I would dispute that he tried to do anything other than manage the media to create a 'saving the British sausage' moment to kick off the campaign.
What people voted against was his lame and disingenuous brand of politics. Remain would have been much better off if they'd locked Cameron in a room and had Jean-Claude Juncker and Romano Prodi touring the country instead.
Hmm I agree Dave was in essay crisis mode and wanted to bounce us into a state where we said "Oh ok, no fuss, let's stay as we are" a la British sausage so to speak.
However, are you entirely serious by suggesting Jean Claude Juncker touring the country would've been a better bet for Remain? Seriously? I mean really seriously? The man would've needed Divine intervention to have been heard. I can just see the cheering crowds of adulation as he pulled into an (ex) Cornish fishing village, or the flower strewn entrance into Boston Lincolnshire.
Imagine the rapturous crowds whooping and cheering as he told them that deserters would face consequences!
Just heard Anna Soubry's speech at the Brexit debate. Two things really got under my skin, she said, "she hoped the 48% would become the majority" (I presume she means a second referendum?). And she accused older voters of ruining the lives of younger voters.
I hope hell freezes over before this awful woman ever gets back on the front bench. Hopefully, she will defect!
48% of people want to stay in the EU. You can't ignore that number.
Why not ?
The europhiles ignored the wishes of a majority of brits for decades.
If the result had been the other way round you'd be happily ignoring the 48% of Leavers and saying a win is a win we march on.
Where's the evidence that there would have been a majority for leaving the EU at any point between 1975 and 2015? There wouldn't.
But there was one in 2016...
You may think that it's worth sacrificing the entire country's history on the altar of David Cameron's incompetence but I don't. He messed up; the referendum was not intended to be lost, and the responsible thing would be to play for time while addressing some of the underlying concerns of the people who voted for Leave, before having a rerun in better circumstances.
Dave tried (lamely) to address the concerns. The EU told him to bugger off, there's no problem. We voted out accordingly. The EU was not remotely interested in reform. Not even a little bit.
I would dispute that he tried to do anything other than manage the media to create a 'saving the British sausage' moment to kick off the campaign.
What people voted against was his lame and disingenuous brand of politics. Remain would have been much better off if they'd locked Cameron in a room and had Jean-Claude Juncker and Romano Prodi touring the country instead.
The last few days seems like we are re running the referendum and today's debate, dominated by remainers, demonstrates just how far the MP's are losing touch with voters and the result to leave.
There is a very real danger that those MP's trying to subvert the result by subterfuge are going to turn the Country very angry with them and the one person, fighting for the will of the people, Theresa May will become much admired and popular while Parliament trashes it's reputation even more than it already is.
I would be very surprised if the next polls do not demonstrate anger against those who lost and those leading today's demand for the government to reveal it's hand and to have a vote on the serving of A50
In terms of those who hope to use parliament to stymie the referendum, I think there are only a handful.
A much larger group simply want proper parliamentary scrutiny of our most momentous policy push since the early 70s. Which is right and proper.
The problem is I do not think the voters give a toss about the single market over sovereignty and immigration control, for right or wrong
This tallies with the rumours I've been hearing within the industry.
A sensible decision, albeit a bit hostile to those that live nearby. They knew the risks though.
Boris-island-airport still ticks all the boxes though.
One of the interesting things from the NCE report linked downthread is that passenger numbers have increased massively over what was predicted by the Airports Commission.
Great so HAL and GAL must have massively increased profits and therefore can fund the full costs of their expansions by themselves and not cost the taxpayer a penny.
You assume then that there are no flow on benefits from the country having thriving airports?
Economics of the madhouse.
I look forward to receiving my dividend. The economics of the mad house are the massive costs to be imposed on the taxpayer and thousands of non-related businesses so that one company can eventually benefit.
This tallies with the rumours I've been hearing within the industry.
A sensible decision, albeit a bit hostile to those that live nearby. They knew the risks though.
Boris-island-airport still ticks all the boxes though.
One of the interesting things from the NCE report linked downthread is that passenger numbers have increased massively over what was predicted by the Airports Commission.
Great so HAL and GAL must have massively increased profits and therefore can fund the full costs of their expansions by themselves and not cost the taxpayer a penny.
You assume then that there are no flow on benefits from the country having thriving airports?
Economics of the madhouse.
Even if there are flow on benefits why can't we just take those flow on benefits? If not charge the airports for the privilege of expanding while taking those flow on benefits.
Having thriving 3G networks provided flow on benefits to the country but not only did the government not fund the 3G network roll out they actually raised £22.5bn for the Exchequer via the auction of the 3G spectrum.
Just heard Anna Soubry's speech at the Brexit debate. Two things really got under my skin, she said, "she hoped the 48% would become the majority" (I presume she means a second referendum?). And she accused older voters of ruining the lives of younger voters.
I hope hell freezes over before this awful woman ever gets back on the front bench. Hopefully, she will defect!
48% of people want to stay in the EU. You can't ignore that number.
Why not ?
The europhiles ignored the wishes of a majority of brits for decades.
If the result had been the other way round you'd be happily ignoring the 48% of Leavers and saying a win is a win we march on.
Where's the evidence that there would have been a majority for leaving the EU at any point between 1975 and 2015? There wouldn't.
But there was one in 2016...
You may think that it's worth sacrificing the entire country's history on the altar of David Cameron's incompetence but I don't. He messed up; the referendum was not intended to be lost, and the responsible thing would be to play for time while addressing some of the underlying concerns of the people who voted for Leave, before having a rerun in better circumstances.
Our major bargaining chip, although not yet even breathed let alone openly disscussed is the extent to which the UK is prepared to continue to contribute its hitherto net contribution of circa 10 billion per per annum in exchange for agreeing tariff free trading and tightish immigration controls. After all, who else is likely to divi up instead of us - Germany, The Netherlands? Hardly, they they're already paying far too much. France, Italy? You're having a laugh!
Yes. Cut it down to £4billion and re-label it as overseas aid so it would still be a £10 billion saving pa.
This tallies with the rumours I've been hearing within the industry.
A sensible decision, albeit a bit hostile to those that live nearby. They knew the risks though.
Boris-island-airport still ticks all the boxes though.
One of the interesting things from the NCE report linked downthread is that passenger numbers have increased massively over what was predicted by the Airports Commission.
There's a bloody great big long runway that can take a landing or takeoff from anything at all in Cardiff. However, there's no rail link and there's virtually tumbleweed rolling down it through lack of use. How about Govt guarantees pension funds a rate of return to build a rail link ( it needs about 5 miles only to link to the network) and link to London in about 2hrs 30 on the new electrified line ( they are due to finish electrifying the Severn Tunnel for example in about two weeks time)?
Because it would end up taking 30 years once all the Nimbys jumped in.
Just heard Anna Soubry's speech at the Brexit debate. Two things really got under my skin, she said, "she hoped the 48% would become the majority" (I presume she means a second referendum?). And she accused older voters of ruining the lives of younger voters.
I hope hell freezes over before this awful woman ever gets back on the front bench. Hopefully, she will defect!
One of the most irritating recent theories is that somehow, the votes of 18-24 year olds count for more than everyone elses'.
If the young were huge eurosceptics, and the elderly Europhiles like Heseltine and Clarke, we'd hear much less of that argument.
The 18-24 bracket were in favour of Euro membership c.2000-2003, and very clearly for New Labour. Now, they would be 34-40 years old, clearly against and majority Conservative.
This tallies with the rumours I've been hearing within the industry.
A sensible decision, albeit a bit hostile to those that live nearby. They knew the risks though.
Boris-island-airport still ticks all the boxes though.
One of the interesting things from the NCE report linked downthread is that passenger numbers have increased massively over what was predicted by the Airports Commission.
There's a bloody great big long runway that can take a landing or takeoff from anything at all in Cardiff. However, there's no rail link and there's virtually tumbleweed rolling down it through lack of use. How about Govt guarantees pension funds a rate of return to build a rail link ( it needs about 5 miles only to link to the network) and link to London in about 2hrs 30 on the new electrified line ( they are due to finish electrifying the Severn Tunnel for example in about two weeks time)?
I was on the train into London from Purley on Friday, and I overheard a conversation from a young lady in the seat next to me (to be fair, it was hard not to hear her).
She had to go away on a job, and was asking someone at the other end of the line for a lift to Stansted. He refused. "But it's a London airport. How can it be so far outside London!"
The absence of Flora from supermarket shelves will command rather more attention than any number of reports of currency market movements. I expect the Express will be majoring on Unilever's murky Dutch connections.
Given your wish to see Leave voters suffer, you'll be pleased to know that Flora and Marmite constitute a major part of my diet!
The last few days seems like we are re running the referendum and today's debate, dominated by remainers, demonstrates just how far the MP's are losing touch with voters and the result to leave.
There is a very real danger that those MP's trying to subvert the result by subterfuge are going to turn the Country very angry with them and the one person, fighting for the will of the people, Theresa May will become much admired and popular while Parliament trashes it's reputation even more than it already is.
I would be very surprised if the next polls do not demonstrate anger against those who lost and those leading today's demand for the government to reveal it's hand and to have a vote on the serving of A50
In terms of those who hope to use parliament to stymie the referendum, I think there are only a handful.
A much larger group simply want proper parliamentary scrutiny of our most momentous policy push since the early 70s. Which is right and proper.
The problem is I do not think the voters give a toss about the single market over sovereignty and immigration control, for right or wrong
This is all supposition though. What little polling there has been seems to suggest that people do not want to control (reduce?) immigration if it means personal financial loss.
Really Brexit is Brexit, and it's up to May to interpret that. We, the public, will go along with something that seems sane and steady.
What we are seeing today is, I think, a welcome reaction against the very loose and possibly damaging talk from Rudd, Davis, Fox et al from the last few weeks.
This tallies with the rumours I've been hearing within the industry.
A sensible decision, albeit a bit hostile to those that live nearby. They knew the risks though.
Boris-island-airport still ticks all the boxes though.
One of the interesting things from the NCE report linked downthread is that passenger numbers have increased massively over what was predicted by the Airports Commission.
There's a bloody great big long runway that can take a landing or takeoff from anything at all in Cardiff. However, there's no rail link and there's virtually tumbleweed rolling down it through lack of use. How about Govt guarantees pension funds a rate of return to build a rail link ( it needs about 5 miles only to link to the network) and link to London in about 2hrs 30 on the new electrified line ( they are due to finish electrifying the Severn Tunnel for example in about two weeks time)?
Have they built houses all over the Filton runway? Built for the Brabazon & extremely long.
When I was a child they used to fly 3 Vulcan bombers at a time off from Filton. The first one off at our end of the runway was very low & loud. The roar of those engines are a lasting memory - I could still recognise it before seeing it when we had a Vulcan at the air show last year. Last ever flight, I think it was.
The idea that airport expansion is now possible because we're leaving the EU is too laughable to rebut. It looks like we're finally doing it because we're leaving the EU, for the stimulus and the narrative, But that's like saying you need to be a foot off to justify buying a new car.
Just heard Anna Soubry's speech at the Brexit debate. Two things really got under my skin, she said, "she hoped the 48% would become the majority" (I presume she means a second referendum?). And she accused older voters of ruining the lives of younger voters.
I hope hell freezes over before this awful woman ever gets back on the front bench. Hopefully, she will defect!
48% of people want to stay in the EU. You can't ignore that number.
Why not ?
The europhiles ignored the wishes of a majority of brits for decades.
If the result had been the other way round you'd be happily ignoring the 48% of Leavers and saying a win is a win we march on.
Where's the evidence that there would have been a majority for leaving the EU at any point between 1975 and 2015? There wouldn't.
But there was one in 2016...
You may think that it's worth sacrificing the entire country's history on the altar of David Cameron's incompetence but I don't. He messed up; the referendum was not intended to be lost, and the responsible thing would be to play for time while addressing some of the underlying concerns of the people who voted for Leave, before having a rerun in better circumstances.
Our major bargaining chip, although not yet even breathed let alone openly disscussed is the extent to which the UK is prepared to continue to contribute its hitherto net contribution of circa 10 billion per per annum in exchange for agreeing tariff free trading and tightish immigration controls. After all, who else is likely to divi up instead of us - Germany, The Netherlands? Hardly, they they're already paying far too much. France, Italy? You're having a laugh!
Yes. Cut it down to £4billion and re-label it as overseas aid so it would still be a £10 billion saving pa.
This tallies with the rumours I've been hearing within the industry.
