politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Just 16% tell ComRes that LAB-led JC likely to win GE compa
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Just 16% tell ComRes that LAB-led JC likely to win GE compared with 65% saying TMay-led CON will
politicalbetting.com is proudly powered by WordPress
with "Neat!" theme. Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).
Comments
-
Finally someone polled on the GBBO0
-
Ed Balls set to dance on Strictly right now.
Switch it over to BBC1 this instance0 -
What do people know?0
-
They didn't seem to know quite what they were dealing with, to be honest. I'm fond of the metaphor they were playing different games all along; the MPs thought they were playing chess, when they were actually playing Russian Roulette.surbiton said:
There will be no defections worth talking about. This raises a serious point. The "coup" attempt was hilarious. I am not surprised since the highly incompetent Hilary Benn was involved.foxinsoxuk said:
I think that there will be few if any defections at this point in the electoral cycle.Omnium said:Does anyone else think that tomorrow morning could be interesting?
It strikes me that it would be the appropriate time for people to leave Labour (although they should have just done so anyway as their credibility is damaged by leaving only when the result doesn't suit them)
There may be no movers at all, but if there are then it will be interesting to see who goes for the first mover thing.
(Didn't work for Angela Eagle though, but then there are limits)
Sitting as an Independent without party support would be difficult and few Labour MPs are in seats where a defection to the LDs would be viable.
For present most will sit on the backbenches, giving the same loyalty to their leader that he gave to the last Labour government.
The only way the rebel MPs could have won was if they did not blink. There was no strategy.
They had one huge weapon and their only one. Declare themselves the PLP and carry on.
But they were too interested in brand names, party assets etc. In 2/3 years a lot of those things would have resolved themselves.
The new Corbynites are a fickle lot. If their great leader was not the practical leader, they would have lost interest and gone back under the rock !
Well, the MPs won't have to worry about those matters anyway since most of them will not be candidates in 2020. After all, the candidates should have the support of the members and the Blairites voted for war in Iraq, bombing Syria and cutting welfare. They deserve it.
As popular as the show is, I'm surprised the MPs weren't paying attention to one of Cersei's maxims from Game of Thrones, namely that when playing such games you win or die, there is no middle ground.0 -
Cuckoo, cuckoo0
-
Ed Balls stepping onto the dance floor on Strictly on BBC1 now!0
-
At 9:59pm on May 7th 2015 who could have predicted within 17 months, Corbyn would be elected TWICE as Lab leader & I'd be watching Ed Balls on Strictly Come Dancing.0
-
Bang bang. Squawk. Thud. Silence.0
-
Corbyn meeting Trump on official business would be an awkward encounter.0
-
Balls did OK, even Len Goodman said he was 'pleasantly surprised', at the moment I think he has more chance of winning Strictly than Corbyn does of winning the next election!TheScreamingEagles said:At 9:59pm on May 7th 2015 who could have predicted within 17 months, Corbyn would be elected TWICE as Lab leader & I'd be watching Ed Balls on Strictly Come Dancing.
0 -
Still he'll get some poor scores from the judgesHYUFD said:
Balls did OK, even Len Goodman said he was 'pleasantly surprised', at the moment I think he has more chance of winning Strictly than Corbyn does of winning the next election!TheScreamingEagles said:At 9:59pm on May 7th 2015 who could have predicted within 17 months, Corbyn would be elected TWICE as Lab leader & I'd be watching Ed Balls on Strictly Come Dancing.
0 -
Not great but 3 5s and a 6 is better than it could have been. Danny and Oti look the ones to beat so far!TheScreamingEagles said:
Still he'll get some poor scores from the judgesHYUFD said:
Balls did OK, even Len Goodman said he was 'pleasantly surprised', at the moment I think he has more chance of winning Strictly than Corbyn does of winning the next election!TheScreamingEagles said:At 9:59pm on May 7th 2015 who could have predicted within 17 months, Corbyn would be elected TWICE as Lab leader & I'd be watching Ed Balls on Strictly Come Dancing.
0 -
Our next Prime Minister !TheScreamingEagles said:Ed Balls set to dance on Strictly right now.
Switch it over to BBC1 this instance0 -
Could have been worse, a bit wooden. The Latin will be his undoing I fear.surbiton said:
Our next Prime Minister !TheScreamingEagles said:Ed Balls set to dance on Strictly right now.
Switch it over to BBC1 this instance0 -
They believed like the "Establishment" does believe that Corbyn's position would have been "untenable" when 80% voted that they had no confidence in him.kle4 said:
They didn't seem to know quite what they were dealing with, to be honest. I'm fond of the metaphor they were playing different games all along; the MPs thought they were playing chess, when they were actually playing Russian Roulette.surbiton said:
There will be no defections worth talking about. This raises a serious point. The "coup" attempt was hilarious. I am not surprised since the highly incompetent Hilary Benn was involved.foxinsoxuk said:
I think that there will be few if any defections at this point in the electoral cycle.Omnium said:Does anyone else think that tomorrow morning could be interesting?
It strikes me that it would be the appropriate time for people to leave Labour (although they should have just done so anyway as their credibility is damaged by leaving only when the result doesn't suit them)
There may be no movers at all, but if there are then it will be interesting to see who goes for the first mover thing.
(Didn't work for Angela Eagle though, but then there are limits)
Sitting as an Independent without party support would be difficult and few Labour MPs are in seats where a defection to the LDs would be viable.
For present most will sit on the backbenches, giving the same loyalty to their leader that he gave to the last Labour government.
The only way the rebel MPs could have won was if they did not blink. There was no strategy.
They had one huge weapon and their only one. Declare themselves the PLP and carry on.
But they were too interested in brand names, party assets etc. In 2/3 years a lot of those things would have resolved themselves.
The new Corbynites are a fickle lot. If their great leader was not the practical leader, they would have lost interest and gone back under the rock !
Well, the MPs won't have to worry about those matters anyway since most of them will not be candidates in 2020. After all, the candidates should have the support of the members and the Blairites voted for war in Iraq, bombing Syria and cutting welfare. They deserve it.
As popular as the show is, I'm surprised the MPs weren't paying attention to one of Cersei's maxims from Game of Thrones, namely that when playing such games you win or die, there is no middle ground.
Stupid sods. Nowhere in the rule book does it say that the Leader has to resign. The Left does one thing always better than the Right. They know the Rules.0 -
The only policy where SeanT and I agree.SeanT said:Most interesting part of this poll is the "expand Heathrow" question. It's popular AND the right thing to do for the nation.
It's also popular in parts of the country - the north, Scotland, Wales - where Tories are weak and need support. Meanwhile, the Tories of Kingston, Henley, Berks and Bucks aren't switching to Corbyn any time soon.
Build the damn thing. Give it the green light, Theresa. Do it.0 -
Their own rulebook, maybe. But they seem utterly clueless about the rules the voters will follow....surbiton said:
They believed like the "Establishment" does believe that Corbyn's position would have been "untenable" when 80% voted that they had no confidence in him.kle4 said:
They didn't seem to know quite what they were dealing with, to be honest. I'm fond of the metaphor they were playing different games all along; the MPs thought they were playing chess, when they were actually playing Russian Roulette.surbiton said:
There will be no defections worth talking about. This raises a serious point. The "coup" attempt was hilarious. I am not surprised since the highly incompetent Hilary Benn was involved.foxinsoxuk said:
I think that there will be few if any defections at this point in the electoral cycle.Omnium said:Does anyone else think that tomorrow morning could be interesting?
It strikes me that it would be the appropriate time for people to leave Labour (although they should have just done so anyway as their credibility is damaged by leaving only when the result doesn't suit them)
There may be no movers at all, but if there are then it will be interesting to see who goes for the first mover thing.
(Didn't work for Angela Eagle though, but then there are limits)
Sitting as an Independent without party support would be difficult and few Labour MPs are in seats where a defection to the LDs would be viable.
For present most will sit on the backbenches, giving the same loyalty to their leader that he gave to the last Labour government.
The only way the rebel MPs could have won was if they did not blink. There was no strategy.
They had one huge weapon and their only one. Declare themselves the PLP and carry on.
But they were too interested in brand names, party assets etc. In 2/3 years a lot of those things would have resolved themselves.
The new Corbynites are a fickle lot. If their great leader was not the practical leader, they would have lost interest and gone back under the rock !
Well, the MPs won't have to worry about those matters anyway since most of them will not be candidates in 2020. After all, the candidates should have the support of the members and the Blairites voted for war in Iraq, bombing Syria and cutting welfare. They deserve it.
As popular as the show is, I'm surprised the MPs weren't paying attention to one of Cersei's maxims from Game of Thrones, namely that when playing such games you win or die, there is no middle ground.
Stupid sods. Nowhere in the rule book does it say that the Leader has to resign. The Left does one thing always better than the Right. They know the Rules.0 -
There could be a by-election in Richmond Park if she does.SeanT said:Most interesting part of this poll is the "expand Heathrow" question. It's popular AND the right thing to do for the nation.
It's also popular in parts of the country - the north, Scotland, Wales - where Tories are weak and need support. Meanwhile, the Tories of Kingston, Henley, Berks and Bucks aren't switching to Corbyn any time soon.
Build the damn thing. Give it the green light, Theresa. Do it.0 -
45% still feel they have a good understanding of what the Labour Party stands for.
Just 32% for the LibDems.0 -
LOL! The people seem to agree somewhat with Betfair on this.
Next GE:
Con most seats 1.26, Lab most seats 5.7
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/#/politics/event/27456523/market?marketId=1.1190406970 -
I really don't think even they believe they could win in 2020. For them the important thing is to take over and now they are in situ. They believe the revolution has started.MarqueeMark said:
Their own rulebook, maybe. But they seem utterly clueless about the rules the voters will follow....surbiton said:
They believed like the "Establishment" does believe that Corbyn's position would have been "untenable" when 80% voted that they had no confidence in him.kle4 said:
They didn't seem to know quite what they were dealing with, to be honest. I'm fond of the metaphor they were playing different games all along; the MPs thought they were playing chess, when they were actually playing Russian Roulette.surbiton said:
There will be no defections worth talking about. This raises a serious point. The "coup" attempt was hilarious. I am not surprised since the highly incompetent Hilary Benn was involved.foxinsoxuk said:
I think that there will be few if any defections at this point in the electoral cycle.Omnium said:Does anyone else think that tomorrow morning could be interesting?
(Didn't work for Angela Eagle though, but then there are limits)
Sitting as an Independent without party support would be difficult and few Labour MPs are in seats where a defection to the LDs would be viable.
For present most will sit on the backbenches, giving the same loyalty to their leader that he gave to the last Labour government.
The only way the rebel MPs could have won was if they did not blink. There was no strategy.
They had one huge weapon and their only one. Declare themselves the PLP and carry on.
But they were too interested in brand names, party assets etc. In 2/3 years a lot of those things would have resolved themselves.
The new Corbynites are a fickle lot. If their great leader was not the practical leader, they would have lost interest and gone back under the rock !
Well, the MPs won't have to worry about those matters anyway since most of them will not be candidates in 2020. After all, the candidates should have the support of the members and the Blairites voted for war in Iraq, bombing Syria and cutting welfare. They deserve it.
As popular as the show is, I'm surprised the MPs weren't paying attention to one of Cersei's maxims from Game of Thrones, namely that when playing such games you win or die, there is no middle ground.
