politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Leadsom candidacy is reminder that those seeking high o
Comments
-
That article was by Lord Tebbit who I expect to endorse UKIP soonTOPPING said:
Just looking at the link, if Theresa May succeeds in driving all nutters in the Tory Party to UKIP, and that alone, it will all have been worth it.CarlottaVance said:Bad losers...(continued)
Now it seems that in the face of the intense smear campaign run by supporters of Theresa May, she concluded that the price of winning would be too high.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/12/theresa-may-will-drive-tory-members-into-the-arms-of-ukip
The 'smear campaign' that consisted of i) Clarifying her CV and ii) Reporting what she said?
She has already made a start on this site, which is encouraging.0 -
Not the most auspicious hashtag in the world.
https://twitter.com/RichardBurgon/status/7527608476891914240 -
Yep, I'm prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt but I'm shaking my head at those reacting like their team has signed Messi.Luckyguy1983 said:We can only really speculate on Andrea's reasons for dropping out.
Whether or not May is the person for the job, the way the establishment candidate is being crowned should make anyone who cares about living in a democracy very uneasy.0 -
Will he go? I'm really not sure. Unless somewhere like the Privy Council where he cab continue to wield power.Wulfrun_Phil said:
I agree and said as much here on 29th May:SouthamObserver said:
Of course, May was clearly the only sane choice. But less than three weeks after a vote that was supposed to have rocked the Establishment to its core it is very much in charge with minimal damage done. Not that it was ever going to be otherwise.SimonStClare said:
The better candidate won because the challenger was a "delusional lightweight".SouthamObserver said:The Establishment won because the challenger was a delusional lightweight.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/05/29/guest-slot-polling-analysis-finds-labour-loses-supporters-of-brexit/
"For all its acrimony, the open debate between the wings of the party shows that the party wants to keep the door open in future for Conservative supporters of either camp. In addition, if Cameron’s successor is a prominent Leave supporter, many Conservative defectors to UKIP in 2015 and since could return in significant numbers. Do not bet against a general election before 2020 under a new Conservative leader."
Cameron's successor is not a prominent Leave supporter, but a PM who becomes a prominent Leave implementer will do just as much or more to attract back UKIP defectors.
Conservative polling is also bound to improve with May's accession. Apart from the usual short term boost to a new leader, there could be a longer term effect, not because Cameron has lost his long-time approval rating but more because the deeply unpopular Osborne will surely go now.0 -
Correct. In fact if the PLP demand had been annual leadership elections they'd have had a deal in 10 seconds.paulyork64 said:
Right now i think jeremy would love to face an election, but others are trying to prevent him from doing so.fitalass said:Daily Mirror - Jeremy Corbyn promised Labour leaders would face election every year to avoid 'personality' leadership
"Jeremy Corbyn promised to make Labour leaders face mandatory elections every year to avoid the party struggling with a 'personality' leader.
He said it would "bring back democracy into the Labour Party and the Labour movement."
But the embattled Labour leader seems to have radically changed his mind since he unexpectedly became leader of the party last September."0 -
I'd take that! The other idea I have seen is to turn Luton into the hub and give it four to six runways and rebuild it from ground up with modern facilities and terminal buildings. We'd lose part of Luton, but that's not much of a loss. Given the transport links that currently serve Heathrow we could turn the Heathrow site into an industrial and science park giving London and the SE a new high tech manufacturing base.surbiton said:
Rubbish. We need extra runways at LHR, LGW and Stansted.MaxPB said:
Not at all, it's on the wrong side of London and New York has shown that a dual hub doesn't work for a big city, it needs one megahub and smaller outlying airports.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Agreed. That said, putting the new runway at Gatwick is an absolute no brainer to my mind.IanB2 said:
It always amazes me that people think an airport only needs a flat piece of land for aircraft to use.Malmesbury said:
The best option (IMHO) would be a variation on Boris Island - a variation on concrete oil platform technology. Think a series of tables - flat top, legs with flotation chambers at the bottom. Because they are for shallow water, much lower than an oil platform. Say 350m x 50m and 50m high. Each. Build in various shipyards, float into position. You could build you airport *anywhere*.RobD said:
Nothing like a bit of infrastructure spending to boost the economy.CarlottaVance said:
Or do something bold like Heathrow and Gatwick.....RobD said:
Surely she should just get it out of the way ASAP. Say that the government will carry out the findings of the independent review.CarlottaVance said:Paul Goodman: Heathrow expansion looks dead in the water now
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2016/07/may-joe-chamberlain-in-kitten-heels-who-will-serve-in-her-interventionist-cabinet-and-deliver-brexit.html
Apart from May's constituency being Maidenhead - has she said anything on this?
Both would definitely show that we are open for business, and the option I would prefer.
When it is done, sell Heathrow for housing. Make money on the deal.
Around Heathrow there is a whole network of support industry and ancillary activities and a truly massive workforce; there are several west London boroughs where much of the population essentially supports the airport. The idea you can just close it all down and drop it into some marshland miles from London was for the birds (which would have been the other problem).0 -
May did talk about their inability to have children - unsolicited. Why was that necessary at all, except for the sympathy vote. She clearly out-manoeuvred the hapless Loathsome !IanB2 said:
There is clearly a counter-narrative that May cunningly plotted Leadsom's downfall. Allison Pearson's telegraph article is a good example - she neatly overlooks the fact that it was Leadsom who first raised the children in response to an open question, and argues that she was "lured" onto dangerous ground deliberately by the Times. And on last night's newsnight Iain thingybob even argued that May's recent interview about her childlessness was a deliberate trap for Leadsom, with phase two being her disables interview. Which is taking conspiracy theory a but far IMHO,CarlottaVance said:Bad losers...(continued)
Now it seems that in the face of the intense smear campaign run by supporters of Theresa May, she concluded that the price of winning would be too high.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/12/theresa-may-will-drive-tory-members-into-the-arms-of-ukip
The 'smear campaign' that consisted of i) Clarifying her CV and ii) Reporting what she said?0 -
LOL what a moron.....Stay Putin...LOLTheuniondivvie said:Not the most auspicious hashtag in the world.
https://twitter.com/RichardBurgon/status/7527608476891914240 -
Do you understand the concepts of hub-and-spoke versus point-to-point? What you're calling for is point-to-point, but many countries are betting on hub-and-spoke. The commission looked into this: see the reports I linked to earlier.surbiton said:
Rubbish. We need extra runways at LHR, LGW and Stansted.MaxPB said:
Not at all, it's on the wrong side of London and New York has shown that a dual hub doesn't work for a big city, it needs one megahub and smaller outlying airports.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Agreed. That said, putting the new runway at Gatwick is an absolute no brainer to my mind.IanB2 said:
It always amazes me that people think an airport only needs a flat piece of land for aircraft to use.Malmesbury said:
The best option (IMHO) would be a variation on Boris Island - a variation on concrete oil platform technology. Think a series of tables - flat top, legs with flotation chambers at the bottom. Because they are for shallow water, much lower than an oil platform. Say 350m x 50m and 50m high. Each. Build in various shipyards, float into position. You could build you airport *anywhere*.RobD said:
Nothing like a bit of infrastructure spending to boost the economy.CarlottaVance said:
Or do something bold like Heathrow and Gatwick.....RobD said:
Surely she should just get it out of the way ASAP. Say that the government will carry out the findings of the independent review.CarlottaVance said:Paul Goodman: Heathrow expansion looks dead in the water now
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2016/07/may-joe-chamberlain-in-kitten-heels-who-will-serve-in-her-interventionist-cabinet-and-deliver-brexit.html
Apart from May's constituency being Maidenhead - has she said anything on this? Both would definitely show that we are open for business, and the option I would prefer.
When it is done, sell Heathrow for housing. Make money on the deal.
Around Heathrow there is a whole network of support industry and ancillary activities and a truly massive workforce; there are several west London boroughs where much of the population essentially supports the airport. The idea you can just close it all down and drop it into some marshland miles from London was for the birds (which would have been the other problem).0 -
I wouldn't say that. Gove clearly has talent as does BoJo, though both rather erratically, Jeremy Hunt too. I wouldn't vote for any of them though.blackburn63 said:
Politicians don't have talent, that is a natural ability to do things such as artists or athletes.foxinsoxuk said:
May depresses me. A humourless and charmless battleaxe with no ideas of her own who has risen without trace or talent. She prospers by doing very little other than survive.TOPPING said:Leadsom was an empty vessel into which rightwingers poured their hopes and aspirations.
Thing is, they got carried away, probably as much to the surprise of Leadsom as anyone else. Which led to unnecessary CV spinning, loose talk about her beliefs, etc, which would never have occurred with a more experienced or capable operator.
Because sadly they picked the wrong candidate. Leadsom herself was simply not up to it. Everyone, whether from past lives, or her current one, said the same thing. Deeply mediocre at best. Now, there's nothing wrong with living your life as a nothing special backbencher. Plenty of them around. But PM takes something more. Leadsom didn't have it. Not wholly her fault, although she was also culpable.
May, meanwhile, is fulfilling the same function for the mildly-europhile, wettish wing. Projecting onto her the safe pair of hands, not rocking the boat, let's not do anything too EU bonkers candidate.
While she is no way as good an operator as Dave, she is miles ahead of Andrea so we are in with a better chance.
She does have the advantage of both her internal party and external enemies vanish from the field of play. Perhaps she is a witch after all.
When people describe politicians as talented they mean they agree with them.0 -
It could have been a runner but not now. Too much has been spent on T5 and T2.MaxPB said:
I'd take that! The other idea I have seen is to turn Luton into the hub and give it four to six runways and rebuild it from ground up with modern facilities and terminal buildings. We'd lose part of Luton, but that's not much of a loss. Given the transport links that currently serve Heathrow we could turn the Heathrow site into an industrial and science park giving London and the SE a new high tech manufacturing base.surbiton said:
Rubbish. We need extra runways at LHR, LGW and Stansted.MaxPB said:
Not at all, it's on the wrong side of London and New York has shown that a dual hub doesn't work for a big city, it needs one megahub and smaller outlying airports.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Agreed. That said, putting the new runway at Gatwick is an absolute no brainer to my mind.IanB2 said:
It always amazes me that people think an airport only needs a flat piece of land for aircraft to use.Malmesbury said:
The best option (IMHO) would be a variation on Boris Island - a variation on concrete oil platform technology. Think a series of tables - flat top, legs with flotation chambers at the bottom. Because they are for shallow water, much lower than an oil platform. Say 350m x 50m and 50m high. Each. Build in various shipyards, float into position. You could build you airport *anywhere*.RobD said:
Nothing like a bit of infrastructure spending to boost the economy.CarlottaVance said:
Or do something bold like Heathrow and Gatwick.....RobD said:
Surely she should just get it out of the way ASAP. Say that the government will carry out the findings of the independent review.CarlottaVance said:Paul Goodman: Heathrow expansion looks dead in the water now
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2016/07/may-joe-chamberlain-in-kitten-heels-who-will-serve-in-her-interventionist-cabinet-and-deliver-brexit.html
Apart from May's constituency being Maidenhead - has she said anything on this? Both would definitely show that we are open for business, and the option I would prefer.
When it is done, sell Heathrow for housing. Make money on the deal.
Around Heathrow there is a whole network of support industry and ancillary activities and a truly massive workforce; there are several west London boroughs where much of the population essentially supports the airport. The idea you can just close it all down and drop it into some marshland miles from London was for the birds (which would have been the other problem).0 -
They didn't think it through because they were Russian to get their message out.Theuniondivvie said:Not the most auspicious hashtag in the world.
https://twitter.com/RichardBurgon/status/7527608476891914240 -
Surely, somebody who is the existing leader has already amply demonstrated they "command a substantial body of support in the PLP" by virtue of having become leader? The number of nominations for the challenger is to make sure the Leader doesn't face a weekly challenge from a stalking horse.Wulfrun_Phil said:
Thanks for that - I had completely overlooked Collins' rationale until now. So very clearly, the Labour Party's system for selecting a leader is designed "to ensure that all candidates who are put to the ballot command a substantial body of support in the PLP"
Every time that a Corbyn cultist claims that he can carry on regardless of the fact that almost the entire PLP thinks he should go, on the grounds that the choice of leadership is solely a matter for anyone in the country choosing to make at least a £3 one-off payment, those words should be quoted back at them.