A sensible decision, albeit a bit hostile to those that live nearby. They knew the risks though.
Boris-island-airport still ticks all the boxes though.
One of the interesting things from the NCE report linked downthread is that passenger numbers have increased massively over what was predicted by the Airports Commission.
There's a bloody great big long runway that can take a landing or takeoff from anything at all in Cardiff. However, there's no rail link and there's virtually tumbleweed rolling down it through lack of use. How about Govt guarantees pension funds a rate of return to build a rail link ( it needs about 5 miles only to link to the network) and link to London in about 2hrs 30 on the new electrified line ( they are due to finish electrifying the Severn Tunnel for example in about two weeks time)?
I was on the train into London from Purley on Friday, and I overheard a conversation from a young lady in the seat next to me (to be fair, it was hard not to hear her).
She had to go away on a job, and was asking someone at the other end of the line for a lift to Stansted. He refused. "But it's a London airport. How can it be so far outside London!"
Like London southend airport....
The worst was at one point ryanairs flights to Copenhagen...that landed in Malmo!
Poorly prepared joke by Therasa May about Thornberry asking for a second referendum. Strictly speaking, it was a lie ! The Speaker should have asked her to withdraw the remark.
T May is very poor with jokes.
Not just TM (Jeez, I didn't realise that TM has the same initials as MT)...all politicians should avoid jokes. Their delivery is toe curlingly ghastly.
It's a skill to tell a joke. I'm terrible too,. hopelessly awful, beyond horrific....
You can hardly imagine the young TM happily rolling off the jokes as a sixth former. Note to our PM...if you didn't do it then, when you were young and vibrant......please do not do it now.....
The joke had the desired effect of people laughing at Thornberry and she taking exemption to it.
I have to say, that figure of fun, Emily Thornberry was exceptionally good on Radio 5 this morning. One of the most polished political performances that I have heard for some time.
She was indeed very good, as Keir Starmer was this afternoon. Labour got their act together, at least for a bit.
If Labour is canny, it would put round pegs in round holes. Centrists like Starmer on Brexit, Kendall on Education, Umuna on business etc, policy on these unites the party and doesnot put the speaker in an awkward position.
The last few days seems like we are re running the referendum and today's debate, dominated by remainers, demonstrates just how far the MP's are losing touch with voters and the result to leave.
There is a very real danger that those MP's trying to subvert the result by subterfuge are going to turn the Country very angry with them and the one person, fighting for the will of the people, Theresa May will become much admired and popular while Parliament trashes it's reputation even more than it already is.
I would be very surprised if the next polls do not demonstrate anger against those who lost and those leading today's demand for the government to reveal it's hand and to have a vote on the serving of A50
I was, at times, a bit rude to you before the referendum.
I can't say sorry enough: your respect for the result and tenacity in defending it, despite personally not voting for it, shows a level of personal integrity I only wish we all had.
Thanks for your kind comments - I do believe in democracy and am concerned that a group of bad losers are trying to subvert it but confident that the voters will have none of it. TM's reputation will only grow as she has the single minded determination to carry it out and make a success of it
The last few days seems like we are re running the referendum and today's debate, dominated by remainers, demonstrates just how far the MP's are losing touch with voters and the result to leave.
There is a very real danger that those MP's trying to subvert the result by subterfuge are going to turn the Country very angry with them and the one person, fighting for the will of the people, Theresa May will become much admired and popular while Parliament trashes it's reputation even more than it already is.
I would be very surprised if the next polls do not demonstrate anger against those who lost and those leading today's demand for the government to reveal it's hand and to have a vote on the serving of A50
In terms of those who hope to use parliament to stymie the referendum, I think there are only a handful.
A much larger group simply want proper parliamentary scrutiny of our most momentous policy push since the early 70s. Which is right and proper.
The problem is I do not think the voters give a toss about the single market over sovereignty and immigration control, for right or wrong
They might not...but they well start giving a toss about something when we get poorer, our services starved of even more money, endless austerity, reduced work benefits, education short of funds, an ageing population with more needs......
The problem is they will not blame Brexit...they will blame immigrants, the EU for giving us a bad deal, they will blame the traitors, the remainers who talked down the country.....
They will not blame THEMSELVES obviously for creating this needless nihilism....
Things aren't going wrong enough quickly enough for the Commons to derail Brexit at the moment. Given Leave win 70% of constituencies the Commons would currently vote for Brexit comfortably. We need a material change of circumstances from June 23rd and some significant buyers remorse in the polls before MP's would delay Brexit. The Brexit devaluation is too ambiguous economically and has todate been too orderly to count. It's certainly a useful start but nowhere near enough. In addition the utterly useless Corbyn has shot his mouth off backing both immeadiate A50 invocation and an early General Election.So even if the current Commons got to the point where it would delay Brexit on current polling May would walk a GE. I do believe Brexit is unravelling but only at the edges and only because Brexit is a crap thing to do. It's not going sufficiently wrong sufficiently quickly yet to derail it. That may of course change but at the moment I feel Brexit is on course.
ROTFL.
Its hilarious here tonight. The remainers last stand.
The PB remainers remind me of the rich who sat in the Savoy Hotel on Dec 26th in the comfy chairs consuming canapes while fuming that their wealth was being decimated and the country had gone mad and not put Halifax in charge while half a mile away ordinary people were rallying together and desperately (and ultimately successfully) trying to put out the firestorm that Goering had started before it reached St Pauls.
The absence of Flora from supermarket shelves will command rather more attention than any number of reports of currency market movements. I expect the Express will be majoring on Unilever's murky Dutch connections.
This tallies with the rumours I've been hearing within the industry.
A sensible decision, albeit a bit hostile to those that live nearby. They knew the risks though.
Boris-island-airport still ticks all the boxes though.
One of the interesting things from the NCE report linked downthread is that passenger numbers have increased massively over what was predicted by the Airports Commission.
There's a bloody great big long runway that can take a landing or takeoff from anything at all in Cardiff. However, there's no rail link and there's virtually tumbleweed rolling down it through lack of use. How about Govt guarantees pension funds a rate of return to build a rail link ( it needs about 5 miles only to link to the network) and link to London in about 2hrs 30 on the new electrified line ( they are due to finish electrifying the Severn Tunnel for example in about two weeks time)?
Because it would end up taking 30 years once all the Nimbys jumped in.
Also, 2hrs 30 mins is around 1 hr 15 mins too long for London and worse still for the Midlands and all points North.
Poorly prepared joke by Therasa May about Thornberry asking for a second referendum. Strictly speaking, it was a lie ! The Speaker should have asked her to withdraw the remark.
T May is very poor with jokes.
Not just TM (Jeez, I didn't realise that TM has the same initials as MT)...all politicians should avoid jokes. Their delivery is toe curlingly ghastly.
It's a skill to tell a joke. I'm terrible too,. hopelessly awful, beyond horrific....
You can hardly imagine the young TM happily rolling off the jokes as a sixth former. Note to our PM...if you didn't do it then, when you were young and vibrant......please do not do it now.....
The joke had the desired effect of people laughing at Thornberry and she taking exemption to it.
I have to say, that figure of fun, Emily Thornberry was exceptionally good on Radio 5 this morning. One of the most polished political performances that I have heard for some time.
This tallies with the rumours I've been hearing within the industry.
A sensible decision, albeit a bit hostile to those that live nearby. They knew the risks though.
Boris-island-airport still ticks all the boxes though.
One of the interesting things from the NCE report linked downthread is that passenger numbers have increased massively over what was predicted by the Airports Commission.
Great so HAL and GAL must have massively increased profits and therefore can fund the full costs of their expansions by themselves and not cost the taxpayer a penny.
You assume then that there are no flow on benefits from the country having thriving airports?
Economics of the madhouse.
Even if there are flow on benefits why can't we just take those flow on benefits? If not charge the airports for the privilege of expanding while taking those flow on benefits.
Having thriving 3G networks provided flow on benefits to the country but not only did the government not fund the 3G network roll out they actually raised £22.5bn for the Exchequer via the auction of the 3G spectrum.
There seems to be consensus now that we extracted a little too much from that auction, damaging the bidders.
In my view, since these airports are essentially monopolistic, it'd be better of they were in government hands - allowing the taxpayer to profit.
On the other hand, Heathrow is a damn site better since Ferrovial bought it and they've invested a ton.
Things aren't going wrong enough quickly enough for the Commons to derail Brexit at the moment. Given Leave win 70% of constituencies the Commons would currently vote for Brexit comfortably. We need a material change of circumstances from June 23rd and some significant buyers remorse in the polls before MP's would delay Brexit. The Brexit devaluation is too ambiguous economically and has todate been too orderly to count. It's certainly a useful start but nowhere near enough. In addition the utterly useless Corbyn has shot his mouth off backing both immeadiate A50 invocation and an early General Election.So even if the current Commons got to the point where it would delay Brexit on current polling May would walk a GE. I do believe Brexit is unravelling but only at the edges and only because Brexit is a crap thing to do. It's not going sufficiently wrong sufficiently quickly yet to derail it. That may of course change but at the moment I feel Brexit is on course.
If the express will of the people is thwarted by clever dick lawyers, MP's and their Lordships , what's to stop them saying "ok, it's pitchfork time, because democracy doesn't work"?. Scrutiny I can accept, within the limits that you can't make a negotiation public and stick it live on BBC Parliament, and there is a healthy debate to be had about hard/soft/over easy/whatever Brexit, but this desire by Remainers to find any way, any way at all, to circumvent 17.4 million people is deeply worrying for our society.
This tallies with the rumours I've been hearing within the industry.
A sensible decision, albeit a bit hostile to those that live nearby. They knew the risks though.
Boris-island-airport still ticks all the boxes though.
It's fantastic we're breaking out of the EU straitjacket to become a global hub of the future.
IMO Heathrow won't be a viable hub in twenty years, even with three runways. Other countries will rapidly overtake us.
Unless hub-and-spoke is beaten by point-to-point ...
Well, of course it won't, Mr. J, and why should we care? People flying through transferring at Heathrow are not bringing squillions of quid to the UK, though some of them might buy a cup of coffee. In cash terms transit passengers are a dead loss.
Just heard Anna Soubry's speech at the Brexit debate. Two things really got under my skin, she said, "she hoped the 48% would become the majority" (I presume she means a second referendum?). And she accused older voters of ruining the lives of younger voters.
I hope hell freezes over before this awful woman ever gets back on the front bench. Hopefully, she will defect!
48% of people want to stay in the EU. You can't ignore that number.
Why not ?
The europhiles ignored the wishes of a majority of brits for decades.
If the result had been the other way round you'd be happily ignoring the 48% of Leavers and saying a win is a win we march on.
Where's the evidence that there would have been a majority for leaving the EU at any point between 1975 and 2015? There wouldn't.
But there was one in 2016...
You may think that it's worth sacrificing the entire country's history on the altar of David Cameron's incompetence but I don't. He messed up; the referendum was not intended to be lost, and the responsible thing would be to play for time while addressing some of the underlying concerns of the people who voted for Leave, before having a rerun in better circumstances.
Our major bargaining chip, although not yet even breathed let alone openly disscussed is the extent to which the UK is prepared to continue to contribute its hitherto net contribution of circa 10 billion per per annum in exchange for agreeing tariff free trading and tightish immigration controls. After all, who else is likely to divi up instead of us - Germany, The Netherlands? Hardly, they they're already paying far too much. France, Italy? You're having a laugh!
Yes. Cut it down to £4billion and re-label it as overseas aid so it would still be a £10 billion saving pa.
Just heard Anna Soubry's speech at the Brexit debate. Two things really got under my skin, she said, "she hoped the 48% would become the majority" (I presume she means a second referendum?). And she accused older voters of ruining the lives of younger voters.
I hope hell freezes over before this awful woman ever gets back on the front bench. Hopefully, she will defect!
48% of people want to stay in the EU. You can't ignore that number.
Why not ?
The europhiles ignored the wishes of a majority of brits for decades.
If the result had been the other way round you'd be happily ignoring the 48% of Leavers and saying a win is a win we march on.
Where's the evidence that there would have been a majority for leaving the EU at any point between 1975 and 2015? There wouldn't.
But there was one in 2016...
You may think that it's worth sacrificing the entire country's history on the altar of David Cameron's incompetence but I don't. He messed up; the referendum was not intended to be lost, and the responsible thing would be to play for time while addressing some of the underlying concerns of the people who voted for Leave, before having a rerun in better circumstances.
