shouting "walk away! no deal!" ?
Brexiteers seem determined to undermine relationships with our largest trading partners at every opportunity.
Cheered on from the cheap seats by useful idiots
No one is saying that. What people are saying is that the government needs to be prepared for the eventuality of a no deal Brexit because it will take away a lot of the uncertainty surrounding it.
Question for @Dura_Ace, how much extra money per year over how many years do you think it would take for the armed forces to live up to the public perception of what it is/should be?
I've estimated a permanent budget rise of £4bn in real terms and a 7 year procurement budget of £23bn (around £3bn per year). Does that sound reasonable or would it require more to turn the ship around?
I am not sure what the public perception is? A second rank superpower behind the US and China? Better than France? Able to retake the Falklands after a successful Argentinian invasion?
You'd probably have to double the money and triple the time. Remember giving the MoD 2x money doesn't get you 2x capability as they'll waste most of it.
It might be better to start shifting that public perception to something more realistic and stop preening ourselves with the ridiculous deification of past military glories.
How much would it take to take us to having
1) A full Armoured Division
2) A full Mechanised Infantry Division
3) A full Air Assault Division to complement 16 AAB
4) The naval and air force capabilities to transport 1-3 to most parts of the world PDQ.
Question for @Dura_Ace, how much extra money per year over how many years do you think it would take for the armed forces to live up to the public perception of what it is/should be?
I've estimated a permanent budget rise of £4bn in real terms and a 7 year procurement budget of £23bn (around £3bn per year). Does that sound reasonable or would it require more to turn the ship around?
I am not sure what the public perception is? A second rank superpower behind the US and China? Better than France? Able to retake the Falklands after a successful Argentinian invasion?
You'd probably have to double the money and triple the time. Remember giving the MoD 2x money doesn't get you 2x capability as they'll waste most of it.
It might be better to start shifting that public perception to something more realistic and stop preening ourselves with the ridiculous deification of past military glories.
Probably option 2 or 3, somewhere in between. Agreed on the MoD, I had a friend working in procurement, he left because there was so much waste and corruption.
Boris Johnson's 5,000 majority is looking mighty vulnerable after him reneging on his promises to the voters in Uxbridge over Heathrow.He is perhaps in his weakest ever political place-when it's The Sun that's the only one who's backing you,you are well and truly desperate-and May is on a roll.She shoudda done it a long time ago but now is the best time for her to strike and banish Johnson to the backbenches where he would be better placed to fight to retain his seat.
Boris Johnson won't be involved if there is a by-election in his seat which is the only scenario he might lose it in. He will romp home at the next GE there, Corbyn has peaked in London and the Lib Dems are far too far behind there.
The biggest problem for MPs opposed to Heathrow is that they are all almost without exception right next to, in the flightpath or actually in their constituency - certainly that is the case for the most vocal ones. So it looks like NIMBYism, even if Zac's points are valid http://www.zacgoldsmith.com/zacs-speech-on-heathrow/ I think LHR opponents would have been better off having someone with a constituency miles away articulate those points. Because the only argument that has received any coverage in the press is about the poor dears right next to the development, and that is not a reason to not go ahead for anyone living outwith LHR boundaries. Opponents to LHR expansion have played a constituency game on a national pitch.
I think you're right. That's the impression given, so you can understand the reaction.
The basic fault lies with the cosy relationship between Heathrow Ltd and the Department for Transport over several years. It distorts good decision making.
Question for @Dura_Ace, how much extra money per year over how many years do you think it would take for the armed forces to live up to the public perception of what it is/should be?
I've estimated a permanent budget rise of £4bn in real terms and a 7 year procurement budget of £23bn (around £3bn per year). Does that sound reasonable or would it require more to turn the ship around?
I am not sure what the public perception is? A second rank superpower behind the US and China? Better than France? Able to retake the Falklands after a successful Argentinian invasion?
You'd probably have to double the money and triple the time. Remember giving the MoD 2x money doesn't get you 2x capability as they'll waste most of it.
It might be better to start shifting that public perception to something more realistic and stop preening ourselves with the ridiculous deification of past military glories.