Stupid sods. Nowhere in the rule book does it say that the Leader has to resign. The Left does one thing always better than the Right. They know the Rules.0 -
Go on Theresa, announce it next week!SeanT said:Most interesting part of this poll is the "expand Heathrow" question. It's popular AND the right thing to do for the nation.
It's also popular in parts of the country - the north, Scotland, Wales - where Tories are weak and need support. Meanwhile, the Tories of Kingston, Henley, Berks and Bucks aren't switching to Corbyn any time soon.
Build the damn thing. Give it the green light, Theresa. Do it.
If Britain is open for business then we need more runways. JFDI.0 -
I don't think Sadiq is actually anti-Heathrow. It was not a position to hang on to in the campaign. I am not sure about Boris either since I am not sure he actually believes in anything.SeanT said:
I suspect we agree on a few others, too. I can be surprisingly lefty, at times.surbiton said:
The only policy where SeanT and I agree.SeanT said:Most interesting part of this poll is the "expand Heathrow" question. It's popular AND the right thing to do for the nation.
It's also popular in parts of the country - the north, Scotland, Wales - where Tories are weak and need support. Meanwhile, the Tories of Kingston, Henley, Berks and Bucks aren't switching to Corbyn any time soon.
Build the damn thing. Give it the green light, Theresa. Do it.
Anyway we agree on Heathrow. T May has enormous capital right now. she should spend it on LHR3. Because it will earn interest over time.
Fuck Sadiq and Boris and LUDICROUS Gatwick.0 -
They should give the green light to Heathrow and gatwick I reckon. Too much dithering now.SeanT said:Most interesting part of this poll is the "expand Heathrow" question. It's popular AND the right thing to do for the nation.
It's also popular in parts of the country - the north, Scotland, Wales - where Tories are weak and need support. Meanwhile, the Tories of Kingston, Henley, Berks and Bucks aren't switching to Corbyn any time soon.
Build the damn thing. Give it the green light, Theresa. Do it.0 -
Nothing more embarrassing than a revolution that nobody turns up for.surbiton said:
I really don't think even they believe they could win in 2020. For them the important thing is to take over and now they are in situ. They believe the revolution has started.MarqueeMark said:
Their own rulebook, maybe. But they seem utterly clueless about the rules the voters will follow....surbiton said:
They believed like the "Establishment" does believe that Corbyn's position would have been "untenable" when 80% voted that they had no confidence in him.kle4 said:
They didn't seem to know quite what they were dealing with, to be honest. I'm fond of the metaphor they were playing different games all along; the MPs thought they were playing chess, when they were actually playing Russian Roulette.surbiton said:
There will be no defections worth talking about. This raises a serious point. The "coup" attempt was hilarious. I am not surprised since the highly incompetent Hilary Benn was involved.foxinsoxuk said:
I think that there will be few if any defections at this point in the electoral cycle.Omnium said:Does anyone else think that tomorrow morning could be interesting?
(Didn't work for Angela Eagle though, but then there are limits)
Sitting as an Independent without party support would be difficult and few Labour MPs are in seats where a defection to the LDs would be viable.
For present most will sit on the backbenches, giving the same loyalty to their leader that he gave to the last Labour government.
As popular as the show is, I'm surprised the MPs weren't paying attention to one of Cersei's maxims from Game of Thrones, namely that when playing such games you win or die, there is no middle ground.
Stupid sods. Nowhere in the rule book does it say that the Leader has to resign. The Left does one thing always better than the Right. They know the Rules.
Corbyn is close to having signed up as Labour members the totality of people who will vote for him as PM.0 -
It is really worth reading the risk assessment on Heathrow by an all-party group of MPs.SeanT said:Most interesting part of this poll is the "expand Heathrow" question. It's popular AND the right thing to do for the nation.
It's also popular in parts of the country - the north, Scotland, Wales - where Tories are weak and need support. Meanwhile, the Tories of Kingston, Henley, Berks and Bucks aren't switching to Corbyn any time soon.
Build the damn thing. Give it the green light, Theresa. Do it.
http://www.heathrowappg.com/heathrow-expansion-a-risk-assessment-2/
It is damning.
Here I'm quoting Zac Goldsmith:
"For years, senior staff from Heathrow have taken up senior roles in Government, and vice versa. For example last year our Infrastructure Minister switched over to become the Chairman of Heathrow. The Head of Communications at the Department for Transport went over to become the Head of Communications at Heathrow, and the Head of Communications at Heathrow has become the Head of Communications at the Department for Transport!
As a result Heathrow expansion has undoubtedly been the default position of Government officials for many years.
Institutional bias is a major problem for us. But there is a silver lining, and that is our new Prime Minister. Theresa May once described herself as a 'bloody difficult woman'. And I am confident that she won't simply be spoon-fed a line by entrenched officials. She starts from a position of scepticism about Heathrow expansion, and will look at the evidence before taking a view. If she really does, then it is hard to imagine her backing Heathrow."
http://www.prweek.com/article/1332084/department-transport-hires-heathrow-pr-director-simon-baugh
Foreign owned Heathrow owns the Department of Transport. If this happened in Zimbabwe we would shrug our shoulders. But this is the UK. This swopping of top jobs between the Civil Service and major companies is a disgrace.0 -
"The bosses of several of America’s biggest banks and corporations have warned Theresa May they will pre-emptively shift operations into Europe unless she can provide early clarity on the future shape of EU-UK relations.
According to an account of the meeting obtained by The Telegraph, Mrs May declined to provide information about how the British government would approach the Brexit negotiations, other than pursuing a deal that was “in the national interest”.
There followed “frank exchanges” in which bosses warned they could not wait to discover the final outcome of the two-year Article 50 negotiations before making major investment decisions that could see thousands of UK jobs shift to Europe....
Downing Street’s uncompromising line on curbing EU migration has caused friction between Mr Hammond and Mrs May’s political team which is dominated by former Home Office officials who “understand the politics of migration rather better than the economy”, the source said....
Financial services generate more than £60bn pounds a year in tax, a quarter of which comes from foreign-owned banks, revenues that the Treasury fears will now be put in jeopardy."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/24/brexit-warning-us-bank-bosses-from-goldman-sachs-morgan-stanley/0 -
There are a number of positions Sadiq took because he genuinely thought it might be close. Whereas in reality he won comfortably, and with the demographic change and post-Brexit mood in London, where Corbyn has genuine appeal, he is probably sitting safe for as long as he wants the job. I have heard he is working through his pledges thinking out how best to deal with them; the promised tube fare freeze for all didn't last more than a few weeks.surbiton said:
I don't think Sadiq is actually anti-Heathrow. It was not a position to hang on to in the campaign. I am not sure about Boris either since I am not sure he actually believes in anything.SeanT said:
I suspect we agree on a few others, too. I can be surprisingly lefty, at times.surbiton said:
The only policy where SeanT and I agree.SeanT said:Most interesting part of this poll is the "expand Heathrow" question. It's popular AND the right thing to do for the nation.
It's also popular in parts of the country - the north, Scotland, Wales - where Tories are weak and need support. Meanwhile, the Tories of Kingston, Henley, Berks and Bucks aren't switching to Corbyn any time soon.
Build the damn thing. Give it the green light, Theresa. Do it.
Anyway we agree on Heathrow. T May has enormous capital right now. she should spend it on LHR3. Because it will earn interest over time.
Fuck Sadiq and Boris and LUDICROUS Gatwick.0 -
May knows that the public want migration controlled above all and though she does want a free trade deal too that has to come first. In any case, even if some banks do move operations to Frankfurt, Paris and Dublin, London will still remain comfortably the largest financial centre in Europe.JonathanD said:"The bosses of several of America’s biggest banks and corporations have warned Theresa May they will pre-emptively shift operations into Europe unless she can provide early clarity on the future shape of EU-UK relations.
According to an account of the meeting obtained by The Telegraph, Mrs May declined to provide information about how the British government would approach the Brexit negotiations, other than pursuing a deal that was “in the national interest”.
There followed “frank exchanges” in which bosses warned they could not wait to discover the final outcome of the two-year Article 50 negotiations before making major investment decisions that could see thousands of UK jobs shift to Europe....
Downing Street’s uncompromising line on curbing EU migration has caused friction between Mr Hammond and Mrs May’s political team which is dominated by former Home Office officials who “understand the politics of migration rather better than the economy”, the source said....
Financial services generate more than £60bn pounds a year in tax, a quarter of which comes from foreign-owned banks, revenues that the Treasury fears will now be put in jeopardy."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/24/brexit-warning-us-bank-bosses-from-goldman-sachs-morgan-stanley/0 -
Gatwick has got space for another runway without demolishing an entire town, it has got a main railway line running right through the airport and a motorway serving it that isnt jammed solid the whole time. Its a no brainer. Gatwick.0
-
It is a no brainer. Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted.Paul_Bedfordshire said:Gatwick has got space for another runway without demolishing an entire town, it has got a main railway line running right through the airport and a motorway serving it that isnt jammed solid the whole time. Its a no brainer. Gatwick.
0 -
I'm in favour of the full monty: third runway at Heathrow, Boris Island, Gatwick expansion, etc. The more airports and runways the better.0
-
Have you read the risk analysis?SeanT said:
tim, late of this parish, had a good angle on Heathrow. Ask the (complaining) locals, if they hate LHR so much, whether they want to CLOSE Heathrow, with all of its jobs, and move it to a new airport on Canvey Island.surbiton said:
I don't think Sadiq is actually anti-Heathrow. It was not a position to hang on to in the campaign. I am not sure about Boris either since I am not sure he actually believes in anything.SeanT said:
I suspect we agree on a few others, too. I can be surprisingly lefty, at times.surbiton said:
The only policy where SeanT and I agree.SeanT said:Most interesting part of this poll is the "expand Heathrow" question. It's popular AND the right thing to do for the nation.
It's also popular in parts of the country - the north, Scotland, Wales - where Tories are weak and need support. Meanwhile, the Tories of Kingston, Henley, Berks and Bucks aren't switching to Corbyn any time soon.
Build the damn thing. Give it the green light, Theresa. Do it.
Anyway we agree on Heathrow. T May has enormous capital right now. she should spend it on LHR3. Because it will earn interest over time.
Fuck Sadiq and Boris and LUDICROUS Gatwick.
Most of them will say No Way, of course not. Yet they don't want it to expand either??
They want it to stay exactly as it is, no bigger, no smaller, for the rest of time.
Sorry, you don't get to make that choice, not in the real world. You can't choose eternal stasis.
Build it.
It is easy to say "Build it". It is much more difficult to actually build LHR3 without going bust, staying within the law, keeping passengers with the highest airport charges in the world etc. The risk falls on the Government (i.e. the taxpayer) and it is massive.
If we need to build another London airport quickly (and we do) Gatwick is the only option.
I think some of the passion for Heathrow is driven by "sod the complaining locals". Facile.0 -
I presume you do not live on an airline flightpath! We certainly need to expand one airport but a third runway at Heathrow should be itAndyJS said:I'm in favour of the full monty: third runway at Heathrow, Boris Island, Gatwick expansion, etc. The more airports and runways the better.
0 -
The new Airbus double-decker is amazingly quiet, as I found out on a flight from Dubai to Sydney a few weeks ago.HYUFD said:
I presume you do not live in an airline flightpath! We certainly need to expand one airport but a third runway at Heathrow should be itAndyJS said:I'm in favour of the full monty: third runway at Heathrow, Boris Island, Gatwick expansion, etc. The more airports and runways the better.