Our major bargaining chip, although not yet even breathed let alone openly disscussed is the extent to which the UK is prepared to continue to contribute its hitherto net contribution of circa 10 billion per per annum in exchange for agreeing tariff free trading and tightish immigration controls. After all, who else is likely to divi up instead of us - Germany, The Netherlands? Hardly, they they're already paying far too much. France, Italy? You're having a laugh!
Yes. Cut it down to £4billion and re-label it as overseas aid so it would still be a £10 billion saving pa.
Just heard Anna Soubry's speech at the Brexit debate. Two things really got under my skin, she said, "she hoped the 48% would become the majority" (I presume she means a second referendum?). And she accused older voters of ruining the lives of younger voters.
I hope hell freezes over before this awful woman ever gets back on the front bench. Hopefully, she will defect!
One of the most irritating recent theories is that somehow, the votes of 18-24 year olds count for more than everyone elses'.
If the young were huge eurosceptics, and the elderly Europhiles like Heseltine and Clarke, we'd hear much less of that argument.
The 18-24 bracket were in favour of Euro membership c.2000-2003, and very clearly for New Labour. Now, they would be 34-40 years old, clearly against and majority Conservative.
Just as the Conservatives came third among 18-24 year olds in February 1974, but that same age cohort is now two thirds Conservative or UKIP; and that age cohort voted overwhelmingly in favour of EEC membership in 1975, and overwhelmingly for Leave in June.
People becoming eurosceptic/right wing as they get older is one of the constants of British politics.
So it doesn't matter if Trump loses Utah to a 3rd party candidate.
It obviously would matter if Clinton won Utah.
I expect that Hillary will win Utah if the polls nationally start to show it close.
We could see panicked mormons rushing to the streets to vote Hillary if Virginia is too close too call in early returns on election night.
Disagree. If Hillary is at 26% she has only gained 2% from Obama 2012, when there was a massively popular Mormon candidate. There might be some third party voters willing to vote tactically, but most of them are a plague I both your houses
The absence of Flora from supermarket shelves will command rather more attention than any number of reports of currency market movements. I expect the Express will be majoring on Unilever's murky Dutch connections.
I used to buy it. Then they changed the recipe and it was horrible so I bought Tesco own brand at half the price. Now I buy Aldi Own Brand even cheaper. Its so cheap that a 10% increase would just be a few pence.
The likes of Unilever and the big 4 supermarkets have been taking the piss for years.
Poorly prepared joke by Therasa May about Thornberry asking for a second referendum. Strictly speaking, it was a lie ! The Speaker should have asked her to withdraw the remark.
T May is very poor with jokes.
Not just TM (Jeez, I didn't realise that TM has the same initials as MT)...all politicians should avoid jokes. Their delivery is toe curlingly ghastly.
It's a skill to tell a joke. I'm terrible too,. hopelessly awful, beyond horrific....
You can hardly imagine the young TM happily rolling off the jokes as a sixth former. Note to our PM...if you didn't do it then, when you were young and vibrant......please do not do it now.....
The joke had the desired effect of people laughing at Thornberry and she taking exemption to it.
I have to say, that figure of fun, Emily Thornberry was exceptionally good on Radio 5 this morning. One of the most polished political performances that I have heard for some time.
Polished - Emily Thornberry - well that's a view
She cannot have been asked anything about her own brief.. she is utterly useless at it.
The absence of Flora from supermarket shelves will command rather more attention than any number of reports of currency market movements. I expect the Express will be majoring on Unilever's murky Dutch connections.
I used to buy it. Then they changed the recipe and it was horrible so I bought Tesco own brand at half the price. Now I buy Aldi Own Brand even cheaper. Its so cheap that a 10% increase would just be a few pence.
The likes of Unilever and the big 4 supermarkets have been taking the piss for years.
If you ever shop at Costco you can tell on which goods supermarkets take the piss on, as their general pricing is cost + 15%.
This tallies with the rumours I've been hearing within the industry.
A sensible decision, albeit a bit hostile to those that live nearby. They knew the risks though.
Boris-island-airport still ticks all the boxes though.
It's fantastic we're breaking out of the EU straitjacket to become a global hub of the future.
IMO Heathrow won't be a viable hub in twenty years, even with three runways. Other countries will rapidly overtake us.
Unless hub-and-spoke is beaten by point-to-point ...
Well, of course it won't, Mr. J, and why should we care? People flying through transferring at Heathrow are not bringing squillions of quid to the UK, though some of them might buy a cup of coffee. In cash terms transit passengers are a dead loss.
The arguments for hub-and-spoke airports are well-rehearsed. For one thing, if you're on a spoke, you get less traffic and that's bad for both the airport and the region/country. That's just one reason.
Airports are an enabler for the economy, not a direct driver of it.
This tallies with the rumours I've been hearing within the industry.
A sensible decision, albeit a bit hostile to those that live nearby. They knew the risks though.
Boris-island-airport still ticks all the boxes though.
It's fantastic we're breaking out of the EU straitjacket to become a global hub of the future.
IMO Heathrow won't be a viable hub in twenty years, even with three runways. Other countries will rapidly overtake us.
Unless hub-and-spoke is beaten by point-to-point ...
Well, of course it won't, Mr. J, and why should we care? People flying through transferring at Heathrow are not bringing squillions of quid to the UK, though some of them might buy a cup of coffee. In cash terms transit passengers are a dead loss.
Hub airports make other air routes viable that would otherwise not be on a point-to-point basis - through attracting international transit passengers - thereby increasing the overall numbers of routes the airport provides, and thus jobs to service the hub as well as an increased number of direct air trade route options to the host nation. In a globalised world that's very important as it helps drive investment decisions.
Heathrow doesn't always need to be "one runway" ahead of its rivals. But it does need enough to be competitive in offering a lot of routes and capacity, plus a pleasant environment for passengers and airlines.
Things aren't going wrong enough quickly enough for the Commons to derail Brexit at the moment. Given Leave win 70% of constituencies the Commons would currently vote for Brexit comfortably. We need a material change of circumstances from June 23rd and some significant buyers remorse in the polls before MP's would delay Brexit. The Brexit devaluation is too ambiguous economically and has todate been too orderly to count. It's certainly a useful start but nowhere near enough. In addition the utterly useless Corbyn has shot his mouth off backing both immeadiate A50 invocation and an early General Election.So even if the current Commons got to the point where it would delay Brexit on current polling May would walk a GE. I do believe Brexit is unravelling but only at the edges and only because Brexit is a crap thing to do. It's not going sufficiently wrong sufficiently quickly yet to derail it. That may of course change but at the moment I feel Brexit is on course.
If the express will of the people is thwarted by clever dick lawyers, MP's and their Lordships , what's to stop them saying "ok, it's pitchfork time, because democracy doesn't work"?. Scrutiny I can accept, within the limits that you can't make a negotiation public and stick it live on BBC Parliament, and there is a healthy debate to be had about hard/soft/over easy/whatever Brexit, but this desire by Remainers to find any way, any way at all, to circumvent 17.4 million people is deeply worrying for our society.
I respectfully completely disagree. It's just politics. Brexit could still mean a large number things. It can be shaped and if enough goes wrong quickly enough could be delayed. The idea Leavers would have given up after a 52/48 result is nonsense. In all likelihood Cameron would already have been replaced by a new Tory leader who's promised a new referendum in the next manifesto. Actually the speed with which such a narrow result has become a political consensus is remarkable. It's due to elites psychological shock about the result.
The last few days seems like we are re running the referendum and today's debate, dominated by remainers, demonstrates just how far the MP's are losing touch with voters and the result to leave.
There is a very real danger that those MP's trying to subvert the result by subterfuge are going to turn the Country very angry with them and the one person, fighting for the will of the people, Theresa May will become much admired and popular while Parliament trashes it's reputation even more than it already is.
I would be very surprised if the next polls do not demonstrate anger against those who lost and those leading today's demand for the government to reveal it's hand and to have a vote on the serving of A50
I was, at times, a bit rude to you before the referendum.
I can't say sorry enough: your respect for the result and tenacity in defending it, despite personally not voting for it, shows a level of personal integrity I only wish we all had.
Thanks for your kind comments - I do believe in democracy and am concerned that a group of bad losers are trying to subvert it but confident that the voters will have none of it. TM's reputation will only grow as she has the single minded determination to carry it out and make a success of it
This tallies with the rumours I've been hearing within the industry.
A sensible decision, albeit a bit hostile to those that live nearby. They knew the risks though.
Boris-island-airport still ticks all the boxes though.
It's fantastic we're breaking out of the EU straitjacket to become a global hub of the future.
IMO Heathrow won't be a viable hub in twenty years, even with three runways. Other countries will rapidly overtake us.
Unless hub-and-spoke is beaten by point-to-point ...
Well, of course it won't, Mr. J, and why should we care? People flying through transferring at Heathrow are not bringing squillions of quid to the UK, though some of them might buy a cup of coffee. In cash terms transit passengers are a dead loss.
The arguments for hub-and-spoke airports are well-rehearsed. For one thing, if you're on a spoke, you get less traffic and that's bad for both the airport and the region/country. That's just one reason.
Airports are an enabler for the economy, not a direct driver of it.
I expect to see Hammond, next month, lay out an outline of a global economic strategy that will put flesh on the bones of what a future global Britain will look like, and why it'll be attractive.
Airports is one aspect. Pre-announcing some services deregulation and corporation tax cuts is another. I think he'll also reiterate some exceptions/loosening of migration permits for very highly skilled workers, subject to parliamentary approval/votes.
This tallies with the rumours I've been hearing within the industry.
.
Great so HAL and GAL must have massively increased profits and therefore can fund the full costs of their expansions by themselves and not cost the taxpayer a penny.
Heathrow faces very severe financial risk in funding a third runway.
"The new investment required from Heathrow shareholders is enormous: greater than the Regulated Asset Value of the entire existing airport. There is no real “controlling mind” amongst the shareholders. Ferrovial is the lead investor but has the weakest balance sheet and has run its majority ownership stake down to 25%. The other investors are largely passive institutions (only one of which, owning 10%, is British).
While they say they are committed to expansion, there is no clear plan in the public domain as to how finance will be provided. Particularly unclear is whether a yet further increase in the debt/equity ratio is envisaged and how the risk of that is to be managed.
Another aspect of financial risk which has not yet been addressed is the timing of the finance required. Because of the complications of the project, the great majority of the work associated with expansion at Heathrow, and the financing connected to it, must be committed to at its outset. (As context, the Airports Commission analysis indicates that in the peak year of spend, Heathrow will need to raise £6 billion, a greater sum than any UK private entity has ever raised in the capital markets in a single year.)"
"Incumbent airlines (most crucially and most vociferously BA) are reluctant to “pre-fund” the investment - that is, to start paying higher charges to fund the project long before it is delivered – and then to see new airlines come into the airport that have made no prior contribution.
The Government’s has refused to pay for the re-routing of the M25 (which has no transport benefits in principle and is entirely for the convenience of Heathrow) which isn't in Heathrow's financial plan."
"All these risks fall in the first place to the commercial deliverability of the project and secondarily to the Government’s reputation should the project become unviable. All will become apparent in the early years of the process."
Poorly prepared joke by Therasa May about Thornberry asking for a second referendum. Strictly speaking, it was a lie ! The Speaker should have asked her to withdraw the remark.
T May is very poor with jokes.
Not just TM (Jeez, I didn't realise that TM has the same initials as MT)...all politicians should avoid jokes. Their delivery is toe curlingly ghastly.
It's a skill to tell a joke. I'm terrible too,. hopelessly awful, beyond horrific....
You can hardly imagine the young TM happily rolling off the jokes as a sixth former. Note to our PM...if you didn't do it then, when you were young and vibrant......please do not do it now.....
The joke had the desired effect of people laughing at Thornberry and she taking exemption to it.
I have to say, that figure of fun, Emily Thornberry was exceptionally good on Radio 5 this morning. One of the most polished political performances that I have heard for some time.
She was indeed very good, as Keir Starmer was this afternoon. Labour got their act together, at least for a bit.
If Labour is canny, it would put round pegs in round holes. [snip]
Whilst it's true that Thornberry is definitely on the large side that's quite harsh!
Just heard Anna Soubry's speech at the Brexit debate. Two things really got under my skin, she said, "she hoped the 48% would become the majority" (I presume she means a second referendum?). And she accused older voters of ruining the lives of younger voters.
I hope hell freezes over before this awful woman ever gets back on the front bench. Hopefully, she will defect!