The current situation was never envisaged by anybody framing the rules. It is just outside anyones thinking that a Leader could plough on regardless, then be unable to collect the same number of nominations as a challenger....0 -
@Pulpstar
Wrong. You are just talking up your own book with your moralising
If Corbyn cannot command the support of even 50 of his own MPs, having lost a NCV, his candidacy has no moral legitimacy. The only traitors are the Corbynites - traitors to the entire concept of parliamentary democracy and British spirit of fair play and honour.
Cue another intensity weird post from RodCrosby about the bloody Showmen's Guild in 3, 2, 1...0 -
But the Rules [since amended to include MEPs as nominators] do in fact contemplate a leader with as few as 18 members of the PLP supporting them.Wulfrun_Phil said:
Thanks for that - I had completely overlooked Collins' rationale until now. So very clearly, the Labour Party's system for selecting a leader is designed "to ensure that all candidates who are put to the ballot command a substantial body of support in the PLP"david_herdson said:
The requirement for a sufficient number of nominations is of itself part of the election. Corbyn dismisses the PLP as their having no particular legitimacy outside of simply being part of the Labour movement as a whole - yet if so, why are nominations from them, and only from them - given a special place in the process? Precisely because they do in fact have a special place.paulyork64 said:
Right now i think jeremy would love to face an election, but others are trying to prevent him from doing so.fitalass said:Daily Mirror - Jeremy Corbyn promised Labour leaders would face election every year to avoid 'personality' leadership
"Jeremy Corbyn promised to make Labour leaders face mandatory elections every year to avoid the party struggling with a 'personality' leader.
He said it would "bring back democracy into the Labour Party and the Labour movement."
But the embattled Labour leader seems to have radically changed his mind since he unexpectedly became leader of the party last September."
From the Collins review, which was the template for Miliband's rules reforms:
"in recognition of the fact that the leader of the Labour Party has a special duty
to head the Parliamentary Labour Party in Westminster, MPs will retain the responsibility
of deciding the final shortlist of candidates that will be put to the ballot. MEPs, who
previously had a share of the MPs’ section of the college, will be able to publish supporting
nominations but these will not count towards the formal nominating process. To ensure that
all candidates who are put to the ballot command a substantial body of support in the PLP,
the threshold for nominations to secure a position on the shortlist should be raised from
12.5 per cent to 15 per cent of House of Commons members of the PLP. "
Every time that a Corbyn cultist claims that he can carry on regardless of the fact that almost the entire PLP thinks he should go, on the grounds that the choice of leadership is solely a matter for anyone in the country choosing to make at least a £3 one-off payment, those words should be quoted back at them.
That is what the Labour Party deems to be "substantial". So be it...
0 -
You're not uneasy because you got the result you wanted. That misses the wood for the trees.RobD said:
Not all that uneasy about it. After all, we're not in a presidential democracy (much though various PMs have tried to make it so). Saying that, a snap GE would be nice, perhaps once Labour has sorted themselves out.Luckyguy1983 said:We can only really speculate on Andrea's reasons for dropping out.
Whether or not May is the person for the job, the way the establishment candidate is being crowned should make anyone who cares about living in a democracy very uneasy.0 -
I would feel the same way if it were Leadsom to be honest.Luckyguy1983 said:
You're not uneasy because you got the result you wanted. That misses the wood for the trees.RobD said:
Not all that uneasy about it. After all, we're not in a presidential democracy (much though various PMs have tried to make it so). Saying that, a snap GE would be nice, perhaps once Labour has sorted themselves out.Luckyguy1983 said:We can only really speculate on Andrea's reasons for dropping out.
Whether or not May is the person for the job, the way the establishment candidate is being crowned should make anyone who cares about living in a democracy very uneasy.0 -
As was said in a famous misprint in the 60s - "the Labour Party has its roubles..."FrancisUrquhart said:
LOL what a moron.....Stay Putin...LOLTheuniondivvie said:Not the most auspicious hashtag in the world.
https://twitter.com/RichardBurgon/status/7527608476891914240 -
And when you rubbish politicians on here on a daily basis, its because you don't agree with them.blackburn63 said:
Politicians don't have talent, that is a natural ability to do things such as artists or athletes.foxinsoxuk said:
May depresses me. A humourless and charmless battleaxe with no ideas of her own who has risen without trace or talent. She prospers by doing very little other than survive.TOPPING said:Leadsom was an empty vessel into which rightwingers poured their hopes and aspirations.
Thing is, they got carried away, probably as much to the surprise of Leadsom as anyone else. Which led to unnecessary CV spinning, loose talk about her beliefs, etc, which would never have occurred with a more experienced or capable operator.
Because sadly they picked the wrong candidate. Leadsom herself was simply not up to it. Everyone, whether from past lives, or her current one, said the same thing. Deeply mediocre at best. Now, there's nothing wrong with living your life as a nothing special backbencher. Plenty of them around. But PM takes something more. Leadsom didn't have it. Not wholly her fault, although she was also culpable.
May, meanwhile, is fulfilling the same function for the mildly-europhile, wettish wing. Projecting onto her the safe pair of hands, not rocking the boat, let's not do anything too EU bonkers candidate.
While she is no way as good an operator as Dave, she is miles ahead of Andrea so we are in with a better chance.
She does have the advantage of both her internal party and external enemies vanish from the field of play. Perhaps she is a witch after all.
When people describe politicians as talented they mean they agree with them.
0 -
From my memory, the LHR3+4 option makes the costings go even more sky-high. Even with LHR3+4, capacity will be nowhere near what our competitors are building.MaxPB said:
Heathrow presented a two runway plan, one of the reasons I think the NW option is being given the go ahead is because that was the plan that allowed for a four runway solution in the future as well as the least disruption to wildlife.JosiasJessop said:Indeed. Yet it has been done: HK International Airport being the most famous example.
Expansion of Heathrow is only a medium-term measure. I predict before runway 3 is complete they'l be looking for a fourth, and that's when it starts getting *really* expensive.
And to compete, we need to look at what other countries are doing. As an example, the new Istanbul airport already being built has three runways, and is planned to have 6. From Wiki, Heathrow has 75 million passengers per annum; Istanbul with be able to cope with 150 million, with expansion possible to 200 million.
This doesn't mean we should get into a pi**ing contest with other countries. But its clear that other countries see a vast increase in passenger numbers (although they are also competing for the hub markets).
Can we afford to be left behind, or is everyone else getting it wrong?
I like the idea of BI as well, but for a variety of reasons it's not going to happen. Hopefully the PM is realistic and gets on with LHR3 at least.
Yes, we should get on with LHR3. But I fear a great opportunity has been lost. Or perhaps the projections for the potential market are all wrong. 0 -
My favourite political misprint that told an unconscious truth was the SDP leaflet that said its economic policies would reduce employment by 1 million in 3 years!MarqueeMark said:
As was said in a famous misprint in the 60s - "the Labour Party has its roubles..."FrancisUrquhart said:
LOL what a moron.....Stay Putin...LOLTheuniondivvie said:Not the most auspicious hashtag in the world.
https://twitter.com/RichardBurgon/status/7527608476891914240 -
There are certain politicians though who have an ease when dealing with people. Make them feel special for that moment they have one-to-one contact, even if it is fleeting.foxinsoxuk said:
I wouldn't say that. Gove clearly has talent as does BoJo, though both rather erratically, Jeremy Hunt too. I wouldn't vote for any of them though.blackburn63 said:
Politicians don't have talent, that is a natural ability to do things such as artists or athletes.foxinsoxuk said:
May depresses me. A humourless and charmless battleaxe with no ideas of her own who has risen without trace or talent. She prospers by doing very little other than survive.TOPPING said:Leadsom was an empty vessel into which rightwingers poured their hopes and aspirations.
Thing is, they got carried away, probably as much to the surprise of Leadsom as anyone else. Which led to unnecessary CV spinning, loose talk about her beliefs, etc, which would never have occurred with a more experienced or capable operator.
Because sadly they picked the wrong candidate. Leadsom herself was simply not up to it. Everyone, whether from past lives, or her current one, said the same thing. Deeply mediocre at best. Now, there's nothing wrong with living your life as a nothing special backbencher. Plenty of them around. But PM takes something more. Leadsom didn't have it. Not wholly her fault, although she was also culpable.
May, meanwhile, is fulfilling the same function for the mildly-europhile, wettish wing. Projecting onto her the safe pair of hands, not rocking the boat, let's not do anything too EU bonkers candidate.
While she is no way as good an operator as Dave, she is miles ahead of Andrea so we are in with a better chance.
She does have the advantage of both her internal party and external enemies vanish from the field of play. Perhaps she is a witch after all.
When people describe politicians as talented they mean they agree with them.
I worked in a company for a while where our Chairman was a former Govt. Minister. He had the brilliant ability to work a room - move in, have a brief conversation, move out again, without it ever appearing rude or pushy. That is a political talent.0 -
I think with four runways we'd have enough capacity to take us to the point where air travel as we know it may be looking dated.JosiasJessop said:
From my memory, the LHR3+4 option makes the costings go even more sky-high. Even with LHR3+4, capacity will be nowhere near what our competitors are building.MaxPB said:
Heathrow presented a two runway plan, one of the reasons I think the NW option is being given the go ahead is because that was the plan that allowed for a four runway solution in the future as well as the least disruption to wildlife.JosiasJessop said:Indeed. Yet it has been done: HK International Airport being the most famous example.
Expansion of Heathrow is only a medium-term measure. I predict before runway 3 is complete they'l be looking for a fourth, and that's when it starts getting *really* expensive.
And to compete, we need to look at what other countries are doing. As an example, the new Istanbul airport already being built has three runways, and is planned to have 6. From Wiki, Heathrow has 75 million passengers per annum; Istanbul with be able to cope with 150 million, with expansion possible to 200 million.
This doesn't mean we should get into a pi**ing contest with other countries. But its clear that other countries see a vast increase in passenger numbers (although they are also competing for the hub markets).
Can we afford to be left behind, or is everyone else getting it wrong?
I like the idea of BI as well, but for a variety of reasons it's not going to happen. Hopefully the PM is realistic and gets on with LHR3 at least.
Yes, we should get on with LHR3. But I fear a great opportunity has been lost. Or perhaps the projections for the potential market are all wrong.0 -
Does the EU have an aviation infrastructure policy?0
-
We should have a general election, even more so no that Theresa has not won any direct membership election. It was a mistake for Brown not to call one, and I believe Theresa criticised him for it at the time. She needs her own mandate.Luckyguy1983 said:
You're not uneasy because you got the result you wanted. That misses the wood for the trees.RobD said:
Not all that uneasy about it. After all, we're not in a presidential democracy (much though various PMs have tried to make it so). Saying that, a snap GE would be nice, perhaps once Labour has sorted themselves out.Luckyguy1983 said:We can only really speculate on Andrea's reasons for dropping out.
Whether or not May is the person for the job, the way the establishment candidate is being crowned should make anyone who cares about living in a democracy very uneasy.0 -
No one drafting the rules could possibly have envisaged:MarqueeMark said:
Surely, somebody who is the existing leader has already amply demonstrated they "command a substantial body of support in the PLP" by virtue of having become leader? The number of nominations for the challenger is to make sure the Leader doesn't face a weekly challenge from a stalking horse.Wulfrun_Phil said:
Thanks for that - I had completely overlooked Collins' rationale until now. So very clearly, the Labour Party's system for selecting a leader is designed "to ensure that all candidates who are put to the ballot command a substantial body of support in the PLP"
Every time that a Corbyn cultist claims that he can carry on regardless of the fact that almost the entire PLP thinks he should go, on the grounds that the choice of leadership is solely a matter for anyone in the country choosing to make at least a £3 one-off payment, those words should be quoted back at them.