How much would it take to take us to having
1) A full Armoured Division
2) A full Mechanised Infantry Division
3) A full Air Assault Division to complement 16 AAB
4) The naval and air force capabilities to transport 1-3 to most parts of the world PDQ.
Far more than the British tax payer would ever countenance. You're talking about an air mobile force of 60,000 troops plus equipment. There is also several inconvenient intrusions from reality in this plan such as there are no currently open production lines for strategic airlifters. (A400M doesn't count).
The biggest problem for MPs opposed to Heathrow is that they are all almost without exception right next to, in the flightpath or actually in their constituency - certainly that is the case for the most vocal ones. So it looks like NIMBYism, even if Zac's points are valid http://www.zacgoldsmith.com/zacs-speech-on-heathrow/ I think LHR opponents would have been better off having someone with a constituency miles away articulate those points. Because the only argument that has received any coverage in the press is about the poor dears right next to the development, and that is not a reason to not go ahead for anyone living outwith LHR boundaries. Opponents to LHR expansion have played a constituency game on a national pitch.
I think you're right. That's the impression given, so you can understand the reaction.
The basic fault lies with the cosy relationship between Heathrow Ltd and the Department for Transport over several years. It distorts good decision making.
I note in my vicinity Mann, Flint and Barron voted with the Gov't, Miliband against whilst Winterton abstained.
The biggest problem for MPs opposed to Heathrow is that they are all almost without exception right next to, in the flightpath or actually in their constituency - certainly that is the case for the most vocal ones. So it looks like NIMBYism, even if Zac's points are valid http://www.zacgoldsmith.com/zacs-speech-on-heathrow/ I think LHR opponents would have been better off having someone with a constituency miles away articulate those points. Because the only argument that has received any coverage in the press is about the poor dears right next to the development, and that is not a reason to not go ahead for anyone living outwith LHR boundaries. Opponents to LHR expansion have played a constituency game on a national pitch.
I think you're right. That's the impression given, so you can understand the reaction.
The basic fault lies with the cosy relationship between Heathrow Ltd and the Department for Transport over several years. It distorts good decision making.
Where 'good decision making' equals 'a decision I agree with' ?
You haven't presented a realistic, workable alternative answer to the problem. In fact, you seem in denial about the problem.
More a lesson for Carillion personnel (now ex-personnel) .
There really should be an independent internal to the government assessment of contracts to confirm the finances are sustainable.
Expecting politicans, especially Grayling FFS to get these things is like expecting a mouse to get quantum physics.
The government ministers do not carry out the financial assessment. It's done by professional accountants.
However, ministers overrode the financial advice about Carillion for political reasons and still engaged them. It is the ministers right to make the decision. Ministers are accountable to the voters.
I see Salvini is making good on his promises on migration. Finally someone is calling out the charity workers who enable people smuggling. Such a shame that the new Spanish PM seems like a complete bozo and will ruin the whole east coast of Spain. The sooner we start sending these charity boats back to Libya the sooner the whole migration crisis will stop.
Mr. P, the EU banks any concession (£39bn) then asks for more (a customs barrier cutting the UK in two). It'd be nice if the negotiations could actually go somewhere, but I'll believe it when I see it.
Mr. Max, quite. Picking up boats just off the Libyan shore and ferrying undocumented migrants with no pretence of following the legal process for migration and then calling it a 'crisis' is ridiculous. It isn't a crisis. It's a choice.
Question for @Dura_Ace, how much extra money per year over how many years do you think it would take for the armed forces to live up to the public perception of what it is/should be?
I've estimated a permanent budget rise of £4bn in real terms and a 7 year procurement budget of £23bn (around £3bn per year). Does that sound reasonable or would it require more to turn the ship around?
I am not sure what the public perception is? A second rank superpower behind the US and China? Better than France? Able to retake the Falklands after a successful Argentinian invasion?
You'd probably have to double the money and triple the time. Remember giving the MoD 2x money doesn't get you 2x capability as they'll waste most of it.
It might be better to start shifting that public perception to something more realistic and stop preening ourselves with the ridiculous deification of past military glories.
How much would it take to take us to having
1) A full Armoured Division
2) A full Mechanised Infantry Division
3) A full Air Assault Division to complement 16 AAB
4) The naval and air force capabilities to transport 1-3 to most parts of the world PDQ.