0 -
The objection to Heathrow
The objection to Heathrow expansion is the noise. But runways don't make noise; aeroplanes do. There's an obvious deal to be done here. Agree one or two additional runways in exchange for reducing the noise impact. They can do this by limiting the types of aircraft that land, adjusting flight paths and glideslopes and so on. Then go back to the neighbours. What do you prefer? More runways or more noise?SeanT said:
tim, late of this parish, had a good angle on Heathrow. Ask the (complaining) locals, if they hate LHR so much, whether they want to CLOSE Heathrow, with all of its jobs, and move it to a new airport on Canvey Island.surbiton said:
I don't think Sadiq is actually anti-Heathrow. It was not a position to hang on to in the campaign. I am not sure about Boris either since I am not sure he actually believes in anything.SeanT said:
I suspect we agree on a few others, too. I can be surprisingly lefty, at times.surbiton said:
The only policy where SeanT and I agree.SeanT said:Most interesting part of this poll is the "expand Heathrow" question. It's popular AND the right thing to do for the nation.
It's also popular in parts of the country - the north, Scotland, Wales - where Tories are weak and need support. Meanwhile, the Tories of Kingston, Henley, Berks and Bucks aren't switching to Corbyn any time soon.
Build the damn thing. Give it the green light, Theresa. Do it.
Anyway we agree on Heathrow. T May has enormous capital right now. she should spend it on LHR3. Because it will earn interest over time.
Fuck Sadiq and Boris and LUDICROUS Gatwick.
Most of them will say No Way, of course not. Yet they don't want it to expand either??
They want it to stay exactly as it is, no bigger, no smaller, for the rest of time.
Sorry, you don't get to make that choice, not in the real world. You can't choose eternal stasis.
Build it.0 -
The only people who have a strong case against Heathrow are those who bought their houses before 1946.SeanT said:
tim, late of this parish, had a good angle on Heathrow. Ask the (complaining) locals, if they hate LHR so much, whether they want to CLOSE Heathrow, with all of its jobs, and move it to a new airport on Canvey Island.surbiton said:
I don't think Sadiq is actually anti-Heathrow. It was not a position to hang on to in the campaign. I am not sure about Boris either since I am not sure he actually believes in anything.SeanT said:
I suspect we agree on a few others, too. I can be surprisingly lefty, at times.surbiton said:
The only policy where SeanT and I agree.SeanT said:Most interesting part of this poll is the "expand Heathrow" question. It's popular AND the right thing to do for the nation.
It's also popular in parts of the country - the north, Scotland, Wales - where Tories are weak and need support. Meanwhile, the Tories of Kingston, Henley, Berks and Bucks aren't switching to Corbyn any time soon.
Build the damn thing. Give it the green light, Theresa. Do it.
Anyway we agree on Heathrow. T May has enormous capital right now. she should spend it on LHR3. Because it will earn interest over time.
Fuck Sadiq and Boris and LUDICROUS Gatwick.
Most of them will say No Way, of course not. Yet they don't want it to expand either??
They want it to stay exactly as it is, no bigger, no smaller, for the rest of time.
Sorry, you don't get to make that choice, not in the real world. You can't choose eternal stasis.
Build it.
After that any buyer knew exactly where Heathrow was situated and planes were much noisier than now.0 -
Junior Doctors strikes all cancelled.0
-
Not true. Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK". One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving "offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders."HYUFD said:
May knows that the public want migration controlled above all and though she does want a free trade deal too that has to come first. In any case, even if some banks do move operations to Frankfurt, Paris and Dublin, London will still remain comfortably the largest financial centre in Europe.JonathanD said:"The bosses of several of America’s biggest banks and corporations have warned Theresa May they will pre-emptively shift operations into Europe unless she can provide early clarity on the future shape of EU-UK relations.
According to an account of the meeting obtained by The Telegraph, Mrs May declined to provide information about how the British government would approach the Brexit negotiations, other than pursuing a deal that was “in the national interest”.
There followed “frank exchanges” in which bosses warned they could not wait to discover the final outcome of the two-year Article 50 negotiations before making major investment decisions that could see thousands of UK jobs shift to Europe....
Downing Street’s uncompromising line on curbing EU migration has caused friction between Mr Hammond and Mrs May’s political team which is dominated by former Home Office officials who “understand the politics of migration rather better than the economy”, the source said....
Financial services generate more than £60bn pounds a year in tax, a quarter of which comes from foreign-owned banks, revenues that the Treasury fears will now be put in jeopardy."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/24/brexit-warning-us-bank-bosses-from-goldman-sachs-morgan-stanley/
That is 33% of 52% i,e about 17% said the main reason was immigration.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-06-30/poll-shows-brexit-vote-was-about-british-sovereignty-not-anti-immigration0 -
Better still, don't ask them. Get on with it. T May is the MP for Maidenhead - so I am not sure.FF43 said:The objection to Heathrow
The objection to Heathrow expansion is the noise. But runways don't make noise; aeroplanes do. There's an obvious deal to be done here. Agree one or two additional runways in exchange for reducing the noise impact. They can do this by limiting the types of aircraft that land, adjusting flight paths and glideslopes and so on. Then go back to the neighbours. What do you prefer? More runways or more noise?SeanT said:
tim, late of this parish, had a good angle on Heathrow. Ask the (complaining) locals, if they hate LHR so much, whether they want to CLOSE Heathrow, with all of its jobs, and move it to a new airport on Canvey Island.surbiton said:
I don't think Sadiq is actually anti-Heathrow. It was not a position to hang on to in the campaign. I am not sure about Boris either since I am not sure he actually believes in anything.SeanT said:
I suspect we agree on a few others, too. I can be surprisingly lefty, at times.surbiton said:
The only policy where SeanT and I agree.SeanT said:Most interesting part of this poll is the "expand Heathrow" question. It's popular AND the right thing to do for the nation.
It's also popular in parts of the country - the north, Scotland, Wales - where Tories are weak and need support. Meanwhile, the Tories of Kingston, Henley, Berks and Bucks aren't switching to Corbyn any time soon.
Build the damn thing. Give it the green light, Theresa. Do it.
Anyway we agree on Heathrow. T May has enormous capital right now. she should spend it on LHR3. Because it will earn interest over time.
Fuck Sadiq and Boris and LUDICROUS Gatwick.
Most of them will say No Way, of course not. Yet they don't want it to expand either??
They want it to stay exactly as it is, no bigger, no smaller, for the rest of time.
Sorry, you don't get to make that choice, not in the real world. You can't choose eternal stasis.
Build it.0 -
I'm with Sean and the others - build Heathrow. But I also think May should give the green light to Gatwick and Stansted. Of course in that scenario only Heathrow will happen because the competitive economics for Gatwick don't work. Why is precisely why it has to be Heathrow. But agreeing all of them would be an astute political way ahead and demonstrate we are open for trade.0
-
Two more at LHR, the report was sensible enough to think ahead and include four-runway plans. Get it all out of he way now for another 30 or 40 years.surbiton said:
It is a no brainer. Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted.Paul_Bedfordshire said:Gatwick has got space for another runway without demolishing an entire town, it has got a main railway line running right through the airport and a motorway serving it that isnt jammed solid the whole time. Its a no brainer. Gatwick.
0 -
And 'sod the dithering'. Sure, I haven't read the risk analyses of either proposal. I don't mind which one is built. But this has been looked into for long enough for decision makers to have been confident of which decision is best by now, and it keeps getting delayed for political convenience.Barnesian said:
I think some of the passion for Heathrow is driven by "sod the complaining locals". Facile.SeanT said:
tim, late of this parish, had a good angle on Heathrow. Ask the (complaining) locals, if they hate LHR so much, whether they want to CLOSE Heathrow, with all of its jobs, and move it to a new airport on Canvey Island.surbiton said:
I don't think Sadiq is actually anti-Heathrow. It was not a position to hang on to in the campaign. I am not sure about Boris either since I am not sure he actually believes in anything.SeanT said:
I suspect we agree on a few others, too. I can be surprisingly lefty, at times.surbiton said:
The only policy where SeanT and I agree.SeanT said:Most interesting part of this poll is the "expand Heathrow" question. It's popular AND the right thing to do for the nation.
It's also popular in parts of the country - the north, Scotland, Wales - where Tories are weak and need support. Meanwhile, the Tories of Kingston, Henley, Berks and Bucks aren't switching to Corbyn any time soon.
Build the damn thing. Give it the green light, Theresa. Do it.
Anyway we agree on Heathrow. T May has enormous capital right now. she should spend it on LHR3. Because it will earn interest over time.
Fuck Sadiq and Boris and LUDICROUS Gatwick.
Most of them will say No Way, of course not. Yet they don't want it to expand either??
They want it to stay exactly as it is, no bigger, no smaller, for the rest of time.
Sorry, you don't get to make that choice, not in the real world. You can't choose eternal stasis.
Build it.0 -
The solution is to move the runways to the west, out by the M25 and the reservoirs, which would increase the altitude of landing planes over west London and significnatly reduce the noise impact on the western suburbs.surbiton said:
Better still, don't ask them. Get on with it. T May is the MP for Maidenhead - so I am not sure.FF43 said:The objection to Heathrow
The objection to Heathrow expansion is the noise. But runways don't make noise; aeroplanes do. There's an obvious deal to be done here. Agree one or two additional runways in exchange for reducing the noise impact. They can do this by limiting the types of aircraft that land, adjusting flight paths and glideslopes and so on. Then go back to the neighbours. What do you prefer? More runways or more noise?SeanT said:
tim, late of this parish, had a good angle on Heathrow. Ask the (complaining) locals, if they hate LHR so much, whether they want to CLOSE Heathrow, with all of its jobs, and move it to a new airport on Canvey Island.surbiton said:
I don't think Sadiq is actually anti-Heathrow. It was not a position to hang on to in the campaign. I am not sure about Boris either since I am not sure he actually believes in anything.SeanT said:
I suspect we agree on a few others, too. I can be surprisingly lefty, at times.surbiton said:
The only policy where SeanT and I agree.SeanT said:Most interesting part of this poll is the "expand Heathrow" question. It's popular AND the right thing to do for the nation.
It's also popular in parts of the country - the north, Scotland, Wales - where Tories are weak and need support. Meanwhile, the Tories of Kingston, Henley, Berks and Bucks aren't switching to Corbyn any time soon.
Build the damn thing. Give it the green light, Theresa. Do it.
Anyway we agree on Heathrow. T May has enormous capital right now. she should spend it on LHR3. Because it will earn interest over time.
Fuck Sadiq and Boris and LUDICROUS Gatwick.
Most of them will say No Way, of course not. Yet they don't want it to expand either??
They want it to stay exactly as it is, no bigger, no smaller, for the rest of time.
Sorry, you don't get to make that choice, not in the real world. You can't choose eternal stasis.
Build it.0 -
SeanSeanT said:
She'll cope. It would go Lib Dem (maybe). Who cares.AndyJS said:
There could be a by-election in Richmond Park if she does.SeanT said:Most interesting part of this poll is the "expand Heathrow" question. It's popular AND the right thing to do for the nation.
It's also popular in parts of the country - the north, Scotland, Wales - where Tories are weak and need support. Meanwhile, the Tories of Kingston, Henley, Berks and Bucks aren't switching to Corbyn any time soon.
Build the damn thing. Give it the green light, Theresa. Do it.