The current situation was never envisaged by anybody framing the rules. It is just outside anyones thinking that a Leader could plough on regardless, then be unable to collect the same number of nominations as a challenger....
1. Give sympathy votes to a totally unsuitable candidate
2. The big names totally fail to convince the selectorate
3. TUC wipes the floor with them
4. Most of the shadow cabinet resigns
5. TUC carries on and replaces them/hands out multiple job titles
6. Vote of no confidence by 172 MPs
7. TUC carries on surrounded by acolytes
8. Biggest unions continue to back TUC
9. Meanwhile TUC holds rallies and recruits more supporters
... he's a limpet and his supporters are on a quest.
0 -
Brown's mistake was to give huge hints he was about to call one and then backed out.Paristonda said:
We should have a general election, even more so no that Theresa has not won any direct membership election. It was a mistake for Brown not to call one, and I believe Theresa criticised him for it at the time. She needs her own mandate.Luckyguy1983 said:
You're not uneasy because you got the result you wanted. That misses the wood for the trees.RobD said:
Not all that uneasy about it. After all, we're not in a presidential democracy (much though various PMs have tried to make it so). Saying that, a snap GE would be nice, perhaps once Labour has sorted themselves out.Luckyguy1983 said:We can only really speculate on Andrea's reasons for dropping out.
Whether or not May is the person for the job, the way the establishment candidate is being crowned should make anyone who cares about living in a democracy very uneasy.
There is no reason to have a GE. We live in a Parliamentary democracy and the PM can be changed at any time by the governing party.
May has said 'No' and from all we read about her, that'll be the end of the matter.0 -
Not really. Single European Sky is about it which is just integration of air traffic control. Actual infrastructure is down to national government.Luckyguy1983 said:Does the EU have an aviation infrastructure policy?
Edit: It's something we'd be in after leaving as well, Norway and Switzerland are in it. Which is why Easyjet moving their HQ is premature.0 -
Heck, this is pb.com. Whatever a Labour PM does is wrong, whatever a Tory one does is right.rottenborough said:
Brown's mistake was to give huge hints he was about to call one and then backed out.Paristonda said:
We should have a general election, even more so no that Theresa has not won any direct membership election. It was a mistake for Brown not to call one, and I believe Theresa criticised him for it at the time. She needs her own mandate.Luckyguy1983 said:
You're not uneasy because you got the result you wanted. That misses the wood for the trees.RobD said:
Not all that uneasy about it. After all, we're not in a presidential democracy (much though various PMs have tried to make it so). Saying that, a snap GE would be nice, perhaps once Labour has sorted themselves out.Luckyguy1983 said:We can only really speculate on Andrea's reasons for dropping out.
Whether or not May is the person for the job, the way the establishment candidate is being crowned should make anyone who cares about living in a democracy very uneasy.
There is no reason to have a GE. We live in a Parliamentary democracy and the PM can be changed at any time by the governing party.
May has said 'No' and from all we read about her, that'll be the end of the matter.
0 -
You need to look at the infrastructure outside the Airport too !MaxPB said:
I think with four runways we'd have enough capacity to take us to the point where air travel as we know it may be looking dated.JosiasJessop said:
From my memory, the LHR3+4 option makes the costings go even more sky-high. Even with LHR3+4, capacity will be nowhere near what our competitors are building.MaxPB said:
Heathrow presented a two runway plan, one of the reasons I think the NW option is being given the go ahead is because that was the plan that allowed for a four runway solution in the future as well as the least disruption to wildlife.JosiasJessop said:Indeed. Yet it has been done: HK International Airport being the most famous example.
Expansion of Heathrow is only a medium-term measure. I predict before runway 3 is complete they'l be looking for a fourth, and that's when it starts getting *really* expensive.
And to compete, we need to look at what other countries are doing. As an example, the new Istanbul airport already being built has three runways, and is planned to have 6. From Wiki, Heathrow has 75 million passengers per annum; Istanbul with be able to cope with 150 million, with expansion possible to 200 million.
This doesn't mean we should get into a pi**ing contest with other countries. But its clear that other countries see a vast increase in passenger numbers (although they are also competing for the hub markets).
Can we afford to be left behind, or is everyone else getting it wrong?
I like the idea of BI as well, but for a variety of reasons it's not going to happen. Hopefully the PM is realistic and gets on with LHR3 at least.
Yes, we should get on with LHR3. But I fear a great opportunity has been lost. Or perhaps the projections for the potential market are all wrong.
The biggest problem for Heathrow will always be there - it is situated on the western edge of a highly populated city where the prevailing winds are from the west. 80% of landings fly over the entire length of the city.
Gatwick and Stansted do not have that problem.0 -
IANAE, but I think the problem is that airlines want to call into hubs, where passengers can connect to other flights. If Heathrow gets larger competitors then they will become the hub, removing hub traffic from Heathrow.MaxPB said:
I think with four runways we'd have enough capacity to take us to the point where air travel as we know it may be looking dated.JosiasJessop said:
From my memory, the LHR3+4 option makes the costings go even more sky-high. Even with LHR3+4, capacity will be nowhere near what our competitors are building.MaxPB said:
Heathrow presented a two runway plan, one of the reasons I think the NW option is being given the go ahead is because that was the plan that allowed for a four runway solution in the future as well as the least disruption to wildlife.JosiasJessop said:Indeed. Yet it has been done: HK International Airport being the most famous example.
Expansion of Heathrow is only a medium-term measure. I predict before runway 3 is complete they'l be looking for a fourth, and that's when it starts getting *really* expensive.
And to compete, we need to look at what other countries are doing. As an example, the new Istanbul airport already being built has three runways, and is planned to have 6. From Wiki, Heathrow has 75 million passengers per annum; Istanbul with be able to cope with 150 million, with expansion possible to 200 million.
This doesn't mean we should get into a pi**ing contest with other countries. But its clear that other countries see a vast increase in passenger numbers (although they are also competing for the hub markets).
Can we afford to be left behind, or is everyone else getting it wrong?
I like the idea of BI as well, but for a variety of reasons it's not going to happen. Hopefully the PM is realistic and gets on with LHR3 at least.
Yes, we should get on with LHR3. But I fear a great opportunity has been lost. Or perhaps the projections for the potential market are all wrong.
Once the hub status is lost by an airport, it still is a spoke, but the amount of traffic coming in is much reduced. And with it a large amount of money.
Oddly, if we don't increase capacity at Heathrow or a.n.other hub airport, we might not need any expansion as the hub traffic will go elsewhere - probably to Paris, but possibly Frankfurt.
That is, if you believe the hub-and-spoke philosophy. But it's ruled the roost for sixty years or so.0 -
Only if he was automatically on the ballot. Otherwise, no deal.NickPalmer said:
Correct. In fact if the PLP demand had been annual leadership elections they'd have had a deal in 10 seconds.paulyork64 said:
Right now i think jeremy would love to face an election, but others are trying to prevent him from doing so.fitalass said:Daily Mirror - Jeremy Corbyn promised Labour leaders would face election every year to avoid 'personality' leadership
"Jeremy Corbyn promised to make Labour leaders face mandatory elections every year to avoid the party struggling with a 'personality' leader.
He said it would "bring back democracy into the Labour Party and the Labour movement."
But the embattled Labour leader seems to have radically changed his mind since he unexpectedly became leader of the party last September."
It seems odd to me that a former MP cannot understand how untenable Corbyn's position is with the PLP.0 -
Except he's already passed that nomination stage and been elected and Labour rules don't provide for a way to eject a leader, only a way of securing challengers.Wulfrun_Phil said:
Thanks for that - I had completely overlooked Collins' rationale until now. So very clearly, the Labour Party's system for selecting a leader is designed "to ensure that all candidates who are put to the ballot command a substantial body of support in the PLP"david_herdson said:
The requirement for a sufficient number of nominations is of itself part of the election. Corbyn dismisses the PLP as their having no particular legitimacy outside of simply being part of the Labour movement as a whole - yet if so, why are nominations from them, and only from them - given a special place in the process? Precisely because they do in fact have a special place.paulyork64 said:
Right now i think jeremy would love to face an election, but others are trying to prevent him from doing so.fitalass said:Daily Mirror - Jeremy Corbyn promised Labour leaders would face election every year to avoid 'personality' leadership
"Jeremy Corbyn promised to make Labour leaders face mandatory elections every year to avoid the party struggling with a 'personality' leader.
He said it would "bring back democracy into the Labour Party and the Labour movement."
But the embattled Labour leader seems to have radically changed his mind since he unexpectedly became leader of the party last September."
From the Collins review, which was the template for Miliband's rules reforms:
"in recognition of the fact that the leader of the Labour Party has a special duty
to head the Parliamentary Labour Party in Westminster, MPs will retain the responsibility
of deciding the final shortlist of candidates that will be put to the ballot. MEPs, who
previously had a share of the MPs’ section of the college, will be able to publish supporting
nominations but these will not count towards the formal nominating process. To ensure that
all candidates who are put to the ballot command a substantial body of support in the PLP,
the threshold for nominations to secure a position on the shortlist should be raised from
12.5 per cent to 15 per cent of House of Commons members of the PLP. "
Every time that a Corbyn cultist claims that he can carry on regardless of the fact that almost the entire PLP thinks he should go, on the grounds that the choice of leadership is solely a matter for anyone in the country choosing to make at least a £3 one-off payment, those words should be quoted back at them.0 -
Take offs make more noise. Better they are to the west.surbiton said:
You need to look at the infrastructure outside the Airport too !MaxPB said:
I think with four runways we'd have enough capacity to take us to the point where air travel as we know it may be looking dated.JosiasJessop said:
From my memory, the LHR3+4 option makes the costings go even more sky-high. Even with LHR3+4, capacity will be nowhere near what our competitors are building.MaxPB said:
Heathrow presented a two runway plan, one of the reasons I think the NW option is being given the go ahead is because that was the plan that allowed for a four runway solution in the future as well as the least disruption to wildlife.JosiasJessop said:Indeed. Yet it has been done: HK International Airport being the most famous example.
Expansion of Heathrow is only a medium-term measure. I predict before runway 3 is complete they'l be looking for a fourth, and that's when it starts getting *really* expensive.
And to compete, we need to look at what other countries are doing. As an example, the new Istanbul airport already being built has three runways, and is planned to have 6. From Wiki, Heathrow has 75 million passengers per annum; Istanbul with be able to cope with 150 million, with expansion possible to 200 million.
This doesn't mean we should get into a pi**ing contest with other countries. But its clear that other countries see a vast increase in passenger numbers (although they are also competing for the hub markets).
Can we afford to be left behind, or is everyone else getting it wrong?
I like the idea of BI as well, but for a variety of reasons it's not going to happen. Hopefully the PM is realistic and gets on with LHR3 at least.
Yes, we should get on with LHR3. But I fear a great opportunity has been lost. Or perhaps the projections for the potential market are all wrong.
The biggest problem for Heathrow will always be there - it is situated on the western edge of a highly populated city where the prevailing winds are from the west. 80% of landings fly over the entire length of the city.
Gatwick and Stansted do not have that problem.0 -
Gatwick and Stansted are both on the wrong side of London though. The beauty of Heathrow's position is that people coming in from the west can drive there without having to take the M25 for very long, people from London almost always go on public transport, people from the north fly in and people from the midlands also don't have to take the M25 for very long if you arrive from the M40. Love it or hate it, Heathrow is in the right part of London. I say this as a West Londoner. The Luton solution was probably the best idea IMO, but as you said, it's dead now.surbiton said:
You need to look at the infrastructure outside the Airport too !MaxPB said:
I think with four runways we'd have enough capacity to take us to the point where air travel as we know it may be looking dated.JosiasJessop said:
From my memory, the LHR3+4 option makes the costings go even more sky-high. Even with LHR3+4, capacity will be nowhere near what our competitors are building.MaxPB said:
Heathrow presented a two runway plan, one of the reasons I think the NW option is being given the go ahead is because that was the plan that allowed for a four runway solution in the future as well as the least disruption to wildlife.JosiasJessop said:Indeed. Yet it has been done: HK International Airport being the most famous example.