Far more than the British tax payer would ever countenance. You're talking about an air mobile force of 60,000 troops plus equipment. There is also several inconvenient intrusions from reality in this plan such as there are no currently open production lines for strategic airlifters. (A400M doesn't count).
Mr. Max, quite. Picking up boats just off the Libyan shore and ferrying undocumented migrants with no pretence of following the legal process for migration and then calling it a 'crisis' is ridiculous. It isn't a crisis. It's a choice.
Why is it so hard for the law to treat these NGOs and "charities" as what they are - people traffickers?
Mr. Max, quite. Picking up boats just off the Libyan shore and ferrying undocumented migrants with no pretence of following the legal process for migration and then calling it a 'crisis' is ridiculous. It isn't a crisis. It's a choice.
Indeed, might as well be called illegal immigrant taxi boats. They serve no other purpose than to aid people trafficking. It's good that there are still leaders in Europe who are willing to call this what it is and arrest charity workers/impound boats which are used to aid people trafficking.
Boris Johnson's 5,000 majority is looking mighty vulnerable after him reneging on his promises to the voters in Uxbridge over Heathrow.He is perhaps in his weakest ever political place-when it's The Sun that's the only one who's backing you,you are well and truly desperate-and May is on a roll.She shoudda done it a long time ago but now is the best time for her to strike and banish Johnson to the backbenches where he would be better placed to fight to retain his seat.
Johnson did not vote for Heathrow expansion though and many Labour MPs did
The economic case is the difference between the benefits (e,g, of extra flights) and the costs.
I quote from Zac:
[SNIP]
Yeah - I read what Zac said, I don't think he's comparing like for like figures, its all a bit confused in his speech and hard to follow. I've skimmed the NEF report which seems pretty solid, and it's saying Heathrow isn't good value for money (I'd quibble with them that while it may be DfT guidance to exclude all benefits from international to international passengers - but that seems a bit extreme to me).
One thing I hadn't realised was how far this expansion is expected to take flights from other UK airports, rather than supporting new flights. They reckon London flights will be 205m in 2050 without the change, but 248m with the change, but of that 43m increase, 17m is coming from rest of the UK airports.
Anyway - I feel less positive about Heathrow then I did before, so thanks for pushing me to read up on this.
Mr. Max, quite. Picking up boats just off the Libyan shore and ferrying undocumented migrants with no pretence of following the legal process for migration and then calling it a 'crisis' is ridiculous. It isn't a crisis. It's a choice.
Why is it so hard for the law to treat these NGOs and "charities" as what they are - people traffickers?
Well Salvini seems like he's just done it. I think there is going to be an almighty reckoning over this in the next few weeks. Spain won't be able to handle their new open ports position for long and they will have to take the same action, Greece will most likely follow suit which effectively closes the external European border against the wishes of the richer northern EU nations from where most of the "charity" boats originate.
Mr. Max, quite. Picking up boats just off the Libyan shore and ferrying undocumented migrants with no pretence of following the legal process for migration and then calling it a 'crisis' is ridiculous. It isn't a crisis. It's a choice.
Why is it so hard for the law to treat these NGOs and "charities" as what they are - people traffickers?
Well Salvini seems like he's just done it. I think there is going to be an almighty reckoning over this in the next few weeks. Spain won't be able to handle their new open ports position for long and they will have to take the same action, Greece will most likely follow suit which effectively closes the external European border against the wishes of the richer northern EU nations from where most of the "charity" boats originate.
I note that one barely ever sees an arab or berber amongst the migrants departing from Libya.
Is there a market anywhere on Tory leader at next general election?
You think that might be different to the next PM?
I'd expect there to be odds on May as Tory leader at the next election, and no odds on Corbyn - the fav in the next PM market. So quite different, yes.
Mr. Pulpstar, aye, they're mostly black sub-Saharan Africans. The BBC's Mark Urban, some years ago, did a very good breakdown of the national demographics. It was mostly economic migrants from Africa.