One of the most irritating recent theories is that somehow, the votes of 18-24 year olds count for more than everyone elses'.
If the young were huge eurosceptics, and the elderly Europhiles like Heseltine and Clarke, we'd hear much less of that argument.
The 18-24 bracket were in favour of Euro membership c.2000-2003, and very clearly for New Labour. Now, they would be 34-40 years old, clearly against and majority Conservative.
Just as the Conservatives came third among 18-24 year olds in February 1974, but that same age cohort is now two thirds Conservative or UKIP; and that age cohort voted overwhelmingly in favour of EEC membership in 1975, and overwhelmingly for Leave in June.
People becoming eurosceptic/right wing as they get older is one of the constants of British politics.
That's true......
I spoke with a friend yesterday what could we do to change this dynamic, especially as people are living longer, and we are producing less children.
I think the voting age should be set at 16-66; a fifty year window. That's fair...for the people of working age to decide how the country should be governed. A damn good idea I might add.
This tallies with the rumours I've been hearing within the industry.
A sensible decision, albeit a bit hostile to those that live nearby. They knew the risks though.
Boris-island-airport still ticks all the boxes though.
It's fantastic we're breaking out of the EU straitjacket to become a global hub of the future.
IMO Heathrow won't be a viable hub in twenty years, even with three runways. Other countries will rapidly overtake us.
Unless hub-and-spoke is beaten by point-to-point ...
Well, of course it won't, Mr. J, and why should we care? People flying through transferring at Heathrow are not bringing squillions of quid to the UK, though some of them might buy a cup of coffee. In cash terms transit passengers are a dead loss.
Duty free ? What do you think Dubai lives on ? Not oil, I can tell you.
Just heard Anna Soubry's speech at the Brexit debate. Two things really got under my skin, she said, "she hoped the 48% would become the majority" (I presume she means a second referendum?). And she accused older voters of ruining the lives of younger voters.
I hope hell freezes over before this awful woman ever gets back on the front bench. Hopefully, she will defect!
48% of people want to stay in the EU. You can't ignore that number.
Why not ?
The europhiles ignored the wishes of a majority of brits for decades.
If the result had been the other way round you'd be happily ignoring the 48% of Leavers and saying a win is a win we march on.
Where's the evidence that there would have been a majority for leaving the EU at any point between 1975 and 2015? There wouldn't.
But there was one in 2016...
You may think that it's worth sacrificing the entire country's history on the altar of David Cameron's incompetence but I don't. He messed up; the referendum was not intended to be lost, and the responsible thing would be to play for time while addressing some of the underlying concerns of the people who voted for Leave, before having a rerun in better circumstances.
Our major bargaining chip, although not yet even breathed let alone openly disscussed is the extent to which the UK is prepared to continue to contribute its hitherto net contribution of circa 10 billion per per annum in exchange for agreeing tariff free trading and tightish immigration controls. After all, who else is likely to divi up instead of us - Germany, The Netherlands? Hardly, they they're already paying far too much. France, Italy? You're having a laugh!
Yes. Cut it down to £4billion and re-label it as overseas aid so it would still be a £10 billion saving pa.
Things aren't going wrong enough quickly enough for the Commons to derail Brexit at the moment. Given Leave win 70% of constituencies the Commons would currently vote for Brexit comfortably. We need a material change of circumstances from June 23rd and some significant buyers remorse in the polls before MP's would delay Brexit. The Brexit devaluation is too ambiguous economically and has todate been too orderly to count. It's certainly a useful start but nowhere near enough. In addition the utterly useless Corbyn has shot his mouth off backing both immeadiate A50 invocation and an early General Election.So even if the current Commons got to the point where it would delay Brexit on current polling May would walk a GE. I do believe Brexit is unravelling but only at the edges and only because Brexit is a crap thing to do. It's not going sufficiently wrong sufficiently quickly yet to derail it. That may of course change but at the moment I feel Brexit is on course.
If the express will of the people is thwarted by clever dick lawyers, MP's and their Lordships , what's to stop them saying "ok, it's pitchfork time, because democracy doesn't work"?. Scrutiny I can accept, within the limits that you can't make a negotiation public and stick it live on BBC Parliament, and there is a healthy debate to be had about hard/soft/over easy/whatever Brexit, but this desire by Remainers to find any way, any way at all, to circumvent 17.4 million people is deeply worrying for our society.
And this ruling caste attitude is the exact reason that Trump might still win.
This tallies with the rumours I've been hearing within the industry.
A sensible decision, albeit a bit hostile to those that live nearby. They knew the risks though.
Boris-island-airport still ticks all the boxes though.
One of the interesting things from the NCE report linked downthread is that passenger numbers have increased massively over what was predicted by the Airports Commission.
Great so HAL and GAL must have massively increased profits and therefore can fund the full costs of their expansions by themselves and not cost the taxpayer a penny.
You assume then that there are no flow on benefits from the country having thriving airports?
Economics of the madhouse.
Even if there are flow on benefits why can't we just take those flow on benefits? If not charge the airports for the privilege of expanding while taking those flow on benefits.
Having thriving 3G networks provided flow on benefits to the country but not only did the government not fund the 3G network roll out they actually raised £22.5bn for the Exchequer via the auction of the 3G spectrum.
There seems to be consensus now that we extracted a little too much from that auction, damaging the bidders.
In my view, since these airports are essentially monopolistic, it'd be better of they were in government hands - allowing the taxpayer to profit.
On the other hand, Heathrow is a damn site better since Ferrovial bought it and they've invested a ton.
In my view the private sector ought to be able to get those sites to work well and the taxpayer does profit by taxing a profitable airport. But why should the government need to pay to expand the airports? If the airport can afford to be constantly spamming this site with ads suggesting it be allowed to expand, it ought to be able to raise the finance to fund the expansion itself.
If the government is needed to get involved then it perhaps should be in the form of providing loan guarantees, not providing direct funding. Or paying to expand transport links the government has to the airport perhaps. Not the airport itself.
This tallies with the rumours I've been hearing within the industry.
A sensible decision, albeit a bit hostile to those that live nearby. They knew the risks though.
Boris-island-airport still ticks all the boxes though.
It's fantastic we're breaking out of the EU straitjacket to become a global hub of the future.
IMO Heathrow won't be a viable hub in twenty years, even with three runways. Other countries will rapidly overtake us.
Unless hub-and-spoke is beaten by point-to-point ...
Well, of course it won't, Mr. J, and why should we care? People flying through transferring at Heathrow are not bringing squillions of quid to the UK, though some of them might buy a cup of coffee. In cash terms transit passengers are a dead loss.
The arguments for hub-and-spoke airports are well-rehearsed. For one thing, if you're on a spoke, you get less traffic and that's bad for both the airport and the region/country. That's just one reason.
Airports are an enabler for the economy, not a direct driver of it.
I expect to see Hammond, next month, lay out an outline of a global economic strategy that will put flesh on the bones of what a future global Britain will look like, and why it'll be attractive.
Airports is one aspect. Pre-announcing some services deregulation and corporation tax cuts is another. I think he'll also reiterate some exceptions/loosening of migration permits for very highly skilled workers, subject to parliamentary approval/votes.
Hinckey Point, HS2 and now runways at Heathrow and Gatwick with OK for Birmingham all in the last month. TM putting turbo boosters under the economy
Just heard Anna Soubry's speech at the Brexit debate. Two things really got under my skin, she said, "she hoped the 48% would become the majority" (I presume she means a second referendum?). And she accused older voters of ruining the lives of younger voters.
I hope hell freezes over before this awful woman ever gets back on the front bench. Hopefully, she will defect!
48% of people want to stay in the EU. You can't ignore that number.
Why not ?
The europhiles ignored the wishes of a majority of brits for decades.
If the result had been the other way round you'd be happily ignoring the 48% of Leavers and saying a win is a win we march on.
Where's the evidence that there would have been a majority for leaving the EU at any point between 1975 and 2015? There wouldn't.
But there was one in 2016...
You may think that it's worth sacrificing the entire country's history on the altar of David Cameron's incompetence but I don't. He messed up; the referendum was not intended to be lost, and the responsible thing would be to play for time while addressing some of the underlying concerns of the people who voted for Leave, before having a rerun in better circumstances.
Our major bargaining chip, although not yet even breathed let alone openly disscussed is the extent to which the UK is prepared to continue to contribute its hitherto net contribution of circa 10 billion per per annum in exchange for agreeing tariff free trading and tightish immigration controls. After all, who else is likely to divi up instead of us - Germany, The Netherlands? Hardly, they they're already paying far too much. France, Italy? You're having a laugh!
Yes. Cut it down to £4billion and re-label it as overseas aid so it would still be a £10 billion saving pa.
This tallies with the rumours I've been hearing within the industry.
A sensible decision, albeit a bit hostile to those that live nearby. They knew the risks though.
Boris-island-airport still ticks all the boxes though.
It's fantastic we're breaking out of the EU straitjacket to become a global hub of the future.
IMO Heathrow won't be a viable hub in twenty years, even with three runways. Other countries will rapidly overtake us.
Unless hub-and-spoke is beaten by point-to-point ...
Well, of course it won't, Mr. J, and why should we care? People flying through transferring at Heathrow are not bringing squillions of quid to the UK, though some of them might buy a cup of coffee. In cash terms transit passengers are a dead loss.
The arguments for hub-and-spoke airports are well-rehearsed. For one thing, if you're on a spoke, you get less traffic and that's bad for both the airport and the region/country. That's just one reason.
Airports are an enabler for the economy, not a direct driver of it.
I expect to see Hammond, next month, lay out an outline of a global economic strategy that will put flesh on the bones of what a future global Britain will look like, and why it'll be attractive.
Airports is one aspect. Pre-announcing some services deregulation and corporation tax cuts is another. I think he'll also reiterate some exceptions/loosening of migration permits for very highly skilled workers, subject to parliamentary approval/votes.
Hinckey Point, HS2 and now runways at Heathrow and Gatwick with OK for Birmingham all in the last month. TM putting turbo boosters under the economy
Hs2
Raising UK electricity prices for absolutely no reason whatsoever.
Just heard Anna Soubry's speech at the Brexit debate. Two things really got under my skin, she said, "she hoped the 48% would become the majority" (I presume she means a second referendum?). And she accused older voters of ruining the lives of younger voters.
I hope hell freezes over before this awful woman ever gets back on the front bench. Hopefully, she will defect!
48% of people want to stay in the EU. You can't ignore that number.
Why not ?
The europhiles ignored the wishes of a majority of brits for decades.
If the result had been the other way round you'd be happily ignoring the 48% of Leavers and saying a win is a win we march on.
Where's the evidence that there would have been a majority for leaving the EU at any point between 1975 and 2015? There wouldn't.
But there was one in 2016...
You may think that it's worth sacrificing the entire country's history on the altar of David Cameron's incompetence .
Our major bargaining chip, although not yet even breathed let alone openly disscussed is the extent to which the UK is prepared to continue to contribute its hitherto net contribution of circa 10 billion per per annum in exchange for agreeing tariff free trading and tightish immigration controls. After all, who else is likely to divi up instead of us - Germany, The Netherlands? Hardly, they they're already paying far too much. France, Italy? You're having a laugh!
Yes. Cut it down to £4billion and re-label it as overseas aid so it would still be a £10 billion saving pa.
Even if Birmingham is included in the Gatwick/Heathrow expansion package it's still a massive capital stimulus to the south of England predicated on expanded and deepened globalisation. I get the political narrative, we're open for business , what I don't get is how it rebalances the economy ( geographically or much ) or how it addresses the " Control " Phenomenon. I expect it will win several positive news cycles and the religious Brexiters will see it as a sign of national renewal. However I think there's a case it will actually reinforce the current economic imbalances on the island. Still long overdue airport expansion we could have done anyway is a cogent response to the Brexit disaster. So as a long term opponent of southern airport expansion I've changed my mind. We are were we are and need shock absorbers.
The last few days seems like we are re running the referendum and today's debate, dominated by remainers, demonstrates just how far the MP's are losing touch with voters and the result to leave.
There is a very real danger that those MP's trying to subvert the result by subterfuge are going to turn the Country very angry with them and the one person, fighting for the will of the people, Theresa May will become much admired and popular while Parliament trashes it's reputation even more than it already is.
I would be very surprised if the next polls do not demonstrate anger against those who lost and those leading today's demand for the government to reveal it's hand and to have a vote on the serving of A50
In terms of those who hope to use parliament to stymie the referendum, I think there are only a handful.