Expansion of Heathrow is only a medium-term measure. I predict before runway 3 is complete they'l be looking for a fourth, and that's when it starts getting *really* expensive.
And to compete, we need to look at what other countries are doing. As an example, the new Istanbul airport already being built has three runways, and is planned to have 6. From Wiki, Heathrow has 75 million passengers per annum; Istanbul with be able to cope with 150 million, with expansion possible to 200 million.
This doesn't mean we should get into a pi**ing contest with other countries. But its clear that other countries see a vast increase in passenger numbers (although they are also competing for the hub markets).
Can we afford to be left behind, or is everyone else getting it wrong?
I like the idea of BI as well, but for a variety of reasons it's not going to happen. Hopefully the PM is realistic and gets on with LHR3 at least.
Yes, we should get on with LHR3. But I fear a great opportunity has been lost. Or perhaps the projections for the potential market are all wrong.
The biggest problem for Heathrow will always be there - it is situated on the western edge of a highly populated city where the prevailing winds are from the west. 80% of landings fly over the entire length of the city.
Gatwick and Stansted do not have that problem.0 -
Do we have an ETA for the NEC's pronouncement?0
-
The quote comes from the document which put forward proposals.paulyork64 said:
Is that in their rules now then or merely a proposal?david_herdson said:
The requirement for a sufficient number of nominations is of itself part of the election. Corbyn dismisses the PLP as their having no particular legitimacy outside of simply being part of the Labour movement as a whole - yet if so, why are nominations from them, and only from them - given a special place in the process? Precisely because they do in fact have a special place.paulyork64 said:
Right now i think jeremy would love to face an election, but others are trying to prevent him from doing so.fitalass said:Daily Mirror - Jeremy Corbyn promised Labour leaders would face election every year to avoid 'personality' leadership
"Jeremy Corbyn promised to make Labour leaders face mandatory elections every year to avoid the party struggling with a 'personality' leader.
He said it would "bring back democracy into the Labour Party and the Labour movement."
But the embattled Labour leader seems to have radically changed his mind since he unexpectedly became leader of the party last September."
From the Collins review, which was the template for Miliband's rules reforms:
"in recognition of the fact that the leader of the Labour Party has a special duty
to head the Parliamentary Labour Party in Westminster, MPs will retain the responsibility
of deciding the final shortlist of candidates that will be put to the ballot. MEPs, who
previously had a share of the MPs’ section of the college, will be able to publish supporting
nominations but these will not count towards the formal nominating process. To ensure that
all candidates who are put to the ballot command a substantial body of support in the PLP,
the threshold for nominations to secure a position on the shortlist should be raised from
12.5 per cent to 15 per cent of House of Commons members of the PLP. "
The threshold was raised from 12.5% to 15% for nominations in an open contest, in line with the Collins Review, so we have to assume that the rationale put forward was accepted, although there must have been some pushback from MEPs as, contrary to the proposals, they maintained their nominating rights.0 -
They meet a 2pm how long it takes to decide who knows.Morris_Dancer said:Do we have an ETA for the NEC's pronouncement?
0 -
Not sure that would be relevant now anyway.Luckyguy1983 said:Does the EU have an aviation infrastructure policy?
0 -
There was a think tank that came up with what I thought was the best solution - keep Heathrow but shift all the runways to the west, out over the M25. This significantly increases the overflying height over west London and hence dramatically reduces pollution and noise. It is a shame this worked up plan never seems to have got serious consideration.surbiton said:
It could have been a runner but not now. Too much has been spent on T5 and T2.MaxPB said:
I'd take that! The other idea I have seen is to turn Luton into the hub and give it four to six runways and rebuild it from ground up with modern facilities and terminal buildings. We'd lose part of Luton, but that's not much of a loss. Given the transport links that currently serve Heathrow we could turn the Heathrow site into an industrial and science park giving London and the SE a new high tech manufacturing base.surbiton said:
Rubbish. We need extra runways at LHR, LGW and Stansted.MaxPB said:
Not at all, it's on the wrong side of London and New York has shown that a dual hub doesn't work for a big city, it needs one megahub and smaller outlying airports.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Agreed. That said, putting the new runway at Gatwick is an absolute no brainer to my mind.IanB2 said:
It always amazes me that people think an airport only needs a flat piece of land for aircraft to use.Malmesbury said:
When it is done, sell Heathrow for housing. Make money on the deal.RobD said:
.CarlottaVance said:
Or do something bold like Heathrow and Gatwick.....RobD said:
Surely she should just get it out of the way ASAP. Say that the government will carry out the findings of the independent review.CarlottaVance said:Paul Goodman: Heathrow expansion looks dead in the water now
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2016/07/may-joe-chamberlain-in-kitten-heels-who-will-serve-in-her-interventionist-cabinet-and-deliver-brexit.html
Apart from May's constituency being Maidenhead - has she said anything on this?
Around Heathrow there is a whole network of support industry and ancillary activities and a truly massive workforce; there are several west London boroughs where much of the population essentially supports the airport. The idea you can just close it all down and drop it into some marshland miles from London was for the birds (which would have been the other problem).0 -
She'll regret it if she doesn't increase her majority while she has a chance.rottenborough said:
Brown's mistake was to give huge hints he was about to call one and then backed out.Paristonda said:
We should have a general election, even more so no that Theresa has not won any direct membership election. It was a mistake for Brown not to call one, and I believe Theresa criticised him for it at the time. She needs her own mandate.Luckyguy1983 said:
You're not uneasy because you got the result you wanted. That misses the wood for the trees.RobD said:
Not all that uneasy about it. After all, we're not in a presidential democracy (much though various PMs have tried to make it so). Saying that, a snap GE would be nice, perhaps once Labour has sorted themselves out.Luckyguy1983 said:We can only really speculate on Andrea's reasons for dropping out.
Whether or not May is the person for the job, the way the establishment candidate is being crowned should make anyone who cares about living in a democracy very uneasy.
There is no reason to have a GE. We live in a Parliamentary democracy and the PM can be changed at any time by the governing party.
May has said 'No' and from all we read about her, that'll be the end of the matter.0 -
Mr. Jim, cheers.0
-
Nick can understand it; it's that he doesn't think it matters that is odd.rottenborough said:
Only if he was automatically on the ballot. Otherwise, no deal.NickPalmer said:
Correct. In fact if the PLP demand had been annual leadership elections they'd have had a deal in 10 seconds.paulyork64 said:
Right now i think jeremy would love to face an election, but others are trying to prevent him from doing so.fitalass said:Daily Mirror - Jeremy Corbyn promised Labour leaders would face election every year to avoid 'personality' leadership
"Jeremy Corbyn promised to make Labour leaders face mandatory elections every year to avoid the party struggling with a 'personality' leader.
He said it would "bring back democracy into the Labour Party and the Labour movement."
But the embattled Labour leader seems to have radically changed his mind since he unexpectedly became leader of the party last September."
It seems odd to me that a former MP cannot understand how untenable Corbyn's position is with the PLP.0 -
Current state of Labour the chances are an election now would be a majority of 200 andin 2020 a majority of 180. There isn't a great gain to going now.Wanderer said:
She'll regret it if she doesn't increase her majority while she has a chance.rottenborough said:
Brown's mistake was to give huge hints he was about to call one and then backed out.Paristonda said:
We should have a general election, even more so no that Theresa has not won any direct membership election. It was a mistake for Brown not to call one, and I believe Theresa criticised him for it at the time. She needs her own mandate.Luckyguy1983 said:
You're not uneasy because you got the result you wanted. That misses the wood for the trees.RobD said:
Not all that uneasy about it. After all, we're not in a presidential democracy (much though various PMs have tried to make it so). Saying that, a snap GE would be nice, perhaps once Labour has sorted themselves out.Luckyguy1983 said:We can only really speculate on Andrea's reasons for dropping out.
Whether or not May is the person for the job, the way the establishment candidate is being crowned should make anyone who cares about living in a democracy very uneasy.
There is no reason to have a GE. We live in a Parliamentary democracy and the PM can be changed at any time by the governing party.
May has said 'No' and from all we read about her, that'll be the end of the matter.0 -
Stansted isn't on the wrong side of London for me, Essex, Herts and Cambridgeshire.MaxPB said:
Gatwick and Stansted are both on the wrong side of London though. The beauty of Heathrow's position is that people coming in from the west can drive there without having to take the M25 for very long, people from London almost always go on public transport, people from the north fly in and people from the midlands also don't have to take the M25 for very long if you arrive from the M40. Love it or hate it, Heathrow is in the right part of London. I say this as a West Londoner. The Luton solution was probably the best idea IMO, but as you said, it's dead now.surbiton said:
You need to look at the infrastructure outside the Airport too !MaxPB said:
I think with four runways we'd have enough capacity to take us to the point where air travel as we know it may be looking dated.JosiasJessop said:
From my memory, the LHR3+4 option makes the costings go even more sky-high. Even with LHR3+4, capacity will be nowhere near what our competitors are building.MaxPB said:
Heathrow presented a two runway plan, one of the reasons I think the NW option is being given the go ahead is because that was the plan that allowed for a four runway solution in the future as well as the least disruption to wildlife.JosiasJessop said:Indeed. Yet it has been done: HK International Airport being the most famous example.
Can we afford to be left behind, or is everyone else getting it wrong?
I like the idea of BI as well, but for a variety of reasons it's not going to happen. Hopefully the PM is realistic and gets on with LHR3 at least.
Yes, we should get on with LHR3. But I fear a great opportunity has been lost. Or perhaps the projections for the potential market are all wrong.
The biggest problem for Heathrow will always be there - it is situated on the western edge of a highly populated city where the prevailing winds are from the west. 80% of landings fly over the entire length of the city.
Gatwick and Stansted do not have that problem.
Neither would Boris island be.
Heathrow is on the wrong side of London for us.
0 -
Well giving Stansted and Gatwick additional runways is to provide internal competition, neither will ever be very much more than holiday airports. Gatwick launched a route to China with a lot of fanfare, I believe it is gone now. The transfer traffic will always go to Heathrow because BA are at Heathrow and bring in the bulk of the transatlantic traffic. People coming in on an Easyjet flight from Malaga aren't likely to then transfer to a flight that goes to Singapore or Tokyo.JosiasJessop said:IANAE, but I think the problem is that airlines want to call into hubs, where passengers can connect to other flights. If Heathrow gets larger competitors then they will become the hub, removing hub traffic from Heathrow.
Once the hub status is lost by an airport, it still is a spoke, but the amount of traffic coming in is much reduced. And with it a large amount of money.
Oddly, if we don't increase capacity at Heathrow or a.n.other hub airport, we might not need any expansion as the hub traffic will go elsewhere - probably to Paris, but possibly Frankfurt.
That is, if you believe the hub-and-spoke philosophy. But it's ruled the roost for sixty years or so.0 -
Neither does Manchester. Why should I have to travel to London to catch a flight? (Not that I do: I've only ever been through Heathrow once in my life, Gatwick never and Standsted once - and that because my then girlfriend lived near Cambridge).surbiton said:
You need to look at the infrastructure outside the Airport too !MaxPB said:
I think with four runways we'd have enough capacity to take us to the point where air travel as we know it may be looking dated.JosiasJessop said:
From my memory, the LHR3+4 option makes the costings go even more sky-high. Even with LHR3+4, capacity will be nowhere near what our competitors are building.MaxPB said:
Heathrow presented a two runway plan, one of the reasons I think the NW option is being given the go ahead is because that was the plan that allowed for a four runway solution in the future as well as the least disruption to wildlife.JosiasJessop said:Indeed. Yet it has been done: HK International Airport being the most famous example.