Mr. Max, quite. Picking up boats just off the Libyan shore and ferrying undocumented migrants with no pretence of following the legal process for migration and then calling it a 'crisis' is ridiculous. It isn't a crisis. It's a choice.
Why is it so hard for the law to treat these NGOs and "charities" as what they are - people traffickers?
Because they're not traffickers. Are the charities profiting of the trafficking? Are they charging the people who get carried across? Because that is what traffickers do.
Its not the fault of the charities that our governments collectively insist on those picked up being taken to our soil rather than compelling them to be dropped back off where they came from. Australia was denounced years ago by much of the western world for insisting upon those picked up in boats being taken to another country instead of to Australia for processing but the policy dramatically cut the numbers being picked up.
Until governments start insisting that those picked up get dropped off in eg Lybia instead of in Europe this is going to continue.
Mr. Max, quite. Picking up boats just off the Libyan shore and ferrying undocumented migrants with no pretence of following the legal process for migration and then calling it a 'crisis' is ridiculous. It isn't a crisis. It's a choice.
Why is it so hard for the law to treat these NGOs and "charities" as what they are - people traffickers?
Well Salvini seems like he's just done it. I think there is going to be an almighty reckoning over this in the next few weeks. Spain won't be able to handle their new open ports position for long and they will have to take the same action, Greece will most likely follow suit which effectively closes the external European border against the wishes of the richer northern EU nations from where most of the "charity" boats originate.
I note that one barely ever sees an arab or berber amongst the migrants departing from Libya.
Indeed. The action necessary is simple (but tough to follow through on). Arrest the charity workers, seize the boats, load up the migrants and dump them back on the coast of Libya and pay the Libyans off. Have a massive PR campaign across Africa that this is the end result and all that will happen is they will be $5000 worse off and stuck somewhere in Libya if they try and illegally enter Europe.
Mr. Pulpstar, aye, they're mostly black sub-Saharan Africans. The BBC's Mark Urban, some years ago, did a very good breakdown of the national demographics. It was mostly economic migrants from Africa.
Well Libya is in Africa too, and its certainly had many problems.. but the migration primarily doesn't seem to contain many Libyans. Perhaps they're prepared to stay and sort out their country long term.
Mr. Max, quite. Picking up boats just off the Libyan shore and ferrying undocumented migrants with no pretence of following the legal process for migration and then calling it a 'crisis' is ridiculous. It isn't a crisis. It's a choice.
Why is it so hard for the law to treat these NGOs and "charities" as what they are - people traffickers?
Well Salvini seems like he's just done it. I think there is going to be an almighty reckoning over this in the next few weeks. Spain won't be able to handle their new open ports position for long and they will have to take the same action, Greece will most likely follow suit which effectively closes the external European border against the wishes of the richer northern EU nations from where most of the "charity" boats originate.
I note that one barely ever sees an arab or berber amongst the migrants departing from Libya.
Indeed. The action necessary is simple (but tough to follow through on). Arrest the charity workers, seize the boats, load up the migrants and dump them back on the coast of Libya and pay the Libyans off. Have a massive PR campaign across Africa that this is the end result and all that will happen is they will be $5000 worse off and stuck somewhere in Libya if they try and illegally enter Europe.
What crime have the charity workers committed?
Make an agreement with Lybia that the migrants must be dropped off back there and then compel the charities to do that, but until then the charities are following our laws not breaking them.
Mr. Max, quite. Picking up boats just off the Libyan shore and ferrying undocumented migrants with no pretence of following the legal process for migration and then calling it a 'crisis' is ridiculous. It isn't a crisis. It's a choice.
Why is it so hard for the law to treat these NGOs and "charities" as what they are - people traffickers?
Well Salvini seems like he's just done it. I think there is going to be an almighty reckoning over this in the next few weeks. Spain won't be able to handle their new open ports position for long and they will have to take the same action, Greece will most likely follow suit which effectively closes the external European border against the wishes of the richer northern EU nations from where most of the "charity" boats originate.
I note that one barely ever sees an arab or berber amongst the migrants departing from Libya.
Indeed. The action necessary is simple (but tough to follow through on). Arrest the charity workers, seize the boats, load up the migrants and dump them back on the coast of Libya and pay the Libyans off. Have a massive PR campaign across Africa that this is the end result and all that will happen is they will be $5000 worse off and stuck somewhere in Libya if they try and illegally enter Europe.