A much larger group simply want proper parliamentary scrutiny of our most momentous policy push since the early 70s. Which is right and proper.
The problem is I do not think the voters give a toss about the single market over sovereignty and immigration control, for right or wrong
They might not...but they well start giving a toss about something when we get poorer, our services starved of even more money, endless austerity, reduced work benefits, education short of funds, an ageing population with more needs......
The problem is they will not blame Brexit...they will blame immigrants, the EU for giving us a bad deal, they will blame the traitors, the remainers who talked down the country.....
They will not blame THEMSELVES obviously for creating this needless nihilism....
Pringles: nah you're fine go for it.
Europe: clearly we differ, but can you accept many of us do not see Brexit as nihilistic? I can see there are possible downsides, possibly big ones if both sides play silly buggers, but I can see there are upsides, both economic and (for me) certainly political. I'd like to see a totally sovereign country that then chooses to engage with "Europe" as closely as possible in trade, security, cultural exchange, reciprocal health care etc. However, my fear is that the EU has created a sacred cow out of freedom of movement for purely political means ( it has precious little to do with economics). Deep down it knows this is unpopular with the peoples of Western Europe but dare not be flexible for fear of it being a setback on the road to the USE.
The USE is not an ignoble aim per se BUT (thrice BUT) it needs the consent of the people, and it's nowhere near getting it. Ploughing on and hoping the pieces fall in behind (like they did with the Euro) is a recipe for disaster. And both you and I and everyone else in Europe don't want that.
The absence of Flora from supermarket shelves will command rather more attention than any number of reports of currency market movements. I expect the Express will be majoring on Unilever's murky Dutch connections.
Who other than AlastairMeeks could get remotely excited about the possible disappearance of a margarine brand from the UK's supermarket shelves? Personally I wouldn't touch the stuff.
This tallies with the rumours I've been hearing within the industry.
A sensible decision, albeit a bit hostile to those that live nearby. They knew the risks though.
Boris-island-airport still ticks all the boxes though.
It's fantastic we're breaking out of the EU straitjacket to become a global hub of the future.
IMO Heathrow won't be a viable hub in twenty years, even with three runways. Other countries will rapidly overtake us.
Unless hub-and-spoke is beaten by point-to-point ...
Well, of course it won't, Mr. J, and why should we care? People flying through transferring at Heathrow are not bringing squillions of quid to the UK, though some of them might buy a cup of coffee. In cash terms transit passengers are a dead loss.
Hub airports make other air routes viable that would otherwise not be on a point-to-point basis - through attracting international transit passengers - thereby increasing the overall numbers of routes the airport provides, and thus jobs to service the hub as well as an increased number of direct air trade route options to the host nation. In a globalised world that's very important as it helps drive investment decisions.
Heathrow doesn't always need to be "one runway" ahead of its rivals. But it does need enough to be competitive in offering a lot of routes and capacity, plus a pleasant environment for passengers and airlines.
If that is true then Paris and Amsterdam should have overtaken London by now,
As for pleasant environment for passengers, please explain how being stuck in a permanent traffic jam on the M3/M25/M4/M40 nexus, not to mention the God awful customer service within the terminals helps Heathrow.
This tallies with the rumours I've been hearing within the industry.
A sensible decision, albeit a bit hostile to those that live nearby. They knew the risks though.
Boris-island-airport still ticks all the boxes though.
It's fantastic we're breaking out of the EU straitjacket to become a global hub of the future.
IMO Heathrow won't be a viable hub in twenty years, even with three runways. Other countries will rapidly overtake us.
Unless hub-and-spoke is beaten by point-to-point ...
Well, of course it won't, Mr. J, and why should we care? People flying through transferring at Heathrow are not bringing squillions of quid to the UK, though some of them might buy a cup of coffee. In cash terms transit passengers are a dead loss.
The arguments for hub-and-spoke airports are well-rehearsed. For one thing, if you're on a spoke, you get less traffic and that's bad for both the airport and the region/country. That's just one reason.
Airports are an enabler for the economy, not a direct driver of it.
I expect to see Hammond, next month, lay out an outline of a global economic strategy that will put flesh on the bones of what a future global Britain will look like, and why it'll be attractive.
Airports is one aspect. Pre-announcing some services deregulation and corporation tax cuts is another. I think he'll also reiterate some exceptions/loosening of migration permits for very highly skilled workers, subject to parliamentary approval/votes.
Hinckey Point, HS2 and now runways at Heathrow and Gatwick with OK for Birmingham all in the last month. TM putting turbo boosters under the economy
Hs2
Raising UK electricity prices for absolutely no reason whatsoever.
HS2 is for those of us up north and an additional £12 per annum to provide base power is hardly unaffordable
Things aren't going wrong enough quickly enough for the Commons to derail Brexit at the moment. Given Leave win 70% of constituencies the Commons would currently vote for Brexit comfortably. We need a material change of circumstances from June 23rd and some significant buyers remorse in the polls before MP's would delay Brexit. The Brexit devaluation is too ambiguous economically and has todate been too orderly to count. It's certainly a useful start but nowhere near enough. In addition the utterly useless Corbyn has shot his mouth off backing both immeadiate A50 invocation and an early General Election.So even if the current Commons got to the point where it would delay Brexit on current polling May would walk a GE. I do believe Brexit is unravelling but only at the edges and only because Brexit is a crap thing to do. It's not going sufficiently wrong sufficiently quickly yet to derail it. That may of course change but at the moment I feel Brexit is on course.
If the express will of the people is thwarted by clever dick lawyers, MP's and their Lordships , what's to stop them saying "ok, it's pitchfork time, because democracy doesn't work"?. Scrutiny I can accept, within the limits that you can't make a negotiation public and stick it live on BBC Parliament, and there is a healthy debate to be had about hard/soft/over easy/whatever Brexit, but this desire by Remainers to find any way, any way at all, to circumvent 17.4 million people is deeply worrying for our society.
And this ruling caste attitude is the exact reason that Trump might still win.
This is the reason that I still give Trump chances:
Trump couldn't say that before because Paul Ryan also wants to abolish them, but after Ryan said goodbye he feels free to play the defender of social security.
This tallies with the rumours I've been hearing within the industry.
A sensible decision, albeit a bit hostile to those that live nearby. They knew the risks though.
Boris-island-airport still ticks all the boxes though.
One of the interesting things from the NCE report linked downthread is that passenger numbers have increased massively over what was predicted by the Airports Commission.
Great so HAL and GAL must have massively increased profits and therefore can fund the full costs of their expansions by themselves and not cost the taxpayer a penny.
You assume then that there are no flow on benefits from the country having thriving airports?
Economics of the madhouse.
Even if there are flow on benefits why can't we just take those flow on benefits? If not charge the airports for the privilege of expanding while taking those flow on benefits.
Having thriving 3G networks provided flow on benefits to the country but not only did the government not fund the 3G network roll out they actually raised £22.5bn for the Exchequer via the auction of the 3G spectrum.
There seems to be consensus now that we extracted a little too much from that auction, damaging the bidders.
In my view, since these airports are essentially monopolistic, it'd be better of they were in government hands - allowing the taxpayer to profit.
On the other hand, Heathrow is a damn site better since Ferrovial bought it and they've invested a ton.
In my view the private sector ought to be able to get those sites to work well and the taxpayer does profit by taxing a profitable airport. But why should the government need to pay to expand the airports? If the airport can afford to be constantly spamming this site with ads suggesting it be allowed to expand, it ought to be able to raise the finance to fund the expansion itself.
If the government is needed to get involved then it perhaps should be in the form of providing loan guarantees, not providing direct funding. Or paying to expand transport links the government has to the airport perhaps. Not the airport itself.
I believe the original complaint was that tge taxpayer would need to find transport upgrades to support the airport expansions (not the expansions themselves).
This tallies with the rumours I've been hearing within the industry.
A sensible decision, albeit a bit hostile to those that live nearby. They knew the risks though.
Boris-island-airport still ticks all the boxes though.
It's fantastic we're breaking out of the EU straitjacket to become a global hub of the future.
IMO Heathrow won't be a viable hub in twenty years, even with three runways. Other countries will rapidly overtake us.
Unless hub-and-spoke is beaten by point-to-point ...
Well, of course it won't, Mr. J, and why should we care? People flying through transferring at Heathrow are not bringing squillions of quid to the UK, though some of them might buy a cup of coffee. In cash terms transit passengers are a dead loss.
It's never been about the transfer passengers themselves, but the increase in traffic allowing for a wider network. The reason Gatwick had to cancel their direct flights to China was because they didn't have the transfer traffic while Heathrow are looking to open up direct flights to provincial cities in China. With three runways we will be able to fly directly to more destinations than ever because of the transatlantic traffic from the East coast that comes through Heathrow.
This tallies with the rumours I've been hearing within the industry.
A sensible decision, albeit a bit hostile to those that live nearby. They knew the risks though.
Boris-island-airport still ticks all the boxes though.
It's fantastic we're breaking out of the EU straitjacket to become a global hub of the future.
IMO Heathrow won't be a viable hub in twenty years, even with three runways. Other countries will rapidly overtake us.
Unless hub-and-spoke is beaten by point-to-point ...
Well, of course it won't, Mr. J, and why should we care? People flying through transferring at Heathrow are not bringing squillions of quid to the UK, though some of them might buy a cup of coffee. In cash terms transit passengers are a dead loss.
Hub airports make other air routes viable that would otherwise not be on a point-to-point basis - through attracting international transit passengers - thereby increasing the overall numbers of routes the airport provides, and thus jobs to service the hub as well as an increased number of direct air trade route options to the host nation. In a globalised world that's very important as it helps drive investment decisions.
Heathrow doesn't always need to be "one runway" ahead of its rivals. But it does need enough to be competitive in offering a lot of routes and capacity, plus a pleasant environment for passengers and airlines.
If that is true then Paris and Amsterdam should have overtaken London by now,
As for pleasant environment for passengers, please explain how being stuck in a permanent traffic jam on the M3/M25/M4/M40 nexus, not to mention the God awful customer service within the terminals helps Heathrow.
The terminals at Heathrow are excellent, far better than Gatwick. And no Southern trains.
Even if Birmingham is included in the Gatwick/Heathrow expansion package it's still a massive capital stimulus to the south of England predicated on expanded and deepened globalisation. I get the political narrative, we're open for business , what I don't get is how it rebalances the economy ( geographically or much ) or how it addresses the " Control " Phenomenon. I expect it will win several positive news cycles and the religious Brexiters will see it as a sign of national renewal. However I think there's a case it will actually reinforce the current economic imbalances on the island. Still long overdue airport expansion we could have done anyway is a cogent response to the Brexit disaster. So as a long term opponent of southern airport expansion I've changed my mind. We are were we are and need shock absorbers.
I suspect that if the Government gives the go-ahead to both Heathrow and Gatwick, then Heathrow will pull out as it won't be able to bear the competition.
This tallies with the rumours I've been hearing within the industry.
A sensible decision, albeit a bit hostile to those that live nearby. They knew the risks though.
Boris-island-airport still ticks all the boxes though.
It's fantastic we're breaking out of the EU straitjacket to become a global hub of the future.
IMO Heathrow won't be a viable hub in twenty years, even with three runways. Other countries will rapidly overtake us.
Unless hub-and-spoke is beaten by point-to-point ...
Well, of course it won't, Mr. J, and why should we care? People flying through transferring at Heathrow are not bringing squillions of quid to the UK, though some of them might buy a cup of coffee. In cash terms transit passengers are a dead loss.
The arguments for hub-and-spoke airports are well-rehearsed. For one thing, if you're on a spoke, you get less traffic and that's bad for both the airport and the region/country. That's just one reason.
Airports are an enabler for the economy, not a direct driver of it.
I expect to see Hammond, next month, lay out an outline of a global economic strategy that will put flesh on the bones of what a future global Britain will look like, and why it'll be attractive.
Airports is one aspect. Pre-announcing some services deregulation and corporation tax cuts is another. I think he'll also reiterate some exceptions/loosening of migration permits for very highly skilled workers, subject to parliamentary approval/votes.
Hinckey Point, HS2 and now runways at Heathrow and Gatwick with OK for Birmingham all in the last month. TM putting turbo boosters under the economy
Hs2
Raising UK electricity prices for absolutely no reason whatsoever.
HS2 is for those of us up north and an additional £12 per annum to provide base power is hardly unaffordable
Hinkley Point raises electricity prices for no reason whatsoever.