Expansion of Heathrow is only a medium-term measure. I predict before runway 3 is complete they'l be looking for a fourth, and that's when it starts getting *really* expensive.
And to compete, we need to look at what other countries are doing. As an example, the new Istanbul airport already being built has three runways, and is planned to have 6. From Wiki, Heathrow has 75 million passengers per annum; Istanbul with be able to cope with 150 million, with expansion possible to 200 million.
This doesn't mean we should get into a pi**ing contest with other countries. But its clear that other countries see a vast increase in passenger numbers (although they are also competing for the hub markets).
Can we afford to be left behind, or is everyone else getting it wrong?
I like the idea of BI as well, but for a variety of reasons it's not going to happen. Hopefully the PM is realistic and gets on with LHR3 at least.
Yes, we should get on with LHR3. But I fear a great opportunity has been lost. Or perhaps the projections for the potential market are all wrong.
The biggest problem for Heathrow will always be there - it is situated on the western edge of a highly populated city where the prevailing winds are from the west. 80% of landings fly over the entire length of the city.
Gatwick and Stansted do not have that problem.0 -
They're Labour, so they must be incompetent. Perhaps we'll get some white smoke next week...ToryJim said:
They meet a 2pm how long it takes to decide who knows.Morris_Dancer said:Do we have an ETA for the NEC's pronouncement?
0 -
The gain is having a working majority between now and 2020. If she doesn't she'll be hobbled by one rebellion after another.ToryJim said:
Current state of Labour the chances are an election now would be a majority of 200 andin 2020 a majority of 180. There isn't a great gain to going now.Wanderer said:
She'll regret it if she doesn't increase her majority while she has a chance.rottenborough said:
Brown's mistake was to give huge hints he was about to call one and then backed out.Paristonda said:
We should have a general election, even more so no that Theresa has not won any direct membership election. It was a mistake for Brown not to call one, and I believe Theresa criticised him for it at the time. She needs her own mandate.Luckyguy1983 said:
You're not uneasy because you got the result you wanted. That misses the wood for the trees.RobD said:
Not all that uneasy about it. After all, we're not in a presidential democracy (much though various PMs have tried to make it so). Saying that, a snap GE would be nice, perhaps once Labour has sorted themselves out.Luckyguy1983 said:We can only really speculate on Andrea's reasons for dropping out.
Whether or not May is the person for the job, the way the establishment candidate is being crowned should make anyone who cares about living in a democracy very uneasy.
There is no reason to have a GE. We live in a Parliamentary democracy and the PM can be changed at any time by the governing party.
May has said 'No' and from all we read about her, that'll be the end of the matter.0 -
The polling evidence does suggest that the electorate took a dim view of Brown's Duke of York impression in 2007.Innocent_Abroad said:
Heck, this is pb.com. Whatever a Labour PM does is wrong, whatever a Tory one does is right.rottenborough said:
Brown's mistake was to give huge hints he was about to call one and then backed out.Paristonda said:
We should have a general election, even more so no that Theresa has not won any direct membership election. It was a mistake for Brown not to call one, and I believe Theresa criticised him for it at the time. She needs her own mandate.Luckyguy1983 said:
You're not uneasy because you got the result you wanted. That misses the wood for the trees.RobD said:
Not all that uneasy about it. After all, we're not in a presidential democracy (much though various PMs have tried to make it so). Saying that, a snap GE would be nice, perhaps once Labour has sorted themselves out.Luckyguy1983 said:We can only really speculate on Andrea's reasons for dropping out.
Whether or not May is the person for the job, the way the establishment candidate is being crowned should make anyone who cares about living in a democracy very uneasy.
There is no reason to have a GE. We live in a Parliamentary democracy and the PM can be changed at any time by the governing party.
May has said 'No' and from all we read about her, that'll be the end of the matter.0 -
Mirror front page calls for early election. They must really hate the Labour party.0
-
Nick is always loyal - loyal beyond the leader falling from his (never her) horse - even when on the ground and taking blade after blade he is loyal. Even past when the leader's head has been stamped on and then decapitated he is there.david_herdson said:
Nick can understand it; it's that he doesn't think it matters that is odd.rottenborough said:
Only if he was automatically on the ballot. Otherwise, no deal.NickPalmer said:
Correct. In fact if the PLP demand had been annual leadership elections they'd have had a deal in 10 seconds.paulyork64 said:
Right now i think jeremy would love to face an election, but others are trying to prevent him from doing so.fitalass said:Daily Mirror - Jeremy Corbyn promised Labour leaders would face election every year to avoid 'personality' leadership
"Jeremy Corbyn promised to make Labour leaders face mandatory elections every year to avoid the party struggling with a 'personality' leader.
He said it would "bring back democracy into the Labour Party and the Labour movement."
But the embattled Labour leader seems to have radically changed his mind since he unexpectedly became leader of the party last September."
It seems odd to me that a former MP cannot understand how untenable Corbyn's position is with the PLP.
Only when officially declared dead does he move on to the next (worse) guy.
0 -
I was at the press conference when Boris launched his Island idea. An early question from a journalist was what would happen to Heathrow. Boris gave the impression he had never thought about it until that moment, blustered for a bit, then said we would keep it as a satellite airport for local flights. Later I saw it reported he had changed his mind and would sell it for housing, as you say. Both ideas were nutty. If Heathrow went, the last thing west London would need is tons of extra housing.MaxPB said:
Indeed. The Heathrow site is huge. I hope that May just pushes ahead with it anyway. Show some leadership early on.IanB2 said:
It always amazes me that people think an airport only needs a flat piece of land for aircraft to use.Malmesbury said:
The best option (IMHO) would be a variation on Boris Island - a variation on concrete oil platform technology. Think a series of tables - flat top, legs with flotation chambers at the bottom. Because they are for shallow water, much lower than an oil platform. Say 350m x 50m and 50m high. Each. Build in various shipyards, float into position. You could build you airport *anywhere*.RobD said:
Nothing like a bit of infrastructure spending to boost the economy.CarlottaVance said:
Or do something bold like Heathrow and Gatwick.....RobD said:
Surely she should just get it out of the way ASAP. Say that the government will carry out the findings of the independent review.CarlottaVance said:Paul Goodman: Heathrow expansion looks dead in the water now
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2016/07/may-joe-chamberlain-in-kitten-heels-who-will-serve-in-her-interventionist-cabinet-and-deliver-brexit.html
Apart from May's constituency being Maidenhead - has she said anything on this? Both would definitely show that we are open for business, and the option I would prefer.
When it is done, sell Heathrow for housing. Make money on the deal.
Around Heathrow there is a whole network of support industry and ancillary activities and a truly massive workforce; there are several west London boroughs where much of the population essentially supports the airport. The idea you can just close it all down and drop it into some marshland miles from London was for the birds (which would have been the other problem).0 -
This would reintroduce uncertainty about one issue where certainly has suddenly blossomed and would signal that party was more important than country,. She won't do it,Wanderer said:
She'll regret it if she doesn't increase her majority while she has a chance.rottenborough said:
Brown's mistake was to give huge hints he was about to call one and then backed out.Paristonda said:
We should have a general election, even more so no that Theresa has not won any direct membership election. It was a mistake for Brown not to call one, and I believe Theresa criticised him for it at the time. She needs her own mandate.Luckyguy1983 said:
You're not uneasy because you got the result you wanted. That misses the wood for the trees.RobD said:
Not all that uneasy about it. After all, we're not in a presidential democracy (much though various PMs have tried to make it so). Saying that, a snap GE would be nice, perhaps once Labour has sorted themselves out.Luckyguy1983 said:We can only really speculate on Andrea's reasons for dropping out.
Whether or not May is the person for the job, the way the establishment candidate is being crowned should make anyone who cares about living in a democracy very uneasy.
There is no reason to have a GE. We live in a Parliamentary democracy and the PM can be changed at any time by the governing party.
May has said 'No' and from all we read about her, that'll be the end of the matter.
0 -
I fear that one sad day a plane will crash into central London. After that the question will be why the planes always flew in that direction.surbiton said:
You need to look at the infrastructure outside the Airport too !MaxPB said:
I think with four runways we'd have enough capacity to take us to the point where air travel as we know it may be looking dated.JosiasJessop said:
From my memory, the LHR3+4 option makes the costings go even more sky-high. Even with LHR3+4, capacity will be nowhere near what our competitors are building.MaxPB said:
Heathrow presented a two runway plan, one of the reasons I think the NW option is being given the go ahead is because that was the plan that allowed for a four runway solution in the future as well as the least disruption to wildlife.JosiasJessop said:Indeed. Yet it has been done: HK International Airport being the most famous example.
Expansion of Heathrow is only a medium-term measure. I predict before runway 3 is complete they'l be looking for a fourth, and that's when it starts getting *really* expensive.
And to compete, we need to look at what other countries are doing. As an example, the new Istanbul airport already being built has three runways, and is planned to have 6. From Wiki, Heathrow has 75 million passengers per annum; Istanbul with be able to cope with 150 million, with expansion possible to 200 million.
This doesn't mean we should get into a pi**ing contest with other countries. But its clear that other countries see a vast increase in passenger numbers (although they are also competing for the hub markets).
Can we afford to be left behind, or is everyone else getting it wrong?
I like the idea of BI as well, but for a variety of reasons it's not going to happen. Hopefully the PM is realistic and gets on with LHR3 at least.
Yes, we should get on with LHR3. But I fear a great opportunity has been lost. Or perhaps the projections for the potential market are all wrong.
The biggest problem for Heathrow will always be there - it is situated on the western edge of a highly populated city where the prevailing winds are from the west. 80% of landings fly over the entire length of the city.
0 -
What is their talent?foxinsoxuk said:
I wouldn't say that. Gove clearly has talent as does BoJo, though both rather erratically, Jeremy Hunt too. I wouldn't vote for any of them though.blackburn63 said:
Politicians don't have talent, that is a natural ability to do things such as artists or athletes.foxinsoxuk said:
May depresses me. A humourless and charmless battleaxe with no ideas of her own who has risen without trace or talent. She prospers by doing very little other than survive.TOPPING said:Leadsom was an empty vessel into which rightwingers poured their hopes and aspirations.
Thing is, they got carried away, probably as much to the surprise of Leadsom as anyone else. Which led to unnecessary CV spinning, loose talk about her beliefs, etc, which would never have occurred with a more experienced or capable operator.
Because sadly they picked the wrong candidate. Leadsom herself was simply not up to it. Everyone, whether from past lives, or her current one, said the same thing. Deeply mediocre at best. Now, there's nothing wrong with living your life as a nothing special backbencher. Plenty of them around. But PM takes something more. Leadsom didn't have it. Not wholly her fault, although she was also culpable.
May, meanwhile, is fulfilling the same function for the mildly-europhile, wettish wing. Projecting onto her the safe pair of hands, not rocking the boat, let's not do anything too EU bonkers candidate.
While she is no way as good an operator as Dave, she is miles ahead of Andrea so we are in with a better chance.
She does have the advantage of both her internal party and external enemies vanish from the field of play. Perhaps she is a witch after all.
When people describe politicians as talented they mean they agree with them.0 -
The terrorists are working on it...TCPoliticalBetting said:
I fear that one sad day a plane will crash into central London. After that the question will be why the planes always flew in that direction.surbiton said:
You need to look at the infrastructure outside the Airport too !MaxPB said:
I think with four runways we'd have enough capacity to take us to the point where air travel as we know it may be looking dated.JosiasJessop said:
From my memory, the LHR3+4 option makes the costings go even more sky-high. Even with LHR3+4, capacity will be nowhere near what our competitors are building.MaxPB said:
Heathrow presented a two runway plan, one of the reasons I think the NW option is being given the go ahead is because that was the plan that allowed for a four runway solution in the future as well as the least disruption to wildlife.JosiasJessop said:Indeed. Yet it has been done: HK International Airport being the most famous example.
Expansion of Heathrow is only a medium-term measure. I predict before runway 3 is complete they'l be looking for a fourth, and that's when it starts getting *really* expensive.