What crime have the charity worked committed?
Make an agreement with Lybia that the migrants must be dropped off back there and then compel the charities to do that, but until then the charities are following our laws not breaking them.
Aiding and abetting people smuggling. That's a crime.
Mr. Max, quite. Picking up boats just off the Libyan shore and ferrying undocumented migrants with no pretence of following the legal process for migration and then calling it a 'crisis' is ridiculous. It isn't a crisis. It's a choice.
Why is it so hard for the law to treat these NGOs and "charities" as what they are - people traffickers?
Well Salvini seems like he's just done it. I think there is going to be an almighty reckoning over this in the next few weeks. Spain won't be able to handle their new open ports position for long and they will have to take the same action, Greece will most likely follow suit which effectively closes the external European border against the wishes of the richer northern EU nations from where most of the "charity" boats originate.
I note that one barely ever sees an arab or berber amongst the migrants departing from Libya.
Indeed. The action necessary is simple (but tough to follow through on). Arrest the charity workers, seize the boats, load up the migrants and dump them back on the coast of Libya and pay the Libyans off. Have a massive PR campaign across Africa that this is the end result and all that will happen is they will be $5000 worse off and stuck somewhere in Libya if they try and illegally enter Europe.
Mr. Max, quite. Picking up boats just off the Libyan shore and ferrying undocumented migrants with no pretence of following the legal process for migration and then calling it a 'crisis' is ridiculous. It isn't a crisis. It's a choice.
Why is it so hard for the law to treat these NGOs and "charities" as what they are - people traffickers?
Well Salvini seems like he's just done it. I think there is going to be an almighty reckoning over this in the next few weeks. Spain won't be able to handle their new open ports position for long and they will have to take the same action, Greece will most likely follow suit which effectively closes the external European border against the wishes of the richer northern EU nations from where most of the "charity" boats originate.
I note that one barely ever sees an arab or berber amongst the migrants departing from Libya.
Indeed. The action necessary is simple (but tough to follow through on). Arrest the charity workers, seize the boats, load up the migrants and dump them back on the coast of Libya and pay the Libyans off. Have a massive PR campaign across Africa that this is the end result and all that will happen is they will be $5000 worse off and stuck somewhere in Libya if they try and illegally enter Europe.
What crime have the charity worked committed?
Make an agreement with Lybia that the migrants must be dropped off back there and then compel the charities to do that, but until then the charities are following our laws not breaking them.
Aiding and abetting people smuggling. That's a crime.
But they're not. They're not in cahoots with the people smugglers any more than a paramedic who saves a gangster is aiding and abetting gangs. They're rescuing people as the law says they should and then they are dropping them off in Europe as the law says they should - the politicians need to deal with this not the Police.
One point about all these electric planes, cars and what have you, that I question, is where is all this electricity going to come from?
Last year the SNP shouted out that renewables were powering Scotland's homes for all of a couple of weeks in the year. Sounds fine until you realise that the power to homes is only 40% of all the power required, the other 60% is required for business and industry, including for electric trains.
Hinckley C, the Swansea Lagoons and other renewable technologies will only be able to provide a very small percentage of the power required to power all those new travel technologies, plus the homes, buildings and industries that will need to come into being to support them.
Do we really want windmills all over our green and pleasant land, fields of solar panels rather than filled with cows, sheep or crops.
Please do not mention Fusion or some other mythical technologies, unless there is some kind of unexpected amazing wonder breakthrough of the kind we have been promised for the past 50 years we will be stuffed..
Ps: In mentioning the SNP, I would say that any government would be only too happy to spin the news given half a chance. Just the SNP seems to be able to do spin better than all those e***n windmills.
Yes, we should have loads more wind and solar. Only a teeny tiny fraction of Britain is built on, we can easily have loads more renewables installed.
If we are going to go full-on with renewables then we also require huge investment in energy storage to kick in when it is cold, dark and the air is still. Otherwise we still need to build loads of gas-fired plants that sit there doing bugger all most of the time.