Europe: clearly we differ, but can you accept many of us do not see Brexit as nihilistic? I can see there are possible downsides, possibly big ones if both sides play silly buggers, but I can see there are upsides, both economic and (for me) certainly political. I'd like to see a totally sovereign country that then chooses to engage with "Europe" as closely as possible in trade, security, cultural exchange, reciprocal health care etc. However, my fear is that the EU has created a sacred cow out of freedom of movement for purely political means ( it has precious little to do with economics). Deep down it knows this is unpopular with the peoples of Western Europe but dare not be flexible for fear of it being a setback on the road to the USE.
The USE is not an ignoble aim per se BUT (thrice BUT) it needs the consent of the people, and it's nowhere near getting it. Ploughing on and hoping the pieces fall in behind (like they did with the Euro) is a recipe for disaster. And both you and I and everyone else in Europe don't want that.
This tallies with the rumours I've been hearing within the industry.
A sensible decision, albeit a bit hostile to those that live nearby. They knew the risks though.
Boris-island-airport still ticks all the boxes though.
It's fantastic we're breaking out of the EU straitjacket to become a global hub of the future.
IMO Heathrow won't be a viable hub in twenty years, even with three runways. Other countries will rapidly overtake us.
Unless hub-and-spoke is beaten by point-to-point ...
Well, of course it won't, Mr. J, and why should we care? People flying through transferring at Heathrow are not bringing squillions of quid to the UK, though some of them might buy a cup of coffee. In cash terms transit passengers are a dead loss.
The arguments for hub-and-spoke airports are well-rehearsed. For one thing, if you're on a spoke, you get less traffic and that's bad for both the airport and the region/country. That's just one reason.
Airports are an enabler for the economy, not a direct driver of it.
I expect to see Hammond, next month, lay out an outline of a global economic strategy that will put flesh on the bones of what a future global Britain will look like, and why it'll be attractive.
Airports is one aspect. Pre-announcing some services deregulation and corporation tax cuts is another. I think he'll also reiterate some exceptions/loosening of migration permits for very highly skilled workers, subject to parliamentary approval/votes.
Hinckey Point, HS2 and now runways at Heathrow and Gatwick with OK for Birmingham all in the last month. TM putting turbo boosters under the economy
May delayed Hinckley for a few months then signed off on Osborne's deal for the most expensive electricity in human history. Hinckley is a massive corporate welfare cheque from electricity consumers to big business. Several of the big busineses are owned by Foriegn taxpayers. The idea signing off Hinckley is a sign of economic strength is absurd. Hinckley was too far gone to cancel sadly. May deserves credit for at least a fig leaf delay. But a strong self confident country wouldn't sign the Hinckley deal. We are where we are so we had to.
This tallies with the rumours I've been hearing within the industry.
A sensible decision, albeit a bit hostile to those that live nearby. They knew the risks though.
Boris-island-airport still ticks all the boxes though.
It's fantastic we're breaking out of the EU straitjacket to become a global hub of the future.
IMO Heathrow won't be a viable hub in twenty years, even with three runways. Other countries will rapidly overtake us.
Unless hub-and-spoke is beaten by point-to-point ...
Well, of course it won't, Mr. J, and why should we care? People flying through transferring at Heathrow are not bringing squillions of quid to the UK, though some of them might buy a cup of coffee. In cash terms transit passengers are a dead loss.
The arguments for hub-and-spoke airports are well-rehearsed. For one thing, if you're on a spoke, you get less traffic and that's bad for both the airport and the region/country. That's just one reason.
Airports are an enabler for the economy, not a direct driver of it.
Thanks Mr. J. I agree about the Hub ans spoke versus the point to point argument and I agree with Boeing.
As for airports being an enabler: we have sold them off into private ownership. So should not the private owners pick up the full bill for any expansion they want to do? If my mate's building company wants to expand, HMG doesn't come rallying around to provide the dosh.
Just heard Anna Soubry's speech at the Brexit debate. Two things really got under my skin, she said, "she hoped the 48% would become the majority" (I presume she means a second referendum?). And she accused older voters of ruining the lives of younger voters.
I hope hell freezes over before this awful woman ever gets back on the front bench. Hopefully, she will defect!
One of the most irritating recent theories is that somehow, the votes of 18-24 year olds count for more than everyone elses'.
If the young were huge eurosceptics, and the elderly Europhiles like Heseltine and Clarke, we'd hear much less of that argument.
The 18-24 bracket were in favour of Euro membership c.2000-2003, and very clearly for New Labour. Now, they would be 34-40 years old, clearly against and majority Conservative.
Just as the Conservatives came third among 18-24 year olds in February 1974, but that same age cohort is now two thirds Conservative or UKIP; and that age cohort voted overwhelmingly in favour of EEC membership in 1975, and overwhelmingly for Leave in June.
People becoming eurosceptic/right wing as they get older is one of the constants of British politics.
That's true......
I spoke with a friend yesterday what could we do to change this dynamic, especially as people are living longer, and we are producing less children.
I think the voting age should be set at 16-66; a fifty year window. That's fair...for the people of working age to decide how the country should be governed. A damn good idea I might add.
The only precedent for this was in ancient times people who received money from the state where barred from voting.
In modern times that would mean the unemployed, the pensioners and the civil servants would not be able to vote.
Even if Birmingham is included in the Gatwick/Heathrow expansion package it's still a massive capital stimulus to the south of England predicated on expanded and deepened globalisation. I get the political narrative, we're open for business , what I don't get is how it rebalances the economy ( geographically or much ) or how it addresses the " Control " Phenomenon. I expect it will win several positive news cycles and the religious Brexiters will see it as a sign of national renewal. However I think there's a case it will actually reinforce the current economic imbalances on the island. Still long overdue airport expansion we could have done anyway is a cogent response to the Brexit disaster. So as a long term opponent of southern airport expansion I've changed my mind. We are were we are and need shock absorbers.
I suspect that if the Government gives the go-ahead to both Heathrow and Gatwick, then Heathrow will pull out as it won't be able to bear the competition.
Unlikely. Gatwick won't be able to raise the cash without government guarantees.
Just heard Anna Soubry's speech at the Brexit debate. Two things really got under my skin, she said, "she hoped the 48% would become the majority" (I presume she means a second referendum?). And she accused older voters of ruining the lives of younger voters.
I hope hell freezes over before this awful woman ever gets back on the front bench. Hopefully, she will defect!
One of the most irritating recent theories is that somehow, the votes of 18-24 year olds count for more than everyone elses'.
If the young were huge eurosceptics, and the elderly Europhiles like Heseltine and Clarke, we'd hear much less of that argument.
The 18-24 bracket were in favour of Euro membership c.2000-2003, and very clearly for New Labour. Now, they would be 34-40 years old, clearly against and majority Conservative.
Just as the Conservatives came third among 18-24 year olds in February 1974, but that same age cohort is now two thirds Conservative or UKIP; and that age cohort voted overwhelmingly in favour of EEC membership in 1975, and overwhelmingly for Leave in June.
People becoming eurosceptic/right wing as they get older is one of the constants of British politics.
That's true......
I spoke with a friend yesterday what could we do to change this dynamic, especially as people are living longer, and we are producing less children.
I think the voting age should be set at 16-66; a fifty year window. That's fair...for the people of working age to decide how the country should be governed. A damn good idea I might add.
And the comedy continues. Have they been smoking something
This tallies with the rumours I've been hearing within the industry.
A sensible decision, albeit a bit hostile to those that live nearby. They knew the risks though.
Boris-island-airport still ticks all the boxes though.
It's fantastic we're breaking out of the EU straitjacket to become a global hub of the future.
IMO Heathrow won't be a viable hub in twenty years, even with three runways. Other countries will rapidly overtake us.
Unless hub-and-spoke is beaten by point-to-point ...
Well, of course it won't, Mr. J, and why should we care? People flying through transferring at Heathrow are not bringing squillions of quid to the UK, though some of them might buy a cup of coffee. In cash terms transit passengers are a dead loss.
The arguments for hub-and-spoke airports are well-rehearsed. For one thing, if you're on a spoke, you get less traffic and that's bad for both the airport and the region/country. That's just one reason.
Airports are an enabler for the economy, not a direct driver of it.
Thanks Mr. J. I agree about the Hub ans spoke versus the point to point argument and I agree with Boeing.
As for airports being an enabler: we have sold them off into private ownership. So should not the private owners pick up the full bill for any expansion they want to do? If my mate's building company wants to expand, HMG doesn't come rallying around to provide the dosh.
Point to point is the way to go, hence the rise of the budget airlines.
This tallies with the rumours I've been hearing within the industry.
A sensible decision, albeit a bit hostile to those that live nearby. They knew the risks though.
Boris-island-airport still ticks all the boxes though.
It's fantastic we're breaking out of the EU straitjacket to become a global hub of the future.
IMO Heathrow won't be a viable hub in twenty years, even with three runways. Other countries will rapidly overtake us.
Unless hub-and-spoke is beaten by point-to-point ...
Well, of course it won't, Mr. J, and why should we care? People flying through transferring at Heathrow are not bringing squillions of quid to the UK, though some of them might buy a cup of coffee. In cash terms transit passengers are a dead loss.
The arguments for hub-and-spoke airports are well-rehearsed. For one thing, if you're on a spoke, you get less traffic and that's bad for both the airport and the region/country. That's just one reason.
Airports are an enabler for the economy, not a direct driver of it.
Thanks Mr. J. I agree about the Hub ans spoke versus the point to point argument and I agree with Boeing.
As for airports being an enabler: we have sold them off into private ownership. So should not the private owners pick up the full bill for any expansion they want to do? If my mate's building company wants to expand, HMG doesn't come rallying around to provide the dosh.
The plan is that passengers pay for it in the form of increased airport charges.
Heathrow already has the highest charges in the world. BA say that passengers wouldn't accept the increase that is necessary (double) and BA plan to increasingly use Dublin as a hub as a consequence.
The impact of increased passenger charges was not addressed or modeled in the Davies study.
Just heard Anna Soubry's speech at the Brexit debate. Two things really got under my skin, she said, "she hoped the 48% would become the majority" (I presume she means a second referendum?). And she accused older voters of ruining the lives of younger voters.
I hope hell freezes over before this awful woman ever gets back on the front bench. Hopefully, she will defect!
One of the most irritating recent theories is that somehow, the votes of 18-24 year olds count for more than everyone elses'.
If the young were huge eurosceptics, and the elderly Europhiles like Heseltine and Clarke, we'd hear much less of that argument.
The 18-24 bracket were in favour of Euro membership c.2000-2003, and very clearly for New Labour. Now, they would be 34-40 years old, clearly against and majority Conservative.
Just as the Conservatives came third among 18-24 year olds in February 1974, but that same age cohort is now two thirds Conservative or UKIP; and that age cohort voted overwhelmingly in favour of EEC membership in 1975, and overwhelmingly for Leave in June.
People becoming eurosceptic/right wing as they get older is one of the constants of British politics.
That's true......
I spoke with a friend yesterday what could we do to change this dynamic, especially as people are living longer, and we are producing less children.
I think the voting age should be set at 16-66; a fifty year window. That's fair...for the people of working age to decide how the country should be governed. A damn good idea I might add.
Er, yeah, and let's also restrict the franchise to those who actually work. And have saved. And own freehold property worth at least £100,000. And have an IQ above average. And have passed a special test in "inclusiveness" and "diversity" and other bull... and.. and..
Worrying how anti-democratic people are getting after the Brexit vote not going their way.
@faisalislam: Tesco needs to take back control of Marmite supplies from Unilever... or perhaps from those pesky foreign currencies talking down the pound
Europe: clearly we differ, but can you accept many of us do not see Brexit as nihilistic? I can see there are possible downsides, possibly big ones if both sides play silly buggers, but I can see there are upsides, both economic and (for me) certainly political. I'd like to see a totally sovereign country that then chooses to engage with "Europe" as closely as possible in trade, security, cultural exchange, reciprocal health care etc. However, my fear is that the EU has created a sacred cow out of freedom of movement for purely political means ( it has precious little to do with economics). Deep down it knows this is unpopular with the peoples of Western Europe but dare not be flexible for fear of it being a setback on the road to the USE.
The USE is not an ignoble aim per se BUT (thrice BUT) it needs the consent of the people, and it's nowhere near getting it. Ploughing on and hoping the pieces fall in behind (like they did with the Euro) is a recipe for disaster. And both you and I and everyone else in Europe don't want that.