And to compete, we need to look at what other countries are doing. As an example, the new Istanbul airport already being built has three runways, and is planned to have 6. From Wiki, Heathrow has 75 million passengers per annum; Istanbul with be able to cope with 150 million, with expansion possible to 200 million.
This doesn't mean we should get into a pi**ing contest with other countries. But its clear that other countries see a vast increase in passenger numbers (although they are also competing for the hub markets).
Can we afford to be left behind, or is everyone else getting it wrong?
I like the idea of BI as well, but for a variety of reasons it's not going to happen. Hopefully the PM is realistic and gets on with LHR3 at least.
Yes, we should get on with LHR3. But I fear a great opportunity has been lost. Or perhaps the projections for the potential market are all wrong.
The biggest problem for Heathrow will always be there - it is situated on the western edge of a highly populated city where the prevailing winds are from the west. 80% of landings fly over the entire length of the city.
0 -
It was classic Boris, half think through a good idea and make it look stupid. If he had lined up potential partners for BI including BAA and other private investors, lined up industrial and scientific companies to take over the Heathrow site creating thousands of highly paid jobs and done the research properly on where to put the airport and transport links to it, he may have got a better hearing. As it stood he had a vague plan for a four runway airport (not enough) with pie in the sky transport links and no plan for what to do at the Heathrow site to replace the thousands of lost jobs when it shutters.IanB2 said:I was at the press conference when Boris launched his Island idea. An early question from a journalist was what would happen to Heathrow. Boris gave the impression he had never thought about it until that moment, blustered for a bit, then said we would keep it as a satellite airport for local flights. Later I saw it reported he had changed his mind and would sell it for housing, as you say. Both ideas were nutty. If Heathrow went, the last thing west London would need is tons of extra housing.
0 -
Yes, exactly that and I'll explain why. They are public servants, paid to serve us, we have a duty to hold them to account. When I see or hear them doing things that are in their own interest and not ours, I believe we have a responsibility to point it out. I don't favour one party when dishing my abuse either.SquareRoot said:
And when you rubbish politicians on here on a daily basis, its because you don't agree with them.blackburn63 said:
Politicians don't have talent, that is a natural ability to do things such as artists or athletes.foxinsoxuk said:
May depresses me. A humourless and charmless battleaxe with no ideas of her own who has risen without trace or talent. She prospers by doing very little other than survive.TOPPING said:Leadsom was an empty vessel into which rightwingers poured their hopes and aspirations.
Thing is, they got carried away, probably as much to the surprise of Leadsom as anyone else. Which led to unnecessary CV spinning, loose talk about her beliefs, etc, which would never have occurred with a more experienced or capable operator.
Because sadly they picked the wrong candidate. Leadsom herself was simply not up to it. Everyone, whether from past lives, or her current one, said the same thing. Deeply mediocre at best. Now, there's nothing wrong with living your life as a nothing special backbencher. Plenty of them around. But PM takes something more. Leadsom didn't have it. Not wholly her fault, although she was also culpable.
May, meanwhile, is fulfilling the same function for the mildly-europhile, wettish wing. Projecting onto her the safe pair of hands, not rocking the boat, let's not do anything too EU bonkers candidate.
While she is no way as good an operator as Dave, she is miles ahead of Andrea so we are in with a better chance.
She does have the advantage of both her internal party and external enemies vanish from the field of play. Perhaps she is a witch after all.
When people describe politicians as talented they mean they agree with them.0 -
What I fear is that and a technical fault. It is madness to fly in this way.Innocent_Abroad said:
The terrorists are working on it...TCPoliticalBetting said:
I fear that one sad day a plane will crash into central London. After that the question will be why the planes always flew in that direction.surbiton said:
You need to look at the infrastructure outside the Airport too !MaxPB said:
I think with four runways we'd have enough capacity to take us to the point where air travel as we know it may be looking dated.JosiasJessop said:
From my memory, the LHR3+4 option makes the costings go even more sky-high. Even with LHR3+4, capacity will be nowhere near what our competitors are building.MaxPB said:
Heathrow presented a two runway plan, one of the reasons I think the NW option is being given the go ahead is because that was the plan that allowed for a four runway solution in the future as well as the least disruption to wildlife.JosiasJessop said:Indeed. Yet it has been done: HK International Airport being the most famous example.
Expansion of Heathrow is only a medium-term measure. I predict before runway 3 is complete they'l be looking for a fourth, and that's when it starts getting *really* expensive.
And to compete, we need to look at what other countries are doing. As an example, the new Istanbul airport already being built has three runways, and is planned to have 6. From Wiki, Heathrow has 75 million passengers per annum; Istanbul with be able to cope with 150 million, with expansion possible to 200 million.
This doesn't mean we should get into a pi**ing contest with other countries. But its clear that other countries see a vast increase in passenger numbers (although they are also competing for the hub markets).
Can we afford to be left behind, or is everyone else getting it wrong?
I like the idea of BI as well, but for a variety of reasons it's not going to happen. Hopefully the PM is realistic and gets on with LHR3 at least.
Yes, we should get on with LHR3. But I fear a great opportunity has been lost. Or perhaps the projections for the potential market are all wrong.
The biggest problem for Heathrow will always be there - it is situated on the western edge of a highly populated city where the prevailing winds are from the west. 80% of landings fly over the entire length of the city.
0 -
At least they are coming in to land with mostly empty tanks. It would be far worse if they had just taken off with full fuel loads.TCPoliticalBetting said:
I fear that one sad day a plane will crash into central London. After that the question will be why the planes always flew in that direction.surbiton said:
You need to look at the infrastructure outside the Airport too !MaxPB said:
I think with four runways we'd have enough capacity to take us to the point where air travel as we know it may be looking dated.JosiasJessop said:
From my memory, the LHR3+4 option makes the costings go even more sky-high. Even with LHR3+4, capacity will be nowhere near what our competitors are building.MaxPB said:
Heathrow presented a two runway plan, one of the reasons I think the NW option is being given the go ahead is because that was the plan that allowed for a four runway solution in the future as well as the least disruption to wildlife.JosiasJessop said:Indeed. Yet it has been done: HK International Airport being the most famous example.
Expansion of Heathrow is only a medium-term measure. I predict before runway 3 is complete they'l be looking for a fourth, and that's when it starts getting *really* expensive.
And to compete, we need to look at what other countries are doing. As an example, the new Istanbul airport already being built has three runways, and is planned to have 6. From Wiki, Heathrow has 75 million passengers per annum; Istanbul with be able to cope with 150 million, with expansion possible to 200 million.
This doesn't mean we should get into a pi**ing contest with other countries. But its clear that other countries see a vast increase in passenger numbers (although they are also competing for the hub markets).
Can we afford to be left behind, or is everyone else getting it wrong?
I like the idea of BI as well, but for a variety of reasons it's not going to happen. Hopefully the PM is realistic and gets on with LHR3 at least.
Yes, we should get on with LHR3. But I fear a great opportunity has been lost. Or perhaps the projections for the potential market are all wrong.
The biggest problem for Heathrow will always be there - it is situated on the western edge of a highly populated city where the prevailing winds are from the west. 80% of landings fly over the entire length of the city.0 -
I'm not sure what you mean. How would it increase uncertainty if the Government had a reliable majority in the Commons?ReggieCide said:
This would reintroduce uncertainty about one issue where certainly has suddenly blossomed and would signal that party was more important than country,. She won't do it,Wanderer said:
She'll regret it if she doesn't increase her majority while she has a chance.rottenborough said:
Brown's mistake was to give huge hints he was about to call one and then backed out.Paristonda said:
We should have a general election, even more so no that Theresa has not won any direct membership election. It was a mistake for Brown not to call one, and I believe Theresa criticised him for it at the time. She needs her own mandate.Luckyguy1983 said:
You're not uneasy because you got the result you wanted. That misses the wood for the trees.RobD said:
Not all that uneasy about it. After all, we're not in a presidential democracy (much though various PMs have tried to make it so). Saying that, a snap GE would be nice, perhaps once Labour has sorted themselves out.Luckyguy1983 said:We can only really speculate on Andrea's reasons for dropping out.
Whether or not May is the person for the job, the way the establishment candidate is being crowned should make anyone who cares about living in a democracy very uneasy.
There is no reason to have a GE. We live in a Parliamentary democracy and the PM can be changed at any time by the governing party.
May has said 'No' and from all we read about her, that'll be the end of the matter.0 -
Unless your constituency is to the west of Heathrow, like say, oh I dunno - Maidenhead, for example......IanB2 said:
Take offs make more noise. Better they are to the west.surbiton said:
You need to look at the infrastructure outside the Airport too !MaxPB said:
I think with four runways we'd have enough capacity to take us to the point where air travel as we know it may be looking dated.JosiasJessop said:
From my memory, the LHR3+4 option makes the costings go even more sky-high. Even with LHR3+4, capacity will be nowhere near what our competitors are building.MaxPB said:
Heathrow presented a two runway plan, one of the reasons I think the NW option is being given the go ahead is because that was the plan that allowed for a four runway solution in the future as well as the least disruption to wildlife.JosiasJessop said:Indeed. Yet it has been done: HK International Airport being the most famous example.
Expansion of Heathrow is only a medium-term measure. I predict before runway 3 is complete they'l be looking for a fourth, and that's when it starts getting *really* expensive.
And to compete, we need to look at what other countries are doing. As an example, the new Istanbul airport already being built has three runways, and is planned to have 6. From Wiki, Heathrow has 75 million passengers per annum; Istanbul with be able to cope with 150 million, with expansion possible to 200 million.
This doesn't mean we should get into a pi**ing contest with other countries. But its clear that other countries see a vast increase in passenger numbers (although they are also competing for the hub markets).
Can we afford to be left behind, or is everyone else getting it wrong?
I like the idea of BI as well, but for a variety of reasons it's not going to happen. Hopefully the PM is realistic and gets on with LHR3 at least.
Yes, we should get on with LHR3. But I fear a great opportunity has been lost. Or perhaps the projections for the potential market are all wrong.
The biggest problem for Heathrow will always be there - it is situated on the western edge of a highly populated city where the prevailing winds are from the west. 80% of landings fly over the entire length of the city.
Gatwick and Stansted do not have that problem.0 -
Labour PM? That'll be the day!Innocent_Abroad said:
Heck, this is pb.com. Whatever a Labour PM does is wrong, whatever a Tory one does is right.rottenborough said:
Brown's mistake was to give huge hints he was about to call one and then backed out.Paristonda said:
We should have a general election, even more so no that Theresa has not won any direct membership election. It was a mistake for Brown not to call one, and I believe Theresa criticised him for it at the time. She needs her own mandate.Luckyguy1983 said:
You're not uneasy because you got the result you wanted. That misses the wood for the trees.RobD said:
Not all that uneasy about it. After all, we're not in a presidential democracy (much though various PMs have tried to make it so). Saying that, a snap GE would be nice, perhaps once Labour has sorted themselves out.Luckyguy1983 said:We can only really speculate on Andrea's reasons for dropping out.
Whether or not May is the person for the job, the way the establishment candidate is being crowned should make anyone who cares about living in a democracy very uneasy.
There is no reason to have a GE. We live in a Parliamentary democracy and the PM can be changed at any time by the governing party.