Ref Lascaux and cave paintings, I got the spelling wrong on the cave where you can see the originals - Fond de Gaumme:
http://www.sites-les-eyzies.fr/en/
Les Eyzies de Tayac is not a bad little town either to base yourself in for a few days. We did a day trip from there to see Simon de Montfort's castle (the one who persecuted the Cathars, not the Magna Carta one). IIRC, Mr Morris Dancer would love it - a stonking big trebuchet is set up in the grounds.0 -
The business case for BI is dependent on LHR being closed and the land sold off. It's never going to happen, way too much opposition from the M3 and M4 corridor business who don't want to cross London to catch a plane.AndyJS said:I'm in favour of the full monty: third runway at Heathrow, Boris Island, Gatwick expansion, etc. The more airports and runways the better.
0 -
Expand City airport. Demolish Canary Wharf - we won't need it after the financial industry decamps to the Eurozone.SeanT said:
lol. It's on entirely the wrong side of London for 80% of the country. It's nowhere near the M25, nor any other major motorways - unlike Heathrow which is on the M4, M5, M25, etc. Heathrow has peerless connections to central London and Paddington and, crucially, is on Crossrail (the Elizabeth Line). Gatwick is a slow crawl to south London, and won't be on Crossrail.Paul_Bedfordshire said:Gatwick has got space for another runway without demolishing an entire town, it has got a main railway line running right through the airport and a motorway serving it that isnt jammed solid the whole time. Its a no brainer. Gatwick.
Gatwick is a not a world class hub, and will never be; Heathrow already is, and can get even better.
If we choose Gatwick, we are choosing to be a 2nd class trading nation with 2nd class transport links.
I don't think we can afford that choice, not after Brexit.0 -
I don't think Zac will resign. He promised this in 2010.AndyJS said:
There could be a by-election in Richmond Park if she does.SeanT said:Most interesting part of this poll is the "expand Heathrow" question. It's popular AND the right thing to do for the nation.
It's also popular in parts of the country - the north, Scotland, Wales - where Tories are weak and need support. Meanwhile, the Tories of Kingston, Henley, Berks and Bucks aren't switching to Corbyn any time soon.
Build the damn thing. Give it the green light, Theresa. Do it.0 -
Interesting polling - it seems that more damage is being done to Labour because of the splits, divisions and uncertainty over what the party now stands for, than by the underwhelming general public support for Corbyn and his project. Not sure whether that'll be enough to persuade right-leaning Labour MPs to shut up for a while - though that might just be enough to save a few of them their seats, even if it isn't a route to victory.0
-
Pah! There should be 4 runways at Heathrow to make it future proof plus expand the rest.AndyJS said:I'm in favour of the full monty: third runway at Heathrow, Boris Island, Gatwick expansion, etc. The more airports and runways the better.
0 -
Boris island (or something similar) is the right long-term choice. Evacuated underground train lines are the right choice in the long term too. (And possibly if really good make the former redundant). Kent needs a boost, the area near Heathrow could be gentrified, and HS2's budget could be used for proper trains.SeanT said:
lol. It's on entirely the wrong side of London for 80% of the country. It's nowhere near the M25, nor any other major motorways - unlike Heathrow which is on the M4, M5, M25, etc. Heathrow has peerless connections to central London and Paddington and, crucially, is on Crossrail (the Elizabeth Line). Gatwick is a slow crawl to south London, and won't be on Crossrail.Paul_Bedfordshire said:Gatwick has got space for another runway without demolishing an entire town, it has got a main railway line running right through the airport and a motorway serving it that isnt jammed solid the whole time. Its a no brainer. Gatwick.
Gatwick is a not a world class hub, and will never be; Heathrow already is, and can get even better.
If we choose Gatwick, we are choosing to be a 2nd class trading nation with 2nd class transport links.
I don't think we can afford that choice, not after Brexit.0 -
It is not just the noise and pollution and the risk of flying thousands of planes over London , it is the cost, risk, legality and do-ability. It won't happen even if it is approved. We need an new runway. Gatwick is the only pragmatic option.FF43 said:The objection to Heathrow
The objection to Heathrow expansion is the noise. But runways don't make noise; aeroplanes do. There's an obvious deal to be done here. Agree one or two additional runways in exchange for reducing the noise impact. They can do this by limiting the types of aircraft that land, adjusting flight paths and glideslopes and so on. Then go back to the neighbours. What do you prefer? More runways or more noise?SeanT said:
tim, late of this parish, had a good angle on Heathrow. Ask the (complaining) locals, if they hate LHR so much, whether they want to CLOSE Heathrow, with all of its jobs, and move it to a new airport on Canvey Island.surbiton said:
I don't think Sadiq is actually anti-Heathrow. It was not a position to hang on to in the campaign. I am not sure about Boris either since I am not sure he actually believes in anything.SeanT said:
Most of them will say No Way, of course not. Yet they don't want it to expand either??
They want it to stay exactly as it is, no bigger, no smaller, for the rest of time.
Sorry, you don't get to make that choice, not in the real world. You can't choose eternal stasis.
Build it.
"The Airports Commission preference for Heathrow expansion over alternatives rests heavily on claims of substantially higher economic benefits at Heathrow. This differential rests on a report produced by PwC, as equivalent numbers produced under the normally accepted government methodology (WebTAG) show minimal variance between the Heathrow and Gatwick schemes. The use of numbers generated by the PwC report has been criticised by the Airports Commission’s own economic advisers, Professor Peter Mackie and Brian Pearce. "
http://www.heathrowappg.com/heathrow-expansion-a-risk-assessment-2/
It is very easy to sit at your keyboard on a Saturday night with a glass of wine and and bang the table and say "damn it - just build it".0 -
The whole financial industry is not going to decamp to the Eurozone (assuming of course 5* don't win the next Italian elections and the Euro collapses anyway). Canary Wharf and the regeneration of Docklands was one of the great British success stories of the last centurywilliamglenn said:
Expand City airport. Demolish Canary Wharf - we won't need it after the financial industry decamps to the Eurozone.SeanT said:
lol. It's on entirely the wrong side of London for 80% of the country. It's nowhere near the M25, nor any other major motorways - unlike Heathrow which is on the M4, M5, M25, etc. Heathrow has peerless connections to central London and Paddington and, crucially, is on Crossrail (the Elizabeth Line). Gatwick is a slow crawl to south London, and won't be on Crossrail.Paul_Bedfordshire said:Gatwick has got space for another runway without demolishing an entire town, it has got a main railway line running right through the airport and a motorway serving it that isnt jammed solid the whole time. Its a no brainer. Gatwick.
Gatwick is a not a world class hub, and will never be; Heathrow already is, and can get even better.
If we choose Gatwick, we are choosing to be a 2nd class trading nation with 2nd class transport links.
I don't think we can afford that choice, not after Brexit.0 -
He was asked just recently and said that, whilst he regretted the promise (or, in other words, he can see what is coming) he would nevertheless keep it. The more interesting question is whether he will re-stand (which was his original intention). After his unsavoury mayoral campaign he is now tarnished goods in London politics.surbiton said:
I don't think Zac will resign. He promised this in 2010.AndyJS said:
There could be a by-election in Richmond Park if she does.SeanT said:Most interesting part of this poll is the "expand Heathrow" question. It's popular AND the right thing to do for the nation.
It's also popular in parts of the country - the north, Scotland, Wales - where Tories are weak and need support. Meanwhile, the Tories of Kingston, Henley, Berks and Bucks aren't switching to Corbyn any time soon.
Build the damn thing. Give it the green light, Theresa. Do it.0 -
But Gatwick can serve Northern France with good connections !! Oh, we have left the EU !SeanT said:
lol. It's on entirely the wrong side of London for 80% of the country. It's nowhere near the M25, nor any other major motorways - unlike Heathrow which is on the M4, M5, M25, etc. Heathrow has peerless connections to central London and Paddington and, crucially, is on Crossrail (the Elizabeth Line). Gatwick is a slow crawl to south London, and won't be on Crossrail.Paul_Bedfordshire said:Gatwick has got space for another runway without demolishing an entire town, it has got a main railway line running right through the airport and a motorway serving it that isnt jammed solid the whole time. Its a no brainer. Gatwick.
Gatwick is a not a world class hub, and will never be; Heathrow already is, and can get even better.
If we choose Gatwick, we are choosing to be a 2nd class trading nation with 2nd class transport links.
I don't think we can afford that choice, not after Brexit.
I went to Belfast two weeks ago. Not only is there a City Airport, there is also an "International" airport. Excuse me, how many people actually live here !
And, I thought Dublin had become the Irish hub.0 -
Would Zac be missed if he resigned?0
-
Boris island is idiotic. Its only purpose was to give Boris something to argue for that didn't impact on west London. There is nothing there except birds. Birds and planes don't mix, at all. There is no workforce, and no housing for the huge workforce a new airport would need. And not too many passengers coming from south east of London. All the supporting industry and infrastructure (catering, engineering, postage, shipping, car hire, hotels, you name it) is in west London. And it would cost a fortune. As well as put half of west Londoners out of a job.Omnium said:
Boris island (or something similar) is the right long-term choice. Evacuated underground train lines are the right choice in the long term too. (And possibly if really good make the former redundant). Kent needs a boost, the area near Heathrow could be gentrified, and HS2's budget could be used for proper trains.SeanT said:
lol. It's on entirely the wrong side of London for 80% of the country. It's nowhere near the M25, nor any other major motorways - unlike Heathrow which is on the M4, M5, M25, etc. Heathrow has peerless connections to central London and Paddington and, crucially, is on Crossrail (the Elizabeth Line). Gatwick is a slow crawl to south London, and won't be on Crossrail.Paul_Bedfordshire said:Gatwick has got space for another runway without demolishing an entire town, it has got a main railway line running right through the airport and a motorway serving it that isnt jammed solid the whole time. Its a no brainer. Gatwick.
Gatwick is a not a world class hub, and will never be; Heathrow already is, and can get even better.
If we choose Gatwick, we are choosing to be a 2nd class trading nation with 2nd class transport links.
I don't think we can afford that choice, not after Brexit.0 -
Lib Dems could win with their second referendum pledge. Zac will be told not to resign.old_labour said:Would Zac be missed if he resigned?
0 -
They were meeting today to consider a leadership challenge and the large feedback they had received from their members. Assume the support for strikes has greatly reduced and they are now hoping the Courts will intervene next weekMikeL said:Junior Doctors strikes all cancelled.
0 -
Yes true. 52% of voters as a whole, 76% of leave voters, prioritise controlling immigration over 28% of all voters and 8% of leave voters who prioritise access to the single market. If they were voting simply for more decisions to be taken in the UK they would be happy to leave the EU but stay in the single market. Of course having more decisions taken in the UK is connected to regaining control over UK borders anywayBarnesian said:
Not true. Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK". One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving "offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders."HYUFD said:
May knows that the public want migration controlled above all and though she does want a free trade deal too that has to come first. In any case, even if some banks do move operations to Frankfurt, Paris and Dublin, London will still remain comfortably the largest financial centre in Europe.JonathanD said:"The bosses of several of America’s biggest banks and corporations have warned Theresa May they will pre-emptively shift operations into Europe unless she can provide early clarity on the future shape of EU-UK relations.
According to an account of the meeting obtained by The Telegraph, Mrs May declined to provide information about how the British government would approach the Brexit negotiations, other than pursuing a deal that was “in the national interest”.
There followed “frank exchanges” in which bosses warned they could not wait to discover the final outcome of the two-year Article 50 negotiations before making major investment decisions that could see thousands of UK jobs shift to Europe....
Downing Street’s uncompromising line on curbing EU migration has caused friction between Mr Hammond and Mrs May’s political team which is dominated by former Home Office officials who “understand the politics of migration rather better than the economy”, the source said....