Just heard Anna Soubry's speech at the Brexit debate. Two things really got under my skin, she said, "she hoped the 48% would become the majority" (I presume she means a second referendum?). And she accused older voters of ruining the lives of younger voters.
I hope hell freezes over before this awful woman ever gets back on the front bench. Hopefully, she will defect!
One of the most irritating recent theories is that somehow, the votes of 18-24 year olds count for more than everyone elses'.
If the young were huge eurosceptics, and the elderly Europhiles like Heseltine and Clarke, we'd hear much less of that argument.
The 18-24 bracket were in favour of Euro membership c.2000-2003, and very clearly for New Labour. Now, they would be 34-40 years old, clearly against and majority Conservative.
Just as the Conservatives came third among 18-24 year olds in February 1974, but that same age cohort is now two thirds Conservative or UKIP; and that age cohort voted overwhelmingly in favour of EEC membership in 1975, and overwhelmingly for Leave in June.
People becoming eurosceptic/right wing as they get older is one of the constants of British politics.
That's true......
I spoke with a friend yesterday what could we do to change this dynamic, especially as people are living longer, and we are producing less children.
I think the voting age should be set at 16-66; a fifty year window. That's fair...for the people of working age to decide how the country should be governed. A damn good idea I might add.
What a crock. A huge number of pensioners are taxpayers, a huge number of 16-66 year olds are not.
How about only taxpayers get a vote? No? Worried that would be gerrymandering (60% Tory majorities) Ok - we'll stick with everyone getting the vote...
Just heard Anna Soubry's speech at the Brexit debate. Two things really got under my skin, she said, "she hoped the 48% would become the majority" (I presume she means a second referendum?). And she accused older voters of ruining the lives of younger voters.
I hope hell freezes over before this awful woman ever gets back on the front bench. Hopefully, she will defect!
One of the most irritating recent theories is that somehow, the votes of 18-24 year olds count for more than everyone elses'.
If the young were huge eurosceptics, and the elderly Europhiles like Heseltine and Clarke, we'd hear much less of that argument.
The 18-24 bracket were in favour of Euro membership c.2000-2003, and very clearly for New Labour. Now, they would be 34-40 years old, clearly against and majority Conservative.
Just as the Conservatives came third among 18-24 year olds in February 1974, but that same age cohort is now two thirds Conservative or UKIP; and that age cohort voted overwhelmingly in favour of EEC membership in 1975, and overwhelmingly for Leave in June.
People becoming eurosceptic/right wing as they get older is one of the constants of British politics.
That's true......
I spoke with a friend yesterday what could we do to change this dynamic, especially as people are living longer, and we are producing less children.
I think the voting age should be set at 16-66; a fifty year window. That's fair...for the people of working age to decide how the country should be governed. A damn good idea I might add.
The only precedent for this was in ancient times people who received money from the state where barred from voting.
In modern times that would mean the unemployed, the pensioners and the civil servants would not be able to vote.
If the express will of the people is thwarted by clever dick lawyers, MP's and their Lordships , what's to stop them saying "ok, it's pitchfork time, because democracy doesn't work"?. Scrutiny I can accept, within the limits that you can't make a negotiation public and stick it live on BBC Parliament, and there is a healthy debate to be had about hard/soft/over easy/whatever Brexit, but this desire by Remainers to find any way, any way at all, to circumvent 17.4 million people is deeply worrying for our society.
It's just politics. It's like the SNP wanting another referendum. There's no persuasive reason why a deal on the terms of Brexit once negotiated shouldn't be put to a referendum; or why if the result of that referendum is to reject the deal, there shouldn't be a referendum on "Walk out without a deal or (beg to) stay in". That doesn't circumvent anything. It gives the government a chance to show leadership and for people to decide whether they like the government's best effort or not. Some people voted Leave because they thought that meant that many of Britain's foreign residents would be required to leave.
Even if Birmingham is included in the Gatwick/Heathrow expansion package it's still a massive capital stimulus to the south of England predicated on expanded and deepened globalisation. I get the political narrative, we're open for business , what I don't get is how it rebalances the economy ( geographically or much ) or how it addresses the " Control " Phenomenon. I expect it will win several positive news cycles and the religious Brexiters will see it as a sign of national renewal. However I think there's a case it will actually reinforce the current economic imbalances on the island. Still long overdue airport expansion we could have done anyway is a cogent response to the Brexit disaster. So as a long term opponent of southern airport expansion I've changed my mind. We are were we are and need shock absorbers.
I suspect that if the Government gives the go-ahead to both Heathrow and Gatwick, then Heathrow will pull out as it won't be able to bear the competition.
Unlikely. Gatwick won't be able to raise the cash without government guarantees.
I think the same is true of Heathrow. I suspect that the Government will be forced to underwrite both of them if they want airport expansion.
Poorly prepared joke by Therasa May about Thornberry asking for a second referendum. Strictly speaking, it was a lie ! The Speaker should have asked her to withdraw the remark.
T May is very poor with jokes.
Not just TM (Jeez, I didn't realise that TM has the same initials as MT)...all politicians should avoid jokes. Their delivery is toe curlingly ghastly.
It's a skill to tell a joke. I'm terrible too,. hopelessly awful, beyond horrific....
You can hardly imagine the young TM happily rolling off the jokes as a sixth former. Note to our PM...if you didn't do it then, when you were young and vibrant......please do not do it now.....
The joke had the desired effect of people laughing at Thornberry and she taking exemption to it.
I have to say, that figure of fun, Emily Thornberry was exceptionally good on Radio 5 this morning. One of the most polished political performances that I have heard for some time.
Polished - Emily Thornberry - well that's a view
She has a cut glass accent. Tyson pretends to dislikes toffs, but he can't resist it seems...
This tallies with the rumours I've been hearing within the industry.
A sensible decision, albeit a bit hostile to those that live nearby. They knew the risks though.
Boris-island-airport still ticks all the boxes though.
It's fantastic we're breaking out of the EU straitjacket to become a global hub of the future.
IMO Heathrow won't be a viable hub in twenty years, even with three runways. Other countries will rapidly overtake us.
Unless hub-and-spoke is beaten by point-to-point ...
Well, of course it won't, Mr. J, and why should we care? People flying through transferring at Heathrow are not bringing squillions of quid to the UK, though some of them might buy a cup of coffee. In cash terms transit passengers are a dead loss.
The arguments for hub-and-spoke airports are well-rehearsed. For one thing, if you're on a spoke, you get less traffic and that's bad for both the airport and the region/country. That's just one reason.
Airports are an enabler for the economy, not a direct driver of it.
Thanks Mr. J. I agree about the Hub ans spoke versus the point to point argument and I agree with Boeing.
As for airports being an enabler: we have sold them off into private ownership. So should not the private owners pick up the full bill for any expansion they want to do? If my mate's building company wants to expand, HMG doesn't come rallying around to provide the dosh.
The plan is that passengers pay for it in the form of increased airport charges.
Heathrow already has the highest charges in the world. BA say that passengers wouldn't accept the increase that is necessary (double) and BA plan to increasingly use Dublin as a hub as a consequence.
The impact of increased passenger charges was not addressed or modeled in the Davies study.
4 flights a day from Bham to Schipol makes it the best hub for longhaul for me, though Turkish and Emirates do two flights per day too to their hubs.
At peak times such as school holidays Heathrow is horrible. I try to avoid it as much as possible.
This tallies with the rumours I've been hearing within the industry.
A sensible decision, albeit a bit hostile to those that live nearby. They knew the risks though.
Boris-island-airport still ticks all the boxes though.
It's fantastic we're breaking out of the EU straitjacket to become a global hub of the future.
IMO Heathrow won't be a viable hub in twenty years, even with three runways. Other countries will rapidly overtake us.
Unless hub-and-spoke is beaten by point-to-point ...
Well, of course it won't, Mr. J, and why should we care? People flying through transferring at Heathrow are not bringing squillions of quid to the UK, though some of them might buy a cup of coffee. In cash terms transit passengers are a dead loss.
The arguments for hub-and-spoke airports are well-rehearsed. For one thing, if you're on a spoke, you get less traffic and that's bad for both the airport and the region/country. That's just one reason.
Airports are an enabler for the economy, not a direct driver of it.
Thanks Mr. J. I agree about the Hub ans spoke versus the point to point argument and I agree with Boeing.
As for airports being an enabler: we have sold them off into private ownership. So should not the private owners pick up the full bill for any expansion they want to do? If my mate's building company wants to expand, HMG doesn't come rallying around to provide the dosh.
The plan is that passengers pay for it in the form of increased airport charges.
Heathrow already has the highest charges in the world. BA say that passengers wouldn't accept the increase that is necessary (double) and BA plan to increasingly use Dublin as a hub as a consequence.
The impact of increased passenger charges was not addressed or modeled in the Davies study.
Where is your source for Heathrow having the highest charges in the world?
I used to be a major airport investor, owning shares in BAA, Copehagen, Zurich, Auckland, and Frankfurt airports, and I kept a very detailed spreadsheet of world airport charges.
Now, it's about five years out of date, but it had Heathrow (because of the way it was regulated) having among the lowest charges in the world, which was why Heathrow slots were so valuable.
Just heard Anna Soubry's speech at the Brexit debate. Two things really got under my skin, she said, "she hoped the 48% would become the majority" (I presume she means a second referendum?). And she accused older voters of ruining the lives of younger voters.
I hope hell freezes over before this awful woman ever gets back on the front bench. Hopefully, she will defect!
One of the most irritating recent theories is that somehow, the votes of 18-24 year olds count for more than everyone elses'.
If the young were huge eurosceptics, and the elderly Europhiles like Heseltine and Clarke, we'd hear much less of that argument.
The 18-24 bracket were in favour of Euro membership c.2000-2003, and very clearly for New Labour. Now, they would be 34-40 years old, clearly against and majority Conservative.
Just as the Conservatives came third among 18-24 year olds in February 1974, but that same age cohort is now two thirds Conservative or UKIP; and that age cohort voted overwhelmingly in favour of EEC membership in 1975, and overwhelmingly for Leave in June.
People becoming eurosceptic/right wing as they get older is one of the constants of British politics.
That's true......
I spoke with a friend yesterday what could we do to change this dynamic, especially as people are living longer, and we are producing less children.
I think the voting age should be set at 16-66; a fifty year window. That's fair...for the people of working age to decide how the country should be governed. A damn good idea I might add.
The only precedent for this was in ancient times people who received money from the state where barred from voting.
In modern times that would mean the unemployed, the pensioners and the civil servants would not be able to vote.
It would resemble a reversal of the 1884 Act.
Interesting concept.
It wouldn't change things much, barring pensioners would have the same impact as barring the unemployed and civil servants.
It would probably give the same GE results, but it's definitely undemocratic and would cause a revolution, and rightly so, with only the thought that people's voting rights can be restricted.
@faisalislam: Tesco needs to take back control of Marmite supplies from Unilever... or perhaps from those pesky foreign currencies talking down the pound
I'm off now and I've re-read your post. That is probably the best reply I have had in my many years coming here.
According to sean fear's theory, I'll be a Tory soon enough as the years go by, so maybe that is why I like your post so much....
It's not the end of the world to become so! Anyway in various elections I've voted Tory, Lib Dem, Labour, and ( many years ago!!!) Plaid Cymru. Hey I can be a broad church within myself!
This tallies with the rumours I've been hearing within the industry.
A sensible decision, albeit a bit hostile to those that live nearby. They knew the risks though.
Boris-island-airport still ticks all the boxes though.
It's fantastic we're breaking out of the EU straitjacket to become a global hub of the future.
IMO Heathrow won't be a viable hub in twenty years, even with three runways. Other countries will rapidly overtake us.
Unless hub-and-spoke is beaten by point-to-point ...
Well, of course it won't, Mr. J, and why should we care? People flying through transferring at Heathrow are not bringing squillions of quid to the UK, though some of them might buy a cup of coffee. In cash terms transit passengers are a dead loss.
The arguments for hub-and-spoke airports are well-rehearsed. For one thing, if you're on a spoke, you get less traffic and that's bad for both the airport and the region/country. That's just one reason.
Airports are an enabler for the economy, not a direct driver of it.
Thanks Mr. J. I agree about the Hub ans spoke versus the point to point argument and I agree with Boeing.
As for airports being an enabler: we have sold them off into private ownership. So should not the private owners pick up the full bill for any expansion they want to do? If my mate's building company wants to expand, HMG doesn't come rallying around to provide the dosh.
The plan is that passengers pay for it in the form of increased airport charges.