May has said 'No' and from all we read about her, that'll be the end of the matter.0 -
I heard Len McCluskey on R4 this morning on the subject of Labour's Leader. The key problem for Labour is that Unite have backed Labour's last 3 Leaders - all failures. Unite specifically helped Labour's last two Leaders, Ed Miliband and Corbyn get elected. Both against the wishes of most Labour MPs. It is the impact of Unite that Labour need to address - but he who pays the piper calls the tunes.0
-
An election introduces uncertainty. I think she should get the Heads of Terms done and then go to the country either with a second referendum or a GE.Wanderer said:
I'm not sure what you mean. How would it increase uncertainty if the Government had a reliable majority in the Commons?ReggieCide said:
This would reintroduce uncertainty about one issue where certainly has suddenly blossomed and would signal that party was more important than country,. She won't do it,Wanderer said:
She'll regret it if she doesn't increase her majority while she has a chance.rottenborough said:
Brown's mistake was to give huge hints he was about to call one and then backed out.Paristonda said:
We should have a general election, even more so no that Theresa has not won any direct membership election. It was a mistake for Brown not to call one, and I believe Theresa criticised him for it at the time. She needs her own mandate.Luckyguy1983 said:
You're not uneasy because you got the result you wanted. That misses the wood for the trees.RobD said:
Not all that uneasy about it. After all, we're not in a presidential democracy (much though various PMs have tried to make it so). Saying that, a snap GE would be nice, perhaps once Labour has sorted themselves out.Luckyguy1983 said:We can only really speculate on Andrea's reasons for dropping out.
Whether or not May is the person for the job, the way the establishment candidate is being crowned should make anyone who cares about living in a democracy very uneasy.
There is no reason to have a GE. We live in a Parliamentary democracy and the PM can be changed at any time by the governing party.
May has said 'No' and from all we read about her, that'll be the end of the matter.0 -
Larry the Cat @Number10cat
It's OK for you lot - you're only getting a new Prime Minister. I'm getting a new owner. Hold me.0 -
It's during the period between calling an election and getting a result,Wanderer said:
I'm not sure what you mean. How would it increase uncertainty if the Government had a reliable majority in the Commons?ReggieCide said:
This would reintroduce uncertainty about one issue where certainly has suddenly blossomed and would signal that party was more important than country,. She won't do it,Wanderer said:
She'll regret it if she doesn't increase her majority while she has a chance.rottenborough said:
Brown's mistake was to give huge hints he was about to call one and then backed out.Paristonda said:
We should have a general election, even more so no that Theresa has not won any direct membership election. It was a mistake for Brown not to call one, and I believe Theresa criticised him for it at the time. She needs her own mandate.Luckyguy1983 said:
You're not uneasy because you got the result you wanted. That misses the wood for the trees.RobD said:
Not all that uneasy about it. After all, we're not in a presidential democracy (much though various PMs have tried to make it so). Saying that, a snap GE would be nice, perhaps once Labour has sorted themselves out.Luckyguy1983 said:We can only really speculate on Andrea's reasons for dropping out.
Whether or not May is the person for the job, the way the establishment candidate is being crowned should make anyone who cares about living in a democracy very uneasy.
There is no reason to have a GE. We live in a Parliamentary democracy and the PM can be changed at any time by the governing party.
May has said 'No' and from all we read about her, that'll be the end of the matter.0 -
From Nov 14
Other leading Tories with south-eastern constituencies who have spoken out against a third runway at Heathrow include the home secretary, Theresa May, who is MP for Maidenhead; the international development secretary, Justine Greening, who is the member for Putney; and the Northern Ireland secretary, Theresa Villiers, MP for Chipping Barnet. The Conservatives went into the last election ruling out expansion of Heathrow, but the prospect was revived in the middle of the parliament after pressure for a rethink from the chancellor, George Osborne.
Government insiders and aviation experts now believe that the extent of opposition to the Heathrow option from politicians of all parties may tilt the advantage in favour of expanding Gatwick, which would have less environmental impact.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/01/third-runway-heathrow-gatwick-expansion0 -
Who would fly over a populus city as a sensible health and safety choice?Carolus_Rex said:
At least they are coming in to land with mostly empty tanks. It would be far worse if they had just taken off with full fuel loads.TCPoliticalBetting said:
I fear that one sad day a plane will crash into central London. After that the question will be why the planes always flew in that direction.surbiton said:
You need to look at the infrastructure outside the Airport too !MaxPB said:
I think with four runways we'd have enough capacity to take us to the point where air travel as we know it may be looking dated.JosiasJessop said:
From my memory, the LHR3+4 option makes the costings go even more sky-high. Even with LHR3+4, capacity will be nowhere near what our competitors are building.MaxPB said:
Heathrow presented a two runway plan, one of the reasons I think the NW option is being given the go ahead is because that was the plan that allowed for a four runway solution in the future as well as the least disruption to wildlife.JosiasJessop said:Indeed. Yet it has been done: HK International Airport being the most famous example.
Expansion of Heathrow is only a medium-term measure. I predict before runway 3 is complete they'l be looking for a fourth, and that's when it starts getting *really* expensive.
And to compete, we need to look at what other countries are doing. As an example, the new Istanbul airport already being built has three runways, and is planned to have 6. From Wiki, Heathrow has 75 million passengers per annum; Istanbul with be able to cope with 150 million, with expansion possible to 200 million.
This doesn't mean we should get into a pi**ing contest with other countries. But its clear that other countries see a vast increase in passenger numbers (although they are also competing for the hub markets).
Can we afford to be left behind, or is everyone else getting it wrong?
I like the idea of BI as well, but for a variety of reasons it's not going to happen. Hopefully the PM is realistic and gets on with LHR3 at least.
Yes, we should get on with LHR3. But I fear a great opportunity has been lost. Or perhaps the projections for the potential market are all wrong.
The biggest problem for Heathrow will always be there - it is situated on the western edge of a highly populated city where the prevailing winds are from the west. 80% of landings fly over the entire length of the city.
0 -
A French question: if someone's a noble of X (assuming it doesn't start with a vowel or H), then is it du Placename if masculine, and de la Placename if feminine?0
-
What happens to the Labour leadership election if Theresa May does call an early election?
Do the challengers carry on... or do they drop the leadership election until afterwards?
Would it be easier to get rid of Corbyn after a bad GE result?
0 -
And a reluctant PLP plays them badlyTCPoliticalBetting said:I heard Len McCluskey on R4 this morning on the subject of Labour's Leader. The key problem for Labour is that Unite have backed Labour's last 3 Leaders - all failures. Unite specifically helped Labour's last two Leaders, Ed Miliband and Corbyn get elected. Both against the wishes of most Labour MPs. It is the impact of Unite that Labour need to address - but he who pays the piper calls the tunes.
0 -
Them's the rules. Eitherrottenborough said:
Only if he was automatically on the ballot. Otherwise, no deal.NickPalmer said:
Correct. In fact if the PLP demand had been annual leadership elections they'd have had a deal in 10 seconds.paulyork64 said:
Right now i think jeremy would love to face an election, but others are trying to prevent him from doing so.fitalass said:Daily Mirror - Jeremy Corbyn promised Labour leaders would face election every year to avoid 'personality' leadership
"Jeremy Corbyn promised to make Labour leaders face mandatory elections every year to avoid the party struggling with a 'personality' leader.
He said it would "bring back democracy into the Labour Party and the Labour movement."
But the embattled Labour leader seems to have radically changed his mind since he unexpectedly became leader of the party last September."
It seems odd to me that a former MP cannot understand how untenable Corbyn's position is with the PLP.
i) the Labour Party is utterly incompetent in drafting its own rules, or
ii) the current scenario was contemplated with equanimity, and the PLP are supposed to knuckle-under whoever the mass membership chooses as leader [or challenge him squarely or piss off].
I frankly don't buy i).
0 -
Not right now because the Corbyites would blame the moderates on the loss because of infighting.rkrkrk said:What happens to the Labour leadership election if Theresa May does call an early election?
Do the challengers carry on... or do they drop the leadership election until afterwards?
Would it be easier to get rid of Corbyn after a bad GE result?0 -
LOL The plan by some on the NEC to keep Jezza off the nomination in a secret ballot has fallen at the first hurdle as it was pointed out that in order for this method to be adopted it would require a majority to agree by show of hands.
You couldn't make it up0 -
Good morning all
The way Heathrow was planned and is situated there is no other way for planes to fly in except from the east. If it had 4 runways two could be made available at certain hours for planes to land and take off from the west, i.e, from and to the Americas direct.0 -
FrancisUrquhart said:
LOL what a moron.....Stay Putin...LOLTheuniondivvie said:Not the most auspicious hashtag in the world.
https://twitter.com/RichardBurgon/status/752760847689191424
I criticise you often enough so fair play - that is an excellent postPlatoSaid said:
No one drafting the rules could possibly have envisaged:MarqueeMark said:
Surely, somebody who is the existing leader has already amply demonstrated they "command a substantial body of support in the PLP" by virtue of having become leader? The number of nominations for the challenger is to make sure the Leader doesn't face a weekly challenge from a stalking horse.Wulfrun_Phil said:
Thanks for that - I had completely overlooked Collins' rationale until now. So very clearly, the Labour Party's system for selecting a leader is designed "to ensure that all candidates who are put to the ballot command a substantial body of support in the PLP"
Every time that a Corbyn cultist claims that he can carry on regardless of the fact that almost the entire PLP thinks he should go, on the grounds that the choice of leadership is solely a matter for anyone in the country choosing to make at least a £3 one-off payment, those words should be quoted back at them.
The current situation was never envisaged by anybody framing the rules. It is just outside anyones thinking that a Leader could plough on regardless, then be unable to collect the same number of nominations as a challenger....
1. Give sympathy votes to a totally unsuitable candidate
2. The big names totally fail to convince the selectorate
3. TUC wipes the floor with them
4. Most of the shadow cabinet resigns
5. TUC carries on and replaces them/hands out multiple job titles
6. Vote of no confidence by 172 MPs
7. TUC carries on surrounded by acolytes
8. Biggest unions continue to back TUC
9. Meanwhile TUC holds rallies and recruits more supporters
... he's a limpet and his supporters are on a quest.0 -
@RogerQuimbly: I'm starting to regret this Leadsom4Leader tattoo now.0
-
bigjohnowls said:
LOL The plan by some on the NEC to keep Jezza off the nomination in a secret ballot has fallen at the first hurdle as it was pointed out that in order for this method to be adopted it would require a majority to agree by show of hands.
You couldn't make it up That's tragic. 0 -
There wouldn't be much uncertain about an election this autumn. An election or second referendum in a couple of years is much harder to predict.MaxPB said:
An election introduces uncertainty. I think she should get the Heads of Terms done and then go to the country either with a second referendum or a GE.Wanderer said:
I'm not sure what you mean. How would it increase uncertainty if the Government had a reliable majority in the Commons?ReggieCide said:
This would reintroduce uncertainty about one issue where certainly has suddenly blossomed and would signal that party was more important than country,. She won't do it,Wanderer said:
She'll regret it if she doesn't increase her majority while she has a chance.rottenborough said:
Brown's mistake was to give huge hints he was about to call one and then backed out.Paristonda said:
We should have a general election, even more so no that Theresa has not won any direct membership election. It was a mistake for Brown not to call one, and I believe Theresa criticised him for it at the time. She needs her own mandate.Luckyguy1983 said:
You're not uneasy because you got the result you wanted. That misses the wood for the trees.RobD said:
Not all that uneasy about it. After all, we're not in a presidential democracy (much though various PMs have tried to make it so). Saying that, a snap GE would be nice, perhaps once Labour has sorted themselves out.Luckyguy1983 said:We can only really speculate on Andrea's reasons for dropping out.
Whether or not May is the person for the job, the way the establishment candidate is being crowned should make anyone who cares about living in a democracy very uneasy.
There is no reason to have a GE. We live in a Parliamentary democracy and the PM can be changed at any time by the governing party.
May has said 'No' and from all we read about her, that'll be the end of the matter.0 -
Owen Smith, who is considering standing, will now decide whether to fight Eagle to become the rebels' "unity candidate".
2 unity candidates as we couldn't unite behind either you couldn't make it up0 -
Not even for three quid?RodCrosby said:
Them's the rules. Eitherrottenborough said:
Only if he was automatically on the ballot. Otherwise, no deal.NickPalmer said:
Correct. In fact if the PLP demand had been annual leadership elections they'd have had a deal in 10 seconds.paulyork64 said:
Right now i think jeremy would love to face an election, but others are trying to prevent him from doing so.fitalass said:Daily Mirror - Jeremy Corbyn promised Labour leaders would face election every year to avoid 'personality' leadership
"Jeremy Corbyn promised to make Labour leaders face mandatory elections every year to avoid the party struggling with a 'personality' leader.