Financial services generate more than £60bn pounds a year in tax, a quarter of which comes from foreign-owned banks, revenues that the Treasury fears will now be put in jeopardy."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/24/brexit-warning-us-bank-bosses-from-goldman-sachs-morgan-stanley/
That is 33% of 52% i,e about 17% said the main reason was immigration.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-06-30/poll-shows-brexit-vote-was-about-british-sovereignty-not-anti-immigration
https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/7727057220732805120 -
Zac isn't going to resign. If he did, he would win the by-election.surbiton said:
Lib Dems could win with their second referendum pledge. Zac will be told not to resign.old_labour said:Would Zac be missed if he resigned?
0 -
Seems to me from this that the banks really, really don't want to set up European offices and are begging May to tell them they don't need to.JonathanD said:"The bosses of several of America’s biggest banks and corporations have warned Theresa May they will pre-emptively shift operations into Europe unless she can provide early clarity on the future shape of EU-UK relations.
According to an account of the meeting obtained by The Telegraph, Mrs May declined to provide information about how the British government would approach the Brexit negotiations, other than pursuing a deal that was “in the national interest”.
There followed “frank exchanges” in which bosses warned they could not wait to discover the final outcome of the two-year Article 50 negotiations before making major investment decisions that could see thousands of UK jobs shift to Europe....
Downing Street’s uncompromising line on curbing EU migration has caused friction between Mr Hammond and Mrs May’s political team which is dominated by former Home Office officials who “understand the politics of migration rather better than the economy”, the source said....
Financial services generate more than £60bn pounds a year in tax, a quarter of which comes from foreign-owned banks, revenues that the Treasury fears will now be put in jeopardy."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/24/brexit-warning-us-bank-bosses-from-goldman-sachs-morgan-stanley/
Of course May cannot tell them at this point whether they'll have to. Even is she was prepared to bend over backwards to protect passporting, it is not within her power to guarantee it. If I were on the executive team of one of those banks, I wouldn't be waiting for May to tell me what the negotiating position would be. I'd just open an office in the EU, but hold off on incurring larger costs of a move of certain operations until the situation clarified. Not sure what the problem is with that.
Unless getting information was never the banks' real reason for the meeting, but rather they were there to lobby May to guarantee passporting.0 -
30 mins to London Victoria, also direct trains to Bedford, Luton and the south coast.SeanT said:
Gatwick is a slow crawl to south London, and won't be on Crossrail.0 -
Maybe but that is one flight and you were flying in it, not underneath itAndyJS said:
The new Airbus double-decker is amazingly quiet, as I found out on a flight from Dubai to Sydney a few weeks ago.HYUFD said:
I presume you do not live in an airline flightpath! We certainly need to expand one airport but a third runway at Heathrow should be itAndyJS said:I'm in favour of the full monty: third runway at Heathrow, Boris Island, Gatwick expansion, etc. The more airports and runways the better.
0 -
Back from trip to London. Just been reading through a LauraK piece from the BBC news site earlier today, and this caught my eye:
*****
It's possible this will embolden Jeremy Corbyn to further change his party and its policies.
When I spoke to him just before his first leadership victory last year I asked him what lessons he had learned from his election to Parliament in 1983, when Labour went down to a disastrous defeat under Michael Foot.
Jeremy Corbyn draws some clear lessons from Michael Foot's defeat in 1983.
He told me: "It taught me the formation of the SDP was catastrophic to the election chances of Labour.
'The Conservative so-called triumph in 1983 owed more to the division of the opposition vote than a move to the left."
He certainly didn't share Gerald Kaufman's analysis that the anti-nuclear weapons and anti-EU manifesto was "the longest suicide note in history".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37449631
*****
This strongly suggests, unsurprisingly, that Corbyn attributes the crushing of Labour in the same election in which he entered Parliament to the SDP, taking no account of the fact that the 1983 manifesto platform wasn't particularly popular with the electorate.
The Far Left has learned nothing, and forgotten nothing. Expect defeat in the next election to be blamed entirely on boat rocking by the moderates, before the leadership passes seamlessly on to a Far Left successor (if JC doesn't fancy simply staying in post for another few years, of course.)
Labour is over as a centre-left party. It's not coming back.0 -
Excellent! Font de Gaumme is awesome, in the true sense of the word. I was struck with awe.SeanT said:
Thankee kindly! They're booking me into Font de Gaume, as it happens. I get to see the lot, apparently.MTimT said:
SeanSeanT said:
She'll cope. It would go Lib Dem (maybe). Who cares.AndyJS said:
There could be a by-election in Richmond Park if she does.SeanT said:Most interesting part of this poll is the "expand Heathrow" question. It's popular AND the right thing to do for the nation.
It's also popular in parts of the country - the north, Scotland, Wales - where Tories are weak and need support. Meanwhile, the Tories of Kingston, Henley, Berks and Bucks aren't switching to Corbyn any time soon.
Build the damn thing. Give it the green light, Theresa. Do it.
Ref Lascaux and cave paintings, I got the spelling wrong on the cave where you can see the originals - Fond de Gaumme:
http://www.sites-les-eyzies.fr/en/
Les Eyzies de Tayac is not a bad little town either to base yourself in for a few days. We did a day trip from there to see Simon de Montfort's castle (the one who persecuted the Cathars, not the Magna Carta one). IIRC, Mr Morris Dancer would love it - a stonking big trebuchet is set up in the grounds.0 -
As David Herdson keeps pointing out - it is a battle over the structures and the succession, for now.surbiton said:
I really don't think even they believe they could win in 2020. For them the important thing is to take over and now they are in situ. They believe the revolution has started.MarqueeMark said:
Their own rulebook, maybe. But they seem utterly clueless about the rules the voters will follow....
Think of Corbyn as the John the Baptist figure for them. He has preached in the wilderness and ultimately prepared the ground. Then it is a matter of holding on to it long enough for the Messiah to come...
FWIW if there is one - some left-wing version of Tony Blair, a British and more socialist-leaning version of Trudeau Jr or one of the Kennedies - then it'd probably be next but one. Imagine whoever is anointed next, say Lisa Nandy, seems more likely in the gameplan to be a "steadying the ship" candidate until The One comes along.0 -
I hate to sound picky but being "on a flight" on the relevant plane is surely the worst possible position in the world from which to make this judgment.AndyJS said:
The new Airbus double-decker is amazingly quiet, as I found out on a flight from Dubai to Sydney a few weeks ago.HYUFD said:
I presume you do not live in an airline flightpath! We certainly need to expand one airport but a third runway at Heathrow should be itAndyJS said:I'm in favour of the full monty: third runway at Heathrow, Boris Island, Gatwick expansion, etc. The more airports and runways the better.
0 -
He is fourth favorite behind Johnson, Hammond and Osborne as next Tory Leader (on 14). Hammond has said he doesn't want the job. I was talking with Zac yesterday. He is firing on all cylinders.IanB2 said:
He was asked just recently and said that, whilst he regretted the promise (or, in other words, he can see what is coming) he would nevertheless keep it. The more interesting question is whether he will re-stand (which was his original intention). After his unsavoury mayoral campaign he is now tarnished goods in London politics.surbiton said:
I don't think Zac will resign. He promised this in 2010.AndyJS said:
There could be a by-election in Richmond Park if she does.SeanT said:Most interesting part of this poll is the "expand Heathrow" question. It's popular AND the right thing to do for the nation.
It's also popular in parts of the country - the north, Scotland, Wales - where Tories are weak and need support. Meanwhile, the Tories of Kingston, Henley, Berks and Bucks aren't switching to Corbyn any time soon.
Build the damn thing. Give it the green light, Theresa. Do it.0 -
That's funny. :-)AndyJS said:
The new Airbus double-decker is amazingly quiet, as I found out on a flight from Dubai to Sydney a few weeks ago.HYUFD said:
I presume you do not live in an airline flightpath! We certainly need to expand one airport but a third runway at Heathrow should be itAndyJS said:I'm in favour of the full monty: third runway at Heathrow, Boris Island, Gatwick expansion, etc. The more airports and runways the better.
0 -
https://www.wired.com/2008/12/a380-is-so-quie/Barnesian said:
That's funny. :-)AndyJS said:
The new Airbus double-decker is amazingly quiet, as I found out on a flight from Dubai to Sydney a few weeks ago.HYUFD said:
I presume you do not live in an airline flightpath! We certainly need to expand one airport but a third runway at Heathrow should be itAndyJS said:I'm in favour of the full monty: third runway at Heathrow, Boris Island, Gatwick expansion, etc. The more airports and runways the better.
0 -
Nandy didn't look too happy with Jezza on This Week.MyBurningEars said:
As David Herdson keeps pointing out - it is a battle over the structures and the succession, for now.surbiton said:
I really don't think even they believe they could win in 2020. For them the important thing is to take over and now they are in situ. They believe the revolution has started.MarqueeMark said:
Their own rulebook, maybe. But they seem utterly clueless about the rules the voters will follow....
Think of Corbyn as the John the Baptist figure for them. He has preached in the wilderness and ultimately prepared the ground. Then it is a matter of holding on to it long enough for the Messiah to come...
FWIW if there is one - some left-wing version of Tony Blair, a British and more socialist-leaning version of Trudeau Jr or one of the Kennedies - then it'd probably be next but one. Imagine whoever is anointed next, say Lisa Nandy, seems more likely in the gameplan to be a "steadying the ship" candidate until The One comes along.0 -
Have you been to Canary Wharf recently? It's difficult to move sometimes due to the high volumes of people working there.williamglenn said:
Expand City airport. Demolish Canary Wharf - we won't need it after the financial industry decamps to the Eurozone.SeanT said:
lol. It's on entirely the wrong side of London for 80% of the country. It's nowhere near the M25, nor any other major motorways - unlike Heathrow which is on the M4, M5, M25, etc. Heathrow has peerless connections to central London and Paddington and, crucially, is on Crossrail (the Elizabeth Line). Gatwick is a slow crawl to south London, and won't be on Crossrail.Paul_Bedfordshire said:Gatwick has got space for another runway without demolishing an entire town, it has got a main railway line running right through the airport and a motorway serving it that isnt jammed solid the whole time. Its a no brainer. Gatwick.
Gatwick is a not a world class hub, and will never be; Heathrow already is, and can get even better.
If we choose Gatwick, we are choosing to be a 2nd class trading nation with 2nd class transport links.
I don't think we can afford that choice, not after Brexit.0 -
The 'One' seems to be Clive Lewis, Lisa Nandy of course backed Owen Smith and so is really a Tory! A more likely 'steadying the ship' candidate is John McDonnell. However Trudeau Jr and the Kennedies, Obama and Blair were all reasonably centrist, not full on socialist like Corbyn and his acolytes. For Corbynism to win we would need something like the 25% unemployment rate Greece had when Syriza won in January 2015 rather than the 5% unemployment rate we have nowMyBurningEars said:
As David Herdson keeps pointing out - it is a battle over the structures and the succession, for now.surbiton said:
I really don't think even they believe they could win in 2020. For them the important thing is to take over and now they are in situ. They believe the revolution has started.MarqueeMark said:
Their own rulebook, maybe. But they seem utterly clueless about the rules the voters will follow....
Think of Corbyn as the John the Baptist figure for them. He has preached in the wilderness and ultimately prepared the ground. Then it is a matter of holding on to it long enough for the Messiah to come...