Heathrow already has the highest charges in the world. BA say that passengers wouldn't accept the increase that is necessary (double) and BA plan to increasingly use Dublin as a hub as a consequence.
The impact of increased passenger charges was not addressed or modeled in the Davies study.
Where is your source for Heathrow having the highest charges in the world?
I used to be a major airport investor, owning shares in BAA, Copehagen, Zurich, Auckland, and Frankfurt airports, and I kept a very detailed spreadsheet of world airport charges.
Now, it's about five years out of date, but it had Heathrow (because of the way it was regulated) having among the lowest charges in the world, which was why Heathrow slots were so valuable.
And their slots are 20% cheaper since June 23rd too...
Fine. Then we'll buy our cars from countries that don't demand open borders and no limit to migration as part of the deal.
Why is it so important for Germany to insist that Britain continues to accept unlimited migration from Eastern Europe as part of a free trade arrangement?
No other free trade deal does or would include such an arrangement.
It ultimately is part of the long-term aim of the EU to eradicate the continent's nation-states by mixing all the peoples together so that we eventually form one polis, one Europe... Ein Reich, Ein Euro...
Just heard Anna Soubry's speech at the Brexit debate. Two things really got under my skin, she said, "she hoped the 48% would become the majority" (I presume she means a second referendum?). And she accused older voters of ruining the lives of younger voters.
I hope hell freezes over before this awful woman ever gets back on the front bench. Hopefully, she will defect!
One of the most irritating recent theories is that somehow, the votes of 18-24 year olds count for more than everyone elses'.
If the young were huge eurosceptics, and the elderly Europhiles like Heseltine and Clarke, we'd hear much less of that argument.
The 18-24 bracket were in favour of Euro membership c.2000-2003, and very clearly for New Labour. Now, they would be 34-40 years old, clearly against and majority Conservative.
Just as the Conservatives came third among 18-24 year olds in February 1974, but that same age cohort is now two thirds Conservative or UKIP; and that age cohort voted overwhelmingly in favour of EEC membership in 1975, and overwhelmingly for Leave in June.
People becoming eurosceptic/right wing as they get older is one of the constants of British politics.
That's true......
I spoke with a friend yesterday what could we do to change this dynamic, especially as people are living longer, and we are producing less children.
I think the voting age should be set at 16-66; a fifty year window. That's fair...for the people of working age to decide how the country should be governed. A damn good idea I might add.
I think we should hunt the elderly, like in Logan's Run.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3Apg5XQBzs
Unless hub-and-spoke is beaten by point-to-point ...
Having thriving 3G networks provided flow on benefits to the country but not only did the government not fund the 3G network roll out they actually raised £22.5bn for the Exchequer via the auction of the 3G spectrum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
Bulgaria $19,169 (lowest of EU members)
UK $41,499
India $6,187
Next!
Because it would end up taking 30 years once all the Nimbys jumped in.
The 18-24 bracket were in favour of Euro membership c.2000-2003, and very clearly for New Labour. Now, they would be 34-40 years old, clearly against and majority Conservative.
She had to go away on a job, and was asking someone at the other end of the line for a lift to Stansted. He refused. "But it's a London airport. How can it be so far outside London!"
What little polling there has been seems to suggest that people do not want to control (reduce?) immigration if it means personal financial loss.
Really Brexit is Brexit, and it's up to May to interpret that. We, the public, will go along with something that seems sane and steady.
What we are seeing today is, I think, a welcome reaction against the very loose and possibly damaging talk from Rudd, Davis, Fox et al from the last few weeks.
When I was a child they used to fly 3 Vulcan bombers at a time off from Filton. The first one off at our end of the runway was very low & loud. The roar of those engines are a lasting memory - I could still recognise it before seeing it when we had a Vulcan at the air show last year. Last ever flight, I think it was.
The worst was at one point ryanairs flights to Copenhagen...that landed in Malmo!
If Labour is canny, it would put round pegs in round holes. Centrists like Starmer on Brexit, Kendall on Education, Umuna on business etc, policy on these unites the party and doesnot put the speaker in an awkward position.
The problem is they will not blame Brexit...they will blame immigrants, the EU for giving us a bad deal, they will blame the traitors, the remainers who talked down the country.....
They will not blame THEMSELVES obviously for creating this needless nihilism....
That doesn't mean to say there won't be other hubs that compete with it, of course.
Its hilarious here tonight. The remainers last stand.
The PB remainers remind me of the rich who sat in the Savoy Hotel on Dec 26th in the comfy chairs consuming canapes while fuming that their wealth was being decimated and the country had gone mad and not put Halifax in charge while half a mile away ordinary people were rallying together and desperately (and ultimately successfully) trying to put out the firestorm that Goering had started before it reached St Pauls.
Quite right too !
In my view, since these airports are essentially monopolistic, it'd be better of they were in government hands - allowing the taxpayer to profit.
On the other hand, Heathrow is a damn site better since Ferrovial bought it and they've invested a ton.
People becoming eurosceptic/right wing as they get older is one of the constants of British politics.
There might be some third party voters willing to vote tactically, but most of them are a plague I both your houses
The likes of Unilever and the big 4 supermarkets have been taking the piss for years.
Airports are an enabler for the economy, not a direct driver of it.
Heathrow doesn't always need to be "one runway" ahead of its rivals. But it does need enough to be competitive in offering a lot of routes and capacity, plus a pleasant environment for passengers and airlines.
Do @TheDemocrats know nothing about security? Pedesta's phone got wiped by anon... Password from #WikiLeaks https://t.co/PKiBXfa0Y0
They've downloaded his personal Outlook and Apple too.
Edit - they got his account password in an email to a colleague
Airports is one aspect. Pre-announcing some services deregulation and corporation tax cuts is another. I think he'll also reiterate some exceptions/loosening of migration permits for very highly skilled workers, subject to parliamentary approval/votes.
"The new investment required from Heathrow shareholders is enormous: greater than the Regulated Asset Value of the entire existing airport. There is no real “controlling mind” amongst the shareholders. Ferrovial is the lead investor but has the weakest balance sheet and has run its majority ownership stake down to 25%. The other investors are largely passive institutions (only one of which, owning 10%, is British).
While they say they are committed to expansion, there is no clear plan in the public domain as to how finance will be provided. Particularly unclear is whether a yet further increase in the debt/equity ratio is envisaged and how the risk of that is to be managed.
Another aspect of financial risk which has not yet been addressed is the timing of the finance required. Because of the complications of the project, the great majority of the work associated with expansion at Heathrow, and the financing connected to it, must be committed to at its outset. (As context, the Airports Commission analysis indicates that in the peak year of spend, Heathrow will need to raise £6 billion, a greater sum than any UK private entity has ever raised in the capital markets in a single year.)"
"Incumbent airlines (most crucially and most vociferously BA) are reluctant to “pre-fund” the investment - that is, to start paying higher charges to fund the project long before it is delivered – and then to see new airlines come into the airport that have made no prior contribution.
The Government’s has refused to pay for the re-routing of the M25 (which has no transport benefits in principle and is entirely for the convenience of Heathrow) which isn't in Heathrow's financial plan."
"All these risks fall in the first place to the commercial deliverability of the project and secondarily to the Government’s reputation should the project become unviable. All will become apparent in the early years of the process."
http://www.heathrowappg.com/heathrow-expansion-a-risk-assessment-2/
Heathrow has a bigger funding problem than Gatwick.
I spoke with a friend yesterday what could we do to change this dynamic, especially as people are living longer, and we are producing less children.
I think the voting age should be set at 16-66; a fifty year window. That's fair...for the people of working age to decide how the country should be governed. A damn good idea I might add.
If the government is needed to get involved then it perhaps should be in the form of providing loan guarantees, not providing direct funding. Or paying to expand transport links the government has to the airport perhaps. Not the airport itself.
Raising UK electricity prices for absolutely no reason whatsoever.
Europe: clearly we differ, but can you accept many of us do not see Brexit as nihilistic? I can see there are possible downsides, possibly big ones if both sides play silly buggers, but I can see there are upsides, both economic and (for me) certainly political. I'd like to see a totally sovereign country that then chooses to engage with "Europe" as closely as possible in trade, security, cultural exchange, reciprocal health care etc. However, my fear is that the EU has created a sacred cow out of freedom of movement for purely political means ( it has precious little to do with economics). Deep down it knows this is unpopular with the peoples of Western Europe but dare not be flexible for fear of it being a setback on the road to the USE.
The USE is not an ignoble aim per se BUT (thrice BUT) it needs the consent of the people, and it's nowhere near getting it. Ploughing on and hoping the pieces fall in behind (like they did with the Euro) is a recipe for disaster. And both you and I and everyone else in Europe don't want that.
As for pleasant environment for passengers, please explain how being stuck in a permanent traffic jam on the M3/M25/M4/M40 nexus, not to mention the God awful customer service within the terminals helps Heathrow.
https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/786270530227666944
Trump couldn't say that before because Paul Ryan also wants to abolish them, but after Ryan said goodbye he feels free to play the defender of social security.
@Barnesian seems better informed than me.
The EU27 obviously have a larger GDP than the UK.
It's very much in our interests to have growing, prosperous neighbours.
Pringles: nah you're fine go for it.
Europe: clearly we differ, but can you accept many of us do not see Brexit as nihilistic? I can see there are possible downsides, possibly big ones if both sides play silly buggers, but I can see there are upsides, both economic and (for me) certainly political. I'd like to see a totally sovereign country that then chooses to engage with "Europe" as closely as possible in trade, security, cultural exchange, reciprocal health care etc. However, my fear is that the EU has created a sacred cow out of freedom of movement for purely political means ( it has precious little to do with economics). Deep down it knows this is unpopular with the peoples of Western Europe but dare not be flexible for fear of it being a setback on the road to the USE.
The USE is not an ignoble aim per se BUT (thrice BUT) it needs the consent of the people, and it's nowhere near getting it. Ploughing on and hoping the pieces fall in behind (like they did with the Euro) is a recipe for disaster. And both you and I and everyone else in Europe don't want that.
@WelshOwl
A particularly well written and intelligent rebuttal that genuinely challenges my way of thinking. I will look out for your posts more.
And thanks for the green light with the Pringles
As for airports being an enabler: we have sold them off into private ownership. So should not the private owners pick up the full bill for any expansion they want to do? If my mate's building company wants to expand, HMG doesn't come rallying around to provide the dosh.
In modern times that would mean the unemployed, the pensioners and the civil servants would not be able to vote.
It would resemble a reversal of the 1884 Act.
I'm off now and I've re-read your post. That is probably the best reply I have had in my many years coming here.
According to sean fear's theory, I'll be a Tory soon enough as the years go by, so maybe that is why I like your post so much....
Heathrow already has the highest charges in the world. BA say that passengers wouldn't accept the increase that is necessary (double) and BA plan to increasingly use Dublin as a hub as a consequence.
The impact of increased passenger charges was not addressed or modeled in the Davies study.
Worrying how anti-democratic people are getting after the Brexit vote not going their way.
@WelshOwl
A particularly well written and intelligent rebuttal that genuinely challenges my way of thinking. I will look out for your posts more.
And thanks for the green light with the Pringles
Thank you. Appreciated.
How about only taxpayers get a vote? No? Worried that would be gerrymandering (60% Tory majorities) Ok - we'll stick with everyone getting the vote...
At peak times such as school holidays Heathrow is horrible. I try to avoid it as much as possible.
I used to be a major airport investor, owning shares in BAA, Copehagen, Zurich, Auckland, and Frankfurt airports, and I kept a very detailed spreadsheet of world airport charges.
Now, it's about five years out of date, but it had Heathrow (because of the way it was regulated) having among the lowest charges in the world, which was why Heathrow slots were so valuable.
'How about only taxpayers get a vote? No? Worried that would be gerrymandering (60% Tory majorities) Ok - we'll stick with everyone getting the vote.'
Wouldn't the 52% of net taxpayers that actually put in more than they take out be fairer ?
https://twitter.com/philipoltermann/status/786282703972868097
Oh, wait.
It would probably give the same GE results, but it's definitely undemocratic and would cause a revolution, and rightly so, with only the thought that people's voting rights can be restricted.
Why is it so important for Germany to insist that Britain continues to accept unlimited migration from Eastern Europe as part of a free trade arrangement?
No other free trade deal does or would include such an arrangement.
It ultimately is part of the long-term aim of the EU to eradicate the continent's nation-states by mixing all the peoples together so that we eventually form one polis, one Europe... Ein Reich, Ein Euro...