If we want dispatchable green energy then either renewables plus storage or thermal plant with CO2 capture is the solution.
Saying that renewables are cheaper is false if you don't include the cost of storage or back-up generation.
Pleased to hear that the Heathrow decision had such a large majority.
I've often wondered whether Mrs May is one of those people who suffer from 'paralysis by analysis'.
I've met several people who seem to think that if you keep on planning, in fine enough detail, the work will somehow get achieved, and of course it doesn't. Sooner or later you have to do something, if you want it to happen.
Comments
https://twitter.com/EuroGuido/status/1011541352214073344
People nearest Heathrow are likely to critically examine the case as they have more "skin in the game". Those further away are likely to simply accept the case put forward by Heathrow Airport without examination and airily dismiss an criticism as a good laugh and NimbyIsm. Your mind is made up so there's no point in discussing it with you any further.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/26/sexual-harassment-victims-are-losing-faith-in-labour-party-neutrality
You might argue that the increase in price would make it economic to add an extra runway in Amsterdam or Paris, which would have the result you state, but I suppose the environmental argument would be to campaign for a restriction of airport capacity everywhere.
Hint: I did read it.
Actually, there are lots of people around Heathrow who work for it, and want to see it succeed. Including an ex of mine. So don't think you speak for all the locals ...
I've explained my thought processes about this many times in the past, and it's ridiculous to say I 'simply accept the case put forward by Heathrow'. I don't see Heathrow as the *best* answer to the problem. But your NIMBY answer - of chucking the problem away with you to Gatwick - is worse, and other NIMBY'[s will just do what you are doing.
You don't actually have an answer.
I look forward to discussing it with you, and educating you some more.
If we want to reduce flights we need to tax them internationally, not stop building airports.
But ultimately there isn't really an alternative to long haul flights. Hopefully planes can be made less polluting, but more reduction potential on petrol cars, meat, coal combustion etc.
I lived in Aber as a student in the late 1990s. Loved the place, but couldn't live there full time (my profession needs a city, so back to Liverpool for me). Haven't been back for years now.
Lived in Trefloyne in year 1 and indeed rarely went downtown. But years 2 and 3 spent in Cambrian Street so never out of the town then. Heavily into RPG, so joined WARPS and dodged the live action roleplayers attacking each other with swords in the woods near Dan y-coed.
And did they really elect a green MP? Member of Parliament?
The main objection is the dodgy economic case (which is rapidly unravelling) and the financial burden and risks this foreign owned company puts on Government and the taxpayer. The opportunity cost to the economy of delaying airport expansion is enormous and it is caused by Heathrow being in bed with Government and pursuing this fatally flawed scheme which is delaying sensible airport expansion. Most MPS and non-Londoners don't care. "Just get on with it, Bloody London Nimbys".
Surely it's only a bad idea economically if the runway doesn't actually get used.
But it's not plausible that there will be loads of extra flights, but that there won't be an economic benefit.
I don't care whether we expand Gatwick or Heathrow, my prior would have been that it's best to expand both.
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1011503975365931010
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1011547421875326977
https://twitter.com/DannyShawBBC/status/1011551991804383232
Brexiteers seem determined to undermine relationships with our largest trading partners at every opportunity.
Cheered on from the cheap seats by useful idiots
Pondering doesn't even begin to describe it.
I've estimated a permanent budget rise of £4bn in real terms and a 7 year procurement budget of £23bn (around £3bn per year). Does that sound reasonable or would it require more to turn the ship around?
https://twitter.com/Ned_Donovan/status/1011510620292829184
Apparently the plan is for 5 seasons, it should have just been that one.
In an open question survey by Com Res, the person most associated with women's rights is Theresa May. They were shocked and in disbelief that this could be so.
I quote from Zac:
"The 2014 Airports Commission, on which the Government’s decision was based, estimated that Heathrow expansion would deliver £147 billion of total economic benefit.
The Government lapped it up. But then in last year’s draft NPS, they quietly revised the figure down to £72.8.
Today’s NPS uses the same figure, but admits it is a gross figure and does not include the actual economic and financial costs of the proposal. But it also gives the Net Present Value (NPV) – a metric which does include the costs and benefits – a range of just £2.9 billion to minus £2.5 billion over a 60-year period.