FWIW if there is one - some left-wing version of Tony Blair, a British and more socialist-leaning version of Trudeau Jr or one of the Kennedies - then it'd probably be next but one. Imagine whoever is anointed next, say Lisa Nandy, seems more likely in the gameplan to be a "steadying the ship" candidate until The One comes along.0 -
If they were working, they would all be closeted away at their desks tapping at their keyboards. The crowds are people shopping, not working!AndyJS said:
Have you been to Canary Wharf recently? It's difficult to move due to the high volumes of people working there.williamglenn said:
Expand City airport. Demolish Canary Wharf - we won't need it after the financial industry decamps to the Eurozone.SeanT said:
lol. It's on entirely the wrong side of London for 80% of the country. It's nowhere near the M25, nor any other major motorways - unlike Heathrow which is on the M4, M5, M25, etc. Heathrow has peerless connections to central London and Paddington and, crucially, is on Crossrail (the Elizabeth Line). Gatwick is a slow crawl to south London, and won't be on Crossrail.Paul_Bedfordshire said:Gatwick has got space for another runway without demolishing an entire town, it has got a main railway line running right through the airport and a motorway serving it that isnt jammed solid the whole time. Its a no brainer. Gatwick.
Gatwick is a not a world class hub, and will never be; Heathrow already is, and can get even better.
If we choose Gatwick, we are choosing to be a 2nd class trading nation with 2nd class transport links.
I don't think we can afford that choice, not after Brexit.0 -
The Airports Commission preference for Heathrow expansion over alternatives rests heavily on claims of substantially higher economic benefits at Heathrow. This differential rests on a report produced by PwC. It is in the technical notes. I have read it.SeanT said:
Well, I'm not just sitting at my table sipping wine, I'm going by the multi-million quid Davies Commission which was very expensively employed by the prime minister to exhaustively analyse all the various options pertaining to this exact question - Gatwick, Stansted, Heathrow, Boris Island? - and which decided, with great fanfare, and after much elaborate deliberation, that we should build a new runway at Heathrow.Barnesian said:
It is n2/FF43 said:The objection to Heathrow
?SeanT said:
tim, late of this parish, had a good angle on Heathrow. Ask the (complaining) locals, if they hate LHR so much, whether they want to CLOSE Heathrow, with all of its jobs, and move it to a new airport on Canvey Island.surbiton said:
I don't think Sadiq is actually anti-Heathrow. It was not a position to hang on to in the campaign. I am not sure about Boris either since I am not sure he actually believes in anything.SeanT said:
Most of them will say No Way, of course not. Yet they don't want it to expand either??
They want it to stay exactly as it is, no bigger, no smaller, for the rest of time.
Sorry, you don't get to make that choice, not in the real world. You can't choose eternal stasis.
Build it.
It is very easy to sit at your keyboard on a Saturday night with a glass of wine and and bang the table and say "damn it - just build it".
So I think, in this instance, we are allowed to say, FFS, just do it already
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3671565/We-build-new-runway-world-aren-t-turning-inwards-warns-Airports-Commission-boss.html
Equivalent numbers produced under the normally accepted government methodology (WebTAG) show minimal variance between the Heathrow and Gatwick schemes.
The use of numbers generated by the PwC report has been criticised by the Airports Commission’s own economic advisers, Professor Peter Mackie and Brian Pearce.
"Experts" can be wrong or have an agenda,
http://www.prweek.com/article/1332084/department-transport-hires-heathrow-pr-director-simon-baugh0 -
Shoppers need people to serve them in the, er, shopsIanB2 said:
If they were working, they would all be closeted away at their desks tapping at their keyboards. The crowds are people shopping, not working!AndyJS said:
Have you been to Canary Wharf recently? It's difficult to move due to the high volumes of people working there.williamglenn said:
Expand City airport. Demolish Canary Wharf - we won't need it after the financial industry decamps to the Eurozone.SeanT said:
lol. It's on entirely the wrong side of London for 80% of the country. It's nowhere near the M25, nor any other major motorways - unlike Heathrow which is on the M4, M5, M25, etc. Heathrow has peerless connections to central London and Paddington and, crucially, is on Crossrail (the Elizabeth Line). Gatwick is a slow crawl to south London, and won't be on Crossrail.Paul_Bedfordshire said:Gatwick has got space for another runway without demolishing an entire town, it has got a main railway line running right through the airport and a motorway serving it that isnt jammed solid the whole time. Its a no brainer. Gatwick.
Gatwick is a not a world class hub, and will never be; Heathrow already is, and can get even better.
If we choose Gatwick, we are choosing to be a 2nd class trading nation with 2nd class transport links.
I don't think we can afford that choice, not after Brexit.
0 -
Admittedly, whose idea it was 70 years ago, it was barmy. To build your major airport west of the most populous city where the prevailing winds are from the west was a mad decision.SeanT said:
It we're going totally blue sky, then Luton is the right choice. By the M25, and M1. 15 minutes from St Pancras and the Eurostar (with a high speed train). Best side of London for 90% of the UK. Surrounded by poor people who want the jobs and won't complainOmnium said:
Boris island (or something similar) is the right long-term choice. Evacuated underground train lines are the right choice in the long term too. (And possibly if really good make the former redundant). Kent needs a boost, the area near Heathrow could be gentrified, and HS2's budget could be used for proper trains.SeanT said:
lol. It's on entirely the wrong side of London for 80% of the country. It's nowhere near the M25, nor any other major motorways - unlike Heathrow which is on the M4, M5, M25, etc. Heathrow has peerless connections to central London and Paddington and, crucially, is on Crossrail (the Elizabeth Line). Gatwick is a slow crawl to south London, and won't be on Crossrail.Paul_Bedfordshire said:Gatwick has got space for another runway without demolishing an entire town, it has got a main railway line running right through the airport and a motorway serving it that isnt jammed solid the whole time. Its a no brainer. Gatwick.
Gatwick is a not a world class hub, and will never be; Heathrow already is, and can get even better.
If we choose Gatwick, we are choosing to be a 2nd class trading nation with 2nd class transport links.
I don't think we can afford that choice, not after Brexit.
But to scale up Luton you have to level a couple of hills apparently. So it won't be Luton. It will be LHR if Theresa has any cullions.
Gatwick, Luton, Stansted in that sense are better locations.
Gatwick and Stansted are sadly in the wrong place. Luton could do it but a place that would be ideal would be somewhere between the M4 and M40, east of Oxford.0 -
How easy would it be for the financial services houses to set up a shell company in Dublin, from which they can trade into the EU if it's not allowed directly from the UK? Underwritten by the British government if necessary, with most of the actual work continuing to be done in London.MTimT said:
Seems to me from this that the banks really, really don't want to set up European offices and are begging May to tell them they don't need to.JonathanD said:"The bosses of several of America’s biggest banks and corporations have warned Theresa May they will pre-emptively shift operations into Europe unless she can provide early clarity on the future shape of EU-UK relations.
According to an account of the meeting obtained by The Telegraph, Mrs May declined to provide information about how the British government would approach the Brexit negotiations, other than pursuing a deal that was “in the national interest”.
There followed “frank exchanges” in which bosses warned they could not wait to discover the final outcome of the two-year Article 50 negotiations before making major investment decisions that could see thousands of UK jobs shift to Europe....
Downing Street’s uncompromising line on curbing EU migration has caused friction between Mr Hammond and Mrs May’s political team which is dominated by former Home Office officials who “understand the politics of migration rather better than the economy”, the source said....
Financial services generate more than £60bn pounds a year in tax, a quarter of which comes from foreign-owned banks, revenues that the Treasury fears will now be put in jeopardy."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/24/brexit-warning-us-bank-bosses-from-goldman-sachs-morgan-stanley/
Of course May cannot tell them at this point whether they'll have to. Even is she was prepared to bend over backwards to protect passporting, it is not within her power to guarantee it. If I were on the executive team of one of those banks, I wouldn't be waiting for May to tell me what the negotiating position would be. I'd just open an office in the EU, but hold off on incurring larger costs of a move of certain operations until the situation clarified. Not sure what the problem is with that.
Unless getting information was never the banks' real reason for the meeting, but rather they were there to lobby May to guarantee passporting.0 -
It was the lunch hour IIRC.IanB2 said:
If they were working, they would all be closeted away at their desks tapping at their keyboards. The crowds are people shopping, not working!AndyJS said:
Have you been to Canary Wharf recently? It's difficult to move due to the high volumes of people working there.williamglenn said:
Expand City airport. Demolish Canary Wharf - we won't need it after the financial industry decamps to the Eurozone.SeanT said:
lol. It's on entirely the wrong side of London for 80% of the country. It's nowhere near the M25, nor any other major motorways - unlike Heathrow which is on the M4, M5, M25, etc. Heathrow has peerless connections to central London and Paddington and, crucially, is on Crossrail (the Elizabeth Line). Gatwick is a slow crawl to south London, and won't be on Crossrail.Paul_Bedfordshire said:Gatwick has got space for another runway without demolishing an entire town, it has got a main railway line running right through the airport and a motorway serving it that isnt jammed solid the whole time. Its a no brainer. Gatwick.
Gatwick is a not a world class hub, and will never be; Heathrow already is, and can get even better.
If we choose Gatwick, we are choosing to be a 2nd class trading nation with 2nd class transport links.
I don't think we can afford that choice, not after Brexit.0 -
Its all of about 7 miles along the M23 from the M25SeanT said:
UuPaul_Bedfordshire said:Gatwick has got space for another runway without demolishing an entire town, it has got a main railway line running right through the airport and a motorway serving it that isnt jammed solid the whole time. Its a no brainer. Gatwick.
lol. It's on entirely the wrong side of London for 80% of the country. It's nowhere near the M25, nor any other major motorways - unlike Heathrow which is on the M4, M5, M25, etc. Heathrow has peerless connections to central London and Paddington and, crucially, is on Crossrail (the Elizabeth Line). Gatwick is a slow crawl to south London, and won't be on Crossrail.
Gatwick is a not a world class hub, and will never be; Heathrow already is, and can get even better.
If we choose Gatwick, we are choosing to be a 2nd class trading nation with 2nd class transport links.
I don't think we can afford that choice, not after Brexit.
Gatwick is on Thameslink as well as the entire Brighton Line service. About 20 trains an hour each way with through trains to Hastings, Brighton, Portsmouth, Southampton, Reading, Croydon, Clapham, London Victoria, London Bridge, London Blackfriars, London City, London Farringdon, London Kings Cross and St Pancras, Luton, Stevenage, Bedford, Peterborough and Cambridge
Heathrow will just get 4 an hour to Abbey Wood on Crossrail. 4 an hour to Londons worst located terminus Paddington or an interminable grind on the picc line. Big Deal.
Im 50 miles north of London and I would chose Gatwick every time. Heathrow is an overcrowded inaccessible dump.0 -
I'm disturbed that it was taken as a serious suggestion.AndyJS said:
Have you been to Canary Wharf recently? It's difficult to move sometimes due to the high volumes of people working there.williamglenn said:
Expand City airport. Demolish Canary Wharf - we won't need it after the financial industry decamps to the Eurozone.SeanT said:
lol. It's on entirely the wrong side of London for 80% of the country. It's nowhere near the M25, nor any other major motorways - unlike Heathrow which is on the M4, M5, M25, etc. Heathrow has peerless connections to central London and Paddington and, crucially, is on Crossrail (the Elizabeth Line). Gatwick is a slow crawl to south London, and won't be on Crossrail.Paul_Bedfordshire said:Gatwick has got space for another runway without demolishing an entire town, it has got a main railway line running right through the airport and a motorway serving it that isnt jammed solid the whole time. Its a no brainer. Gatwick.