He said it would "bring back democracy into the Labour Party and the Labour movement."
But the embattled Labour leader seems to have radically changed his mind since he unexpectedly became leader of the party last September."
It seems odd to me that a former MP cannot understand how untenable Corbyn's position is with the PLP.
i) the Labour Party is utterly incompetent in drafting its own rules, or
ii) the current scenario was contemplated with equanimity, and the PLP are supposed to knuckle-under whoever the mass membership chooses as leader [or piss off].
I frankly don't buy i).0 -
Larry only needs to start worrying when Theresa finds a hundred other brown and white tabbies.rottenborough said:Larry the Cat @Number10cat
It's OK for you lot - you're only getting a new Prime Minister. I'm getting a new owner. Hold me.0 -
Most airlines.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Who would fly over a populus city as a sensible health and safety choice?Carolus_Rex said:
At least they are coming in to land with mostly empty tanks. It would be far worse if they had just taken off with full fuel loads.TCPoliticalBetting said:
I fear that one sad day a plane will crash into central London. After that the question will be why the planes always flew in that direction.surbiton said:
You need to look at the infrastructure outside the Airport too !MaxPB said:
I think with four runways we'd have enough capacity to take us to the point where air travel as we know it may be looking dated.JosiasJessop said:
From my memory, the LHR3+4 option makes the costings go even more sky-high. Even with LHR3+4, capacity will be nowhere near what our competitors are building.MaxPB said:
Heathrow presented a two runway plan, one of the reasons I think the NW option is being given the go ahead is because that was the plan that allowed for a four runway solution in the future as well as the least disruption to wildlife.JosiasJessop said:Indeed. Yet it has been done: HK International Airport being the most famous example.
Expansion of Heathrow is only a medium-term measure. I predict before runway 3 is complete they'l be looking for a fourth, and that's when it starts getting *really* expensive.
And to compete, we need to look at what other countries are doing. As an example, the new Istanbul airport already being built has three runways, and is planned to have 6. From Wiki, Heathrow has 75 million passengers per annum; Istanbul with be able to cope with 150 million, with expansion possible to 200 million.
This doesn't mean we should get into a pi**ing contest with other countries. But its clear that other countries see a vast increase in passenger numbers (although they are also competing for the hub markets).
Can we afford to be left behind, or is everyone else getting it wrong?
I like the idea of BI as well, but for a variety of reasons it's not going to happen. Hopefully the PM is realistic and gets on with LHR3 at least.
Yes, we should get on with LHR3. But I fear a great opportunity has been lost. Or perhaps the projections for the potential market are all wrong.
The biggest problem for Heathrow will always be there - it is situated on the western edge of a highly populated city where the prevailing winds are from the west. 80% of landings fly over the entire length of the city.0 -
Must admit, quite looking forward to today's NEC vote.0
-
You only have to speak to a lawyer to know that many carefully considered contracts still omit to deal with unlikely (but plausible) scenarios.RodCrosby said:
Them's the rules. Eitherrottenborough said:
Only if he was automatically on the ballot. Otherwise, no deal.NickPalmer said:
Correct. In fact if the PLP demand had been annual leadership elections they'd have had a deal in 10 seconds.paulyork64 said:
Right now i think jeremy would love to face an election, but others are trying to prevent him from doing so.fitalass said:Daily Mirror - Jeremy Corbyn promised Labour leaders would face election every year to avoid 'personality' leadership
"Jeremy Corbyn promised to make Labour leaders face mandatory elections every year to avoid the party struggling with a 'personality' leader.
He said it would "bring back democracy into the Labour Party and the Labour movement."
But the embattled Labour leader seems to have radically changed his mind since he unexpectedly became leader of the party last September."
It seems odd to me that a former MP cannot understand how untenable Corbyn's position is with the PLP.
i) the Labour Party is utterly incompetent in drafting its own rules, or
ii) the current scenario was contemplated with equanimity, and the PLP are supposed to knuckle-under whoever the mass membership chooses as leader [or piss off].
I frankly don't buy i).0 -
Yes it is extraordinary. Nick was one of the best posters on here. He now seems to have caught Corbynitus.rottenborough said:
Only if he was automatically on the ballot. Otherwise, no deal.NickPalmer said:
Correct. In fact if the PLP demand had been annual leadership elections they'd have had a deal in 10 seconds.paulyork64 said:
Right now i think jeremy would love to face an election, but others are trying to prevent him from doing so.fitalass said:Daily Mirror - Jeremy Corbyn promised Labour leaders would face election every year to avoid 'personality' leadership
"Jeremy Corbyn promised to make Labour leaders face mandatory elections every year to avoid the party struggling with a 'personality' leader.
He said it would "bring back democracy into the Labour Party and the Labour movement."
But the embattled Labour leader seems to have radically changed his mind since he unexpectedly became leader of the party last September."
It seems odd to me that a former MP cannot understand how untenable Corbyn's position is with the PLP.0 -
There are very few scenarios where Labour can survive this catastrophe . A snap election is one of them.0
-
White don't they unite under the guise of Angela Smith? [there is such an MP, I understand]...bigjohnowls said:Owen Smith, who is considering standing, will now decide whether to fight Eagle to become the rebels' "unity candidate".
2 unity candidates as we couldn't unite behind either you couldn't make it up0 -
He also had Ed ache and Brown syndrome.Jobabob said:
Yes it is extraordinary. Nick was one of the best posters on here. He now seems to have caught Corbynitus.rottenborough said:
Only if he was automatically on the ballot. Otherwise, no deal.NickPalmer said:
Correct. In fact if the PLP demand had been annual leadership elections they'd have had a deal in 10 seconds.paulyork64 said:
Right now i think jeremy would love to face an election, but others are trying to prevent him from doing so.fitalass said:Daily Mirror - Jeremy Corbyn promised Labour leaders would face election every year to avoid 'personality' leadership
"Jeremy Corbyn promised to make Labour leaders face mandatory elections every year to avoid the party struggling with a 'personality' leader.
He said it would "bring back democracy into the Labour Party and the Labour movement."
But the embattled Labour leader seems to have radically changed his mind since he unexpectedly became leader of the party last September."
It seems odd to me that a former MP cannot understand how untenable Corbyn's position is with the PLP.
0 -
The economic benefit of the hub goes mainly to the (foreign) hub airport owner (in the case of Heathrow) rather than the UK economy.JosiasJessop said:
IANAE, but I think the problem is that airlines want to call into hubs, where passengers can connect to other flights. If Heathrow gets larger competitors then they will become the hub, removing hub traffic from Heathrow.MaxPB said:
I think with four runways we'd have enough capacity to take us to the point where air travel as we know it may be looking dated.JosiasJessop said:
From my memory, the LHR3+4 option makes the costings go even more sky-high. Even with LHR3+4, capacity will be nowhere near what our competitors are building.MaxPB said:
I like the idea of BI as well, but for a variety of reasons it's not going to happen. Hopefully the PM is realistic and gets on with LHR3 at least.JosiasJessop said:Indeed. Yet it has been done: HK International Airport being the most famous example.
Expansion of Heathrow is only a medium-term measure. I predict before runway 3 is complete they'l be looking for a fourth, and that's when it starts getting *really* expensive.
Can we afford to be left behind, or is everyone else getting it wrong?
Yes, we should get on with LHR3. But I fear a great opportunity has been lost. Or perhaps the projections for the potential market are all wrong.
Once the hub status is lost by an airport, it still is a spoke, but the amount of traffic coming in is much reduced. And with it a large amount of money.
Oddly, if we don't increase capacity at Heathrow or a.n.other hub airport, we might not need any expansion as the hub traffic will go elsewhere - probably to Paris, but possibly Frankfurt.
That is, if you believe the hub-and-spoke philosophy. But it's ruled the roost for sixty years or so.
Moreover the £20 billion cost of the third runway at Heathrow will be paid by the passengers.
Airport tax at Heathrow is already around £60 per passenger for short haul, much more for long haul. (I frequently fly to Shannon from Heathrow at a cost of 99p plus £60 airport tax.) This cost could well double when the cost of expansion is loaded onto passengers. In an extraordinary omission, the impact of this extra cost on demand was not modelled in the technical assessment of the case for Heathrow (or Gatwick where the impact is much smaller).0 -
No. The gender comes from the placename - e.g. De La Rochefoucauld could be a gent or a lady. But some places have no gender - e.g. Ville De Paris. The French aren't as logical as they make themselves out to beMorris_Dancer said:A French question: if someone's a noble of X (assuming it doesn't start with a vowel or H), then is it du Placename if masculine, and de la Placename if feminine?
0 -
How can you say that after the last few weeks?Wanderer said:
There wouldn't be much uncertain about an election this autumn. An election or second referendum in a couple of years is much harder to predict.MaxPB said:
An election introduces uncertainty. I think she should get the Heads of Terms done and then go to the country either with a second referendum or a GE.Wanderer said:
I'm not sure what you mean. How would it increase uncertainty if the Government had a reliable majority in the Commons?ReggieCide said:
This would reintroduce uncertainty about one issue where certainly has suddenly blossomed and would signal that party was more important than country,. She won't do it,Wanderer said:
She'll regret it if she doesn't increase her majority while she has a chance.rottenborough said:
Brown's mistake was to give huge hints he was about to call one and then backed out.Paristonda said:
We should have a general election, even more so no that Theresa has not won any direct membership election. It was a mistake for Brown not to call one, and I believe Theresa criticised him for it at the time. She needs her own mandate.Luckyguy1983 said:
You're not uneasy because you got the result you wanted. That misses the wood for the trees.RobD said:
Not all that uneasy about it. After all, we're not in a presidential democracy (much though various PMs have tried to make it so). Saying that, a snap GE would be nice, perhaps once Labour has sorted themselves out.Luckyguy1983 said:We can only really speculate on Andrea's reasons for dropping out.
Whether or not May is the person for the job, the way the establishment candidate is being crowned should make anyone who cares about living in a democracy very uneasy.
There is no reason to have a GE. We live in a Parliamentary democracy and the PM can be changed at any time by the governing party.
May has said 'No' and from all we read about her, that'll be the end of the matter.0 -
Not seen de la, seen de as in Marquis de Sade. Not sure rules regarding du, de and de la etcMorris_Dancer said:A French question: if someone's a noble of X (assuming it doesn't start with a vowel or H), then is it du Placename if masculine, and de la Placename if feminine?
0 -
Bobajob was also much better than this Jobabob person who is driven by hatred of Corbyn!!Jobabob said:
Yes it is extraordinary. Nick was one of the best posters on here. He now seems to have caught Corbynitus.rottenborough said:
Only if he was automatically on the ballot. Otherwise, no deal.NickPalmer said:
Correct. In fact if the PLP demand had been annual leadership elections they'd have had a deal in 10 seconds.paulyork64 said:
Right now i think jeremy would love to face an election, but others are trying to prevent him from doing so.fitalass said:Daily Mirror - Jeremy Corbyn promised Labour leaders would face election every year to avoid 'personality' leadership
"Jeremy Corbyn promised to make Labour leaders face mandatory elections every year to avoid the party struggling with a 'personality' leader.
He said it would "bring back democracy into the Labour Party and the Labour movement."
But the embattled Labour leader seems to have radically changed his mind since he unexpectedly became leader of the party last September."
It seems odd to me that a former MP cannot understand how untenable Corbyn's position is with the PLP.0 -
Mr. Jonathan, looking at it from a Conservative Party political perspective, it's certainly arguable that not holding an election makes more sense than calling one. Labour's going through some serious woe now. An election would force them to pretend to be friends. Not calling one means the bloodletting continues.0
-
I think just de: duc de richelieu, prince de galles, marquis de sade.Morris_Dancer said:A French question: if someone's a noble of X (assuming it doesn't start with a vowel or H), then is it du Placename if masculine, and de la Placename if feminine?
0