So the benefit has gone from £147 billion, to possibly minus £2.5 billion – and yet the Government’s appetite for pushing ahead with it hasn’t budged.
It gets worse.
A New Economics Foundation report shows that three quarters of any new capacity from a third runway will be taken up by international to international transfer passengers; people who never leave the airport.
The Department for Transport (DfT)’s own guidance says they add nothing whatsoever to the economy and shouldn’t be counted. If they are excluded – as the DfT recommends – the net Present Value reduces by a further £5.5bn.
DfT analysis also shows that an overrun in Heathrow’s costs of just 1% could be enough to negate the overall benefits of the scheme.
Meanwhile, none of this takes into account the £15b that Transport for London believe it will cost to adapt surface transport to link an expanded Heathrow up to the grid; a bill that the Government has made no provision for."
So it looks like NIMBYism, even if Zac's points are valid http://www.zacgoldsmith.com/zacs-speech-on-heathrow/ I think LHR opponents would have been better off having someone with a constituency miles away articulate those points. Because the only argument that has received any coverage in the press is about the poor dears right next to the development, and that is not a reason to not go ahead for anyone living outwith LHR boundaries.
Opponents to LHR expansion have played a constituency game on a national pitch.
You'd probably have to double the money and triple the time. Remember giving the MoD 2x money doesn't get you 2x capability as they'll waste most of it.
It might be better to start shifting that public perception to something more realistic and stop preening ourselves with the ridiculous deification of past military glories.
Singapore is known for their cars and planes.
Oh, wait...
1) A full Armoured Division
2) A full Mechanised Infantry Division
3) A full Air Assault Division to complement 16 AAB
4) The naval and air force capabilities to transport 1-3 to most parts of the world PDQ.
Relying on tariffs to be competitive is not a sustainable solution in the long term.
He will romp home at the next GE there, Corbyn has peaked in London and the Lib Dems are far too far behind there.
The basic fault lies with the cosy relationship between Heathrow Ltd and the Department for Transport over several years. It distorts good decision making.
Expecting politicans, especially Grayling FFS to get these things is like expecting a mouse to get quantum physics.
We need manufacturers of the engine, suspension, electrics, steering etc that make up the technical parts of a car or truck.
You haven't presented a realistic, workable alternative answer to the problem. In fact, you seem in denial about the problem.
Oh, wait...
However, ministers overrode the financial advice about Carillion for political reasons and still engaged them. It is the ministers right to make the decision. Ministers are accountable to the voters.
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1011559537457934336
One thing I hadn't realised was how far this expansion is expected to take flights from other UK airports, rather than supporting new flights. They reckon London flights will be 205m in 2050 without the change, but 248m with the change, but of that 43m increase, 17m is coming from rest of the UK airports.
Anyway - I feel less positive about Heathrow then I did before, so thanks for pushing me to read up on this.
Its not the fault of the charities that our governments collectively insist on those picked up being taken to our soil rather than compelling them to be dropped back off where they came from. Australia was denounced years ago by much of the western world for insisting upon those picked up in boats being taken to another country instead of to Australia for processing but the policy dramatically cut the numbers being picked up.
Until governments start insisting that those picked up get dropped off in eg Lybia instead of in Europe this is going to continue.
Presumably this will only happen when, as now, NOM is favourite?
F1: Ladbrokes has 16 markets up for Austria, which is 3 more than it had a few hours before the French race started. Giving it a quick perusal.
Make an agreement with Lybia that the migrants must be dropped off back there and then compel the charities to do that, but until then the charities are following our laws not breaking them.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/28/aware-migrants-refugees-africa-italy-europe
http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/downloads/sinden06-windresource.pdf
It isn't
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5875115/Jeff-Bezos-Blue-Origin-reveals-start-selling-tickets-tourists-year.html
Pleased to hear that the Heathrow decision had such a large majority.
I've often wondered whether Mrs May is one of those people who suffer from 'paralysis by analysis'.
I've met several people who seem to think that if you keep on planning, in fine enough detail, the work will somehow get achieved, and of course it doesn't. Sooner or later you have to do something, if you want it to happen.