Gatwick is a not a world class hub, and will never be; Heathrow already is, and can get even better.
If we choose Gatwick, we are choosing to be a 2nd class trading nation with 2nd class transport links.
I don't think we can afford that choice, not after Brexit. 0 -
Let's build both then.Barnesian said:
The Airports Commission preference for Heathrow expansion over alternatives rests heavily on claims of substantially higher economic benefits at Heathrow. This differential rests on a report produced by PwC. It is in the technical notes. I have read it.SeanT said:
Well, I'm not just sitting at my table sipping wine, I'm going by the multi-million quid Davies Commission which was very expensively employed by the prime minister to exhaustively analyse all the various options pertaining to this exact question - Gatwick, Stansted, Heathrow, Boris Island? - and which decided, with great fanfare, and after much elaborate deliberation, that we should build a new runway at Heathrow.Barnesian said:
It is n2/FF43 said:The objection to Heathrow
?SeanT said:
tim, late of this parish, had a good angle on Heathrow. Ask the (complaining) locals, if they hate LHR so much, whether they want to CLOSE Heathrow, with all of its jobs, and move it to a new airport on Canvey Island.surbiton said:
.SeanT said:
Most of them will say No Way, of course not. Yet they don't want it to expand either??
They want it to stay exactly as it is, no bigger, no smaller, for the rest of time.
Sorry, you don't get to make that choice, not in the real world. You can't choose eternal stasis.
Build it.
It is very easy to sit at your keyboard on a Saturday night with a glass of wine and and bang the table and say "damn it - just build it".
So I think, in this instance, we are allowed to say, FFS, just do it already
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3671565/We-build-new-runway-world-aren-t-turning-inwards-warns-Airports-Commission-boss.html
Equivalent numbers produced under the normally accepted government methodology (WebTAG) show minimal variance between the Heathrow and Gatwick schemes.
The use of numbers generated by the PwC report has been criticised by the Airports Commission’s own economic advisers, Professor Peter Mackie and Brian Pearce.
"Experts" can be wrong or have an agenda,
http://www.prweek.com/article/1332084/department-transport-hires-heathrow-pr-director-simon-baugh0 -
It takes an hour less to get from Cannock to Gatwick than to Heathrow by train although it isn't much cheaper. By road there is very little in it.SeanT said:
lol. It's on entirely the wrong side of London for 80% of the country. It's nowhere near the M25, nor any other major motorways - unlike Heathrow which is on the M4, M5, M25, etc. Heathrow has peerless connections to central London and Paddington and, crucially, is on Crossrail (the Elizabeth Line). Gatwick is a slow crawl to south London, and won't be on Crossrail.Paul_Bedfordshire said:Gatwick has got space for another runway without demolishing an entire town, it has got a main railway line running right through the airport and a motorway serving it that isnt jammed solid the whole time. Its a no brainer. Gatwick.
Gatwick is a not a world class hub, and will never be; Heathrow already is, and can get even better.
If we choose Gatwick, we are choosing to be a 2nd class trading nation with 2nd class transport links.
I don't think we can afford that choice, not after Brexit.
Luton and Stansted are both more convenient although no London airport is as convenient as Manchester or Nottingham, or even Birmingham.0 -
A typical British quick-fix, like the decision to build the M5 with only two lanes, and then having to spend millions 20 years later to widen it to three lanes because all the bridges had to be demolished.surbiton said:
Admittedly, whose idea it was 70 years ago, it was barmy. To build your major airport west of the most populous city where the prevailing winds are from the west was a mad decision.SeanT said:
It we're going totally blue sky, then Luton is the right choice. By the M25, and M1. 15 minutes from St Pancras and the Eurostar (with a high speed train). Best side of London for 90% of the UK. Surrounded by poor people who want the jobs and won't complainOmnium said:
Boris island (or something similar) is the right long-term choice. Evacuated underground train lines are the right choice in the long term too. (And possibly if really good make the former redundant). Kent needs a boost, the area near Heathrow could be gentrified, and HS2's budget could be used for proper trains.SeanT said:
lol. It's on entirely the wrong side of London for 80% of the country. It's nowhere near the M25, nor any other major motorways - unlike Heathrow which is on the M4, M5, M25, etc. Heathrow has peerless connections to central London and Paddington and, crucially, is on Crossrail (the Elizabeth Line). Gatwick is a slow crawl to south London, and won't be on Crossrail.Paul_Bedfordshire said:Gatwick has got space for another runway without demolishing an entire town, it has got a main railway line running right through the airport and a motorway serving it that isnt jammed solid the whole time. Its a no brainer. Gatwick.
Gatwick is a not a world class hub, and will never be; Heathrow already is, and can get even better.
If we choose Gatwick, we are choosing to be a 2nd class trading nation with 2nd class transport links.
I don't think we can afford that choice, not after Brexit.
But to scale up Luton you have to level a couple of hills apparently. So it won't be Luton. It will be LHR if Theresa has any cullions.
Gatwick, Luton, Stansted in that sense are better locations.
Gatwick and Stansted are sadly in the wrong place. Luton could do it but a place that would be ideal would be somewhere between the M4 and M40, east of Oxford.
"Worcestershire County Council, the Police and particularly the County Surveyor of Worcestershire made repeated representations that a dual 3-lane standard motorway was appropriate, however the Ministry of Transport insisted that a dual 2-lane motorway would be built at a cost of around £8 million. When the decision became necessary to widen the Worcestershire section of M5, it cost £123 million."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M5_motorway#Construction0 -
Notwithstanding the fact that being inside the plane gives a different noise profile to being outside the plane, every generation of new plane designs is considerably more efficient and quieter than the previous generation.Barnesian said:
That's funny. :-)AndyJS said:
The new Airbus double-decker is amazingly quiet, as I found out on a flight from Dubai to Sydney a few weeks ago.HYUFD said:
I presume you do not live in an airline flightpath! We certainly need to expand one airport but a third runway at Heathrow should be itAndyJS said:I'm in favour of the full monty: third runway at Heathrow, Boris Island, Gatwick expansion, etc. The more airports and runways the better.
Restricting the number of flights using older equipment would be a reasonable trade off for the decades-overdue expansion of Heathrow.0 -
Nevertheless docklands is very different from the windswept wasteland it was when the first flats went up (which during the 90s they couldn't sell, but which with hindsight would have been an amazing investment). There's a whole shopping centre under the main towers, lots of restaurants, cinema at west India quay. I know plenty of people who regularly go there for leisure (reduced a bit when Westfield opened, to be fair) who don't work anywhere near Canary Wharf.AndyJS said:
It was the lunch hour IIRC.IanB2 said:
If they were working, they would all be closeted away at their desks tapping at their keyboards. The crowds are people shopping, not working!AndyJS said:
Have you been to Canary Wharf recently? It's difficult to move due to the high volumes of people working there.williamglenn said:
Expand City airport. Demolish Canary Wharf - we won't need it after the financial industry decamps to the Eurozone.SeanT said:
lol. It's on entirely the wrong side of London for 80% of the country. It's nowhere near the M25, nor any other major motorways - unlike Heathrow which is on the M4, M5, M25, etc. Heathrow has peerless connections to central London and Paddington and, crucially, is on Crossrail (the Elizabeth Line). Gatwick is a slow crawl to south London, and won't be on Crossrail.Paul_Bedfordshire said:Gatwick has got space for another runway without demolishing an entire town, it has got a main railway line running right through the airport and a motorway serving it that isnt jammed solid the whole time. Its a no brainer. Gatwick.
Gatwick is a not a world class hub, and will never be; Heathrow already is, and can get even better.
If we choose Gatwick, we are choosing to be a 2nd class trading nation with 2nd class transport links.
I don't think we can afford that choice, not after Brexit.0 -
I agree. Both at Gatwick. There's room. And it's much cheaper. It would be a world class hub.surbiton said:
Let's build both then.Barnesian said:
The Airports Commission preference for Heathrow expansion over alternatives rests heavily on claims of substantially higher economic benefits at Heathrow. This differential rests on a report produced by PwC. It is in the technical notes. I have read it.SeanT said:Barnesian said:
It is n2/FF43 said:The objection to Heathrow
?SeanT said:
tim, late of this parish, had a good angle on Heathrow. Ask the (complaining) locals, if they hate LHR so much, whether they want to CLOSE Heathrow, with all of its jobs, and move it to a new airport on Canvey Island.surbiton said:
.SeanT said:
Most of them will say No Way, of course not. Yet they don't want it to expand either??
They want it to stay exactly as it is, no bigger, no smaller, for the rest of time.
Sorry, you don't get to make that choice, not in the real world. You can't choose eternal stasis.
Build it.
It is very easy to sit at your keyboard on a Saturday night with a glass of wine and and bang the table and say "damn it - just build it".
So I think, in this instance, we are allowed to say, FFS, just do it already
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3671565/We-build-new-runway-world-aren-t-turning-inwards-warns-Airports-Commission-boss.html
Equivalent numbers produced under the normally accepted government methodology (WebTAG) show minimal variance between the Heathrow and Gatwick schemes.
The use of numbers generated by the PwC report has been criticised by the Airports Commission’s own economic advisers, Professor Peter Mackie and Brian Pearce.
"Experts" can be wrong or have an agenda,
http://www.prweek.com/article/1332084/department-transport-hires-heathrow-pr-director-simon-baugh0 -
Outside of the south east, the UK is very happy with its existing global hub airport - Amsterdam Schiphol. And Manchester isn't doing too badly for global flights these days.0
-
"First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price? Only, this one can be kept secret."surbiton said:
Let's build both then.Barnesian said:
The Airports Commission preference for Heathrow expansion over alternatives rests heavily on claims of substantially higher economic benefits at Heathrow. This differential rests on a report produced by PwC. It is in the technical notes. I have read it.SeanT said:
Well, I'm not just sitting at my table sipping wine, I'm going by the multi-million quid Davies Commissioexact question - Gatwick, Stansted, Heathrow, Boris Island? - and which decided, with great fanfare, and after much elaborate deliberation, that we should build a new runway at Heathrow.Barnesian said:
It is n2/FF43 said:The objection to Heathrow
?SeanT said:
tim, late of this parish, had a good angle on Heathrow. Ask the (complaining) locals, if they hate LHR so much, whether they want to CLOSE Heathrow, with all of its jobs, and move it to a new airport on Canvey Island.surbiton said:
.SeanT said:
Most of them will say No Way, of course not. Yet they don't want it to expand either??
They want it to stay exactly as it is, no bigger, no smaller, for the rest of time.
Sorry, you don't get to make that choice, not in the real world. You can't choose eternal stasis.
Build it.
It is very easy to sit at your keyboard on a Saturday night with a glass of wine and and bang the table and say "damn it - just build it".
So I think, in this instance, we are allowed to say, FFS, just do it already
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3671565/We-build-new-runway-world-aren-t-turning-inwards-warns-Airports-Commission-boss.html
Equivalent numbers produced under the normally accepted government methodology (WebTAG) show minimal variance between the Heathrow and Gatwick schemes.
The use of numbers generated by the PwC report has been criticised by the Airports Commission’s own economic advisers, Professor Peter Mackie and Brian Pearce.
"Experts" can be wrong or have an agenda,
http://www.prweek.com/article/1332084/department-transport-hires-heathrow-pr-director-simon-baugh
- John Hurt in "Contact".0 -
I can be at Gatwick in 35 minutes - Heathrow takes 45 mins even though it is closer. I really cannot get European or sometimes even British flights from Gatwick, maybe because of current traffic.Barnesian said:
I agree. Both at Gatwick. There's room. And it's much cheaper. It would be a world class hub.surbiton said:
Let's build both then.Barnesian said:
The Airports Commission preference for Heathrow expansion over alternatives rests heavily on claims of substantially higher economic benefits at Heathrow. This differential rests on a report produced by PwC. It is in the technical notes. I have read it.SeanT said:Barnesian said:
It is n2/FF43 said:The objection to Heathrow
?SeanT said:
tim, late of this parish, had a good angle on Heathrow. Ask the (complaining) locals, if they hate LHR so much, whether they want to CLOSE Heathrow, with all of its jobs, and move it to a new airport on Canvey Island.surbiton said:
.SeanT said:
Most of them will say No Way, of course not. Yet they don't want it to expand either??
They want it to stay exactly as it is, no bigger, no smaller, for the rest of time.
Sorry, you don't get to make that choice, not in the real world. You can't choose eternal stasis.
Build it.
It is very easy to sit at your keyboard on a Saturday night with a glass of wine and and bang the table and say "damn it - just build it".
So I think, in this instance, we are allowed to say, FFS, just do it already
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3671565/We-build-new-runway-world-aren-t-turning-inwards-warns-Airports-Commission-boss.html
Equivalent numbers produced under the normally accepted government methodology (WebTAG) show minimal variance between the Heathrow and Gatwick schemes.
The use of numbers generated by the PwC report has been criticised by the Airports Commission’s own economic advisers, Professor Peter Mackie and Brian Pearce.
"Experts" can be wrong or have an agenda,
http://www.prweek.com/article/1332084/department-transport-hires-heathrow-pr-director-simon-baugh0 -
http://www.gatwickobviously.com/?gclid=CKGlqbzjqM8CFdU_GwodKukEyABarnesian said:
I agree. Both at Gatwick. There's room. And it's much cheaper. It would be a world class hub.surbiton said:
Let's build both then.Barnesian said:
The Airports Commission preference for Heathrow expansion over alternatives rests heavily on claims of substantially higher economic benefits at Heathrow. This differential rests on a report produced by PwC. It is in the technical notes. I have read it.SeanT said:Barnesian said:
It is n2/FF43 said:The objection to Heathrow
?SeanT said:
tim, late of this parish, had a good angle on Heathrow. Ask the (complaining) locals, if they hate LHR so much, whether they want to CLOSE Heathrow, with all of its jobs, and move it to a new airport on Canvey Island.surbiton said:
.SeanT said:
Most of them will say No Way, of course not. Yet they don't want it to expand either??
They want it to stay exactly as it is, no bigger, no smaller, for the rest of time.
Sorry, you don't get to make that choice, not in the real world. You can't choose eternal stasis.
Build it.
It is very easy to sit at your keyboard on a Saturday night with a glass of wine and and bang the table and say "damn it - just build it".
So I think, in this instance, we are allowed to say, FFS, just do it already
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3671565/We-build-new-runway-world-aren-t-turning-inwards-warns-Airports-Commission-boss.html
Equivalent numbers produced under the normally accepted government methodology (WebTAG) show minimal variance between the Heathrow and Gatwick schemes.
The use of numbers generated by the PwC report has been criticised by the Airports Commission’s own economic advisers, Professor Peter Mackie and Brian Pearce.
"Experts" can be wrong or have an agenda,
http://www.prweek.com/article/1332084/department-transport-hires-heathrow-pr-director-simon-baugh0 -
Both my parents were brought up in Hounslow, and my mother remembers as a child that it was almost semi-rural. After the war the two candidates for London airport were former airfields at Heathrow and Fairlop (in east London). I don't know why Heathrow was chosen, but obviously it has transformed both the area and population dramatically since.surbiton said:
Admittedly, whose idea it was 70 years ago, it was barmy. To build your major airport west of the most populous city where the prevailing winds are from the west was a mad decision.SeanT said:
It we're going totally blue sky, then Luton is the right choice. By the M25, and M1. 15 minutes from St Pancras and the Eurostar (with a high speed train). Best side of London for 90% of the UK. Surrounded by poor people who want the jobs and won't complainOmnium said:
Boris island (or something similar) is the right long-term choice. Evacuated underground train lines are the right choice in the long term too. (And possibly if really good make the former redundant). Kent needs a boost, the area near Heathrow could be gentrified, and HS2's budget could be used for proper trains.SeanT said:
lol. It's on entirely the wrong side of London for 80% of the country. It's nowhere near the M25, nor any other major motorways - unlike Heathrow which is on the M4, M5, M25, etc. Heathrow has peerless connections to central London and Paddington and, crucially, is on Crossrail (the Elizabeth Line). Gatwick is a slow crawl to south London, and won't be on Crossrail.Paul_Bedfordshire said:Gatwick has got space for another runway without demolishing an entire town, it has got a main railway line running right through the airport and a motorway serving it that isnt jammed solid the whole time. Its a no brainer. Gatwick.
Gatwick is a not a world class hub, and will never be; Heathrow already is, and can get even better.
If we choose Gatwick, we are choosing to be a 2nd class trading nation with 2nd class transport links.
I don't think we can afford that choice, not after Brexit.
But to scale up Luton you have to level a couple of hills apparently. So it won't be Luton. It will be LHR if Theresa has any cullions.
Gatwick, Luton, Stansted in that sense are better locations.
Gatwick and Stansted are sadly in the wrong place. Luton could do it but a place that would be ideal would be somewhere between the M4 and M40, east of Oxford.
Edit/ since taking off (full power) is a lot noisier than landing (throttle almost closed), having the airport west of London makes sense from a noise perspective.0 -
Fairlop in Ilford NorthIanB2 said:
Both my parents were brought up in Hounslow, and my mother remembers as a child that it was almost semi-rural. After the war the two candidates for London airport were former airfields at Heathrow and Fairlop (in east London). I don't know why Heathrow was chosen, but obviously it has transformed both the area and population dramatically since.surbiton said:
Admittedly, whose idea it was 70 years ago, it was barmy. To build your major airport west of the most populous city where the prevailing winds are from the west was a mad decision.SeanT said:
It we're going totally blue sky, then Luton is the right choice. By the M25, and M1. 15 minutes from St Pancras and the Eurostar (with a high speed train). Best side of London for 90% of the UK. Surrounded by poor people who want the jobs and won't complainOmnium said:
Boris island (or something similar) is the right long-term choice. Evacuated underground train lines are the right choice in the long term too. (And possibly if really good make the former redundant). Kent needs a boost, the area near Heathrow could be gentrified, and HS2's budget could be used for proper trains.SeanT said:
lol. It's on entirely the wrong side of London for 80% of the country. It's nowhere near the M25, nor any other major motorways - unlike Heathrow which is on the M4, M5, M25, etc. Heathrow has peerless connections to central London and Paddington and, crucially, is on Crossrail (the Elizabeth Line). Gatwick is a slow crawl to south London, and won't be on Crossrail.Paul_Bedfordshire said:Gatwick has got space for another runway without demolishing an entire town, it has got a main railway line running right through the airport and a motorway serving it that isnt jammed solid the whole time. Its a no brainer. Gatwick.
Gatwick is a not a world class hub, and will never be; Heathrow already is, and can get even better.
If we choose Gatwick, we are choosing to be a 2nd class trading nation with 2nd class transport links.
I don't think we can afford that choice, not after Brexit.
But to scale up Luton you have to level a couple of hills apparently. So it won't be Luton. It will be LHR if Theresa has any cullions.
Gatwick, Luton, Stansted in that sense are better locations.
Gatwick and Stansted are sadly in the wrong place. Luton could do it but a place that would be ideal would be somewhere between the M4 and M40, east of Oxford. 0 -
RAF Benson it is then.....surbiton said:
Admittedly, whose idea it was 70 years ago, it was barmy. To build your major airport west of the most populous city where the prevailing winds are from the west was a mad decision.SeanT said:
It we're going totally blue sky, then Luton is the right choice. By the M25, and M1. 15 minutes from St Pancras and the Eurostar (with a high speed train). Best side of London for 90% of the UK. Surrounded by poor people who want the jobs and won't complainOmnium said:
Boris island (or something similar) is the right long-term choice. Evacuated underground train lines are the right choice in the long term too. (And possibly if really good make the former redundant). Kent needs a boost, the area near Heathrow could be gentrified, and HS2's budget could be used for proper trains.SeanT said:
lol. It's on entirely the wrong side of London for 80% of the country. It's nowhere near the M25, nor any other major motorways - unlike Heathrow which is on the M4, M5, M25, etc. Heathrow has peerless connections to central London and Paddington and, crucially, is on Crossrail (the Elizabeth Line). Gatwick is a slow crawl to south London, and won't be on Crossrail.Paul_Bedfordshire said:Gatwick has got space for another runway without demolishing an entire town, it has got a main railway line running right through the airport and a motorway serving it that isnt jammed solid the whole time. Its a no brainer. Gatwick.
Gatwick is a not a world class hub, and will never be; Heathrow already is, and can get even better.
If we choose Gatwick, we are choosing to be a 2nd class trading nation with 2nd class transport links.
I don't think we can afford that choice, not after Brexit.
But to scale up Luton you have to level a couple of hills apparently. So it won't be Luton. It will be LHR if Theresa has any cullions.
Gatwick, Luton, Stansted in that sense are better locations.
Gatwick and Stansted are sadly in the wrong place. Luton could do it but a place that would be ideal would be somewhere between the M4 and M40, east of Oxford.0 -
They dont have any case. The land was appropriated by the ministry of war in 1944, supposedly as an airbase for long range bombing of japan, but in reality to avoid having to go through a public enquiry etc and get the airport beyond the point of no return before the war ended. Basically the sort of behaviour we thought we were fighting against.surbiton said:
The only people who have a strong case against Heathrow are those who bought their houses before 1946.SeanT said:
tim, late of this parish, had a good angle on Heathrow. Ask the (complaining) locals, if they hate LHR so much, whether they want to CLOSE Heathrow, with all of its jobs, and move it to a new airport on Canvey Island.surbiton said:
I don't think Sadiq is actually anti-Heathrow. It was not a position to hang on to in the campaign. I am not sure about Boris either since I am not sure he actually believes in anything.SeanT said:
I suspect we agree on a few others, too. I can be surprisingly lefty, at times.surbiton said:
The only policy where SeanT and I agree.SeanT said:Most interesting part of this poll is the "expand Heathrow" question. It's popular AND the right thing to do for the nation.
It's also popular in parts of the country - the north, Scotland, Wales - where Tories are weak and need support. Meanwhile, the Tories of Kingston, Henley, Berks and Bucks aren't switching to Corbyn any time soon.
Build the damn thing. Give it the green light, Theresa. Do it.
Anyway we agree on Heathrow. T May has enormous capital right now. she should spend it on LHR3. Because it will earn interest over time.
Fuck Sadiq and Boris and LUDICROUS Gatwick.
Most of them will say No Way, of course not. Yet they don't want it to expand either??
They want it to stay exactly as it is, no bigger, no smaller, for the rest of time.
Sorry, you don't get to make that choice, not in the real world. You can't choose eternal stasis.
Build it.
After that any buyer knew exactly where Heathrow was situated and planes were much noisier than now.0
![[Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/d2ea526b1b06ed109333f390c7ae956b_100.png)
