JosiasJessop said:

Anorak said:

"It is the most sensible, possibly cheapest, option".

You're entitled to your own opinion, obviously, but let's not pretend it's anything other than that. The commission's constraints were (in my opinion) pretty sensible. Replacing them with another set to get your preferred answer does not prove anything other than a personal bias.

I believe it will take the best part of a decade to fill up LHR (happy to be corrected). So that's around 2040. If more capacity is needed, let's have that debate in 2030.

A point of order, if I may: I've accepted - and supported - the need for Heathrow expansion since the initial AC report rejected Boris Island. The constraints were pretty sensible; but so would a more forward-looking set of constraints.

But we are where we are, and Heathrow it is.

As for ten years: ISTR that was the commission's belief. However, according to something I linked to last week, traffic growth has exceeded their projections. And construction will not be starting when they stated.

It does not take much excess traffic growth, delays in the start of construction, and delays in construction, for that ten years to become five years or even much less.

Point of order accepted.

Well, construction delays are inevitable (I suspect we can agree on that, even if we both despair at it). I'd also speculate that as Brexit will cut GDP, and as GDP growth has a pretty solid link to traffic demand growth in the long-term, that the forecasts are currently over-stating demand when the runway opens. Short-term departures from trend happen all time, so I'd be reluctant to read too much into them.

So on the whole I'll stick to my view that we don't need to look at another runway for another decade or more - even assuming another decade to build the thing.

Philip_Thompson said:

OllyT said:

Philip_Thompson said:

OllyT said:

taffys said:

''Er, LOL, no. Many voters didn't even know what the EU was or did when they voted to leave it, never mind being "perfectly aware" of the nuances between a soft EEA-style arrangement and a full blown departure as you claim.''

Here we go with the patronising 'voters are thick, let us decide' remainer bullsh8t that has become increasingly nauseating since remain got beat.

The latest remainer condescension, that the plebs will flock back to remain when their beer and bingo becomes more expensive, is perhaps the most nauseating.

The only thing we voted for on June 23rd was to leave the EU. No amount of bluster from the likes of your good self is going to change that. Your interpretation of what people who voted Leave wanted is no more than an opinion.

Would exiting the EU and adopting an EEA/EFTA style arrangement fulfil the terms of the question on the ref ballot paper? A straight Yes or No will suffice.

No.

The arguments as to what would happen if we voted Leave were:

From the Leave Side: We would stop contributions to the EU, we would regain "control", we would leave the jurisdiction of the ECJ, we would control immigration.

From the Remain Side: We would leave the Single Market, we would lose trade, our economy would be harmed.

"Hard" Brexit is the only option that mirrors what was debated and chosen in the referendum. Hard Brexit is Brexit, a Brexit in name only is not what was chosen.

Sorry all you are doing is trying to project your interpretation of what Leave voters intended when they marked their ballot papers. It has no validity, dozens of different things were said during the campaign and people voted Leave for a host of different reasons.

No I'm not I'm echoing what both campaigns said. Vote Leave which was the "official" Leave campaign claimed: no contributions, no ECJ, full control, controlled immigration. Does that mirror hard or soft Brexit? Britain Stronger in Europe the "official" Remain campaign claimed leaving would mean we would leave the Single Market. Is that Hard of Soft Brexit?

I would have preferred an exit to the EEA campaign from Vote Leave but that is not what happened.

As anything said by the official Leave campaign now appears to be sacrosanct can I expect to see the extra £350m a week for the NHS once we are out?

MaxPB said:

Anorak said:

MaxPB said:

Anorak said:

MaxPB said:

Sandpit said:

JosiasJessop said:

Anorak said:

DeClare said:

No it's been explored to death, even after every competent study agreed it was a dumb non-starter.

That depends on the constraints set on the study. In the long term (50+ years, passenger / freight growth continuing as it has), it is the most sensible, and possibly cheapest, option. Sadly, greater constraints were put on the commission.

I believe that the extra capacity enabled by HR3 will be filled pretty much as soon as it is opened, perhaps moving the bubble of capacity constraints elsewhere (e.g. terminal space, transport). Then we'll be going through this ordeal all over again.

Or, if the point-to-point proponents are to be believed, not.

A third runway will indeed be pretty much full as soon as it opens, which is why the decision has to be for two new runways.

I think three, one at each of Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. Leave the door open for a fourth at Heathrow. Close down Luton.

Who is paying for this? Neither LHR or LGW will build if the other one starts, the figures simply don't add up.

I'd agree with closing down Luton. Keep the airport, mind, just raze the rest and then salt the earth.

They have to self fund. If they can't find the money then that's not the taxpayer's problem.

So nothing happens, and the situation worsens. Awesome.

Heathrow would easily raise the necessary money. Gatwick and Stansted would find it tough going while private money poured into Heathrow (£14bn of it) but once that looks like winding down new money will need to look for new projects.

HR3 is probably the only major infrastructure project that could be financed entirely by the private sector.

I think the sums are £20 per additional passenger to make the investment worthwhile. Only very slightly more than what the current figures are, so not a huge problem.

Both LHR and LGW could self-fund, but the latter only if LHR didn't go ahead. Knowing this, it would seem the right thing to do is to recommend only one runway to be built. To do otherwise is exactly the same as announcing R3 is the winner but without appearing in anyway decisive.

Secondly, are you suggesting that there's a big pile of private money that will only be invested in the UK? 'Cos that ain't true, as far as I know.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/787995025527410688

The minute Trump says the Republican party is wrong, he doesn't represent them any more and there's a vacancy for their candidate.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/787995512448380928

Has he forgotten who he's standing against?

Philip_Thompson said:

Chris said:

Philip_Thompson said:

No little lie in small print ...

Ok - so you're saying the small print was true, but the stuff on the posters was a lie?

The stuff on the posters is overly simplistic but that's always the case with posters and catchphrases and why we have things like detail, manifestos and debate. It's impossible for anyone who paid the slightest bit of notice not to hear Vote Leave pledge some of the 350m to other causes or to realise that the rebate existed and was included in that figure.

No. £350m isn't an "overly simplistic" way of saying £100m.

It's a flat lie.

Dromedary said:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/787995025527410688

The minute Trump says the Republican party is wrong, he doesn't represent them any more and there's a vacancy for their candidate.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/787995512448380928

Has he forgotten who he's standing against?

Amazingly inept. When you're standing against one of the most unpopular politicians in history, frame it as a contest against someone popular instead.

Could the Democrats really win the House as well as the Senate and the Presidency?

"Yet now, with less than four weeks to go, Democrats are suddenly hopeful they can pick up the 30 seats they need to recapture the majority.
“It’s no longer, 'Can we fight to win the House?'" said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Xavier Becerra of California. "It’s, 'Can [Republicans] fight to keep from losing the House?'"
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/nancy-pelosi-house-speaker-229807

Gardenwalker said:

Ooh did you see that tweet from Montie?

"Senior minister describes @PHammondMP as pH1, totally acidic. Opposes everything but comes up with no ideas of his own. Getting ugly."

(apols-do not know how to embed tweets)

I had though yesterday this was good cop bad cop routine, but does seem to be getting a bit stressy.

Fox has most to gain from screwing him over.
Davis ought to be busy figuring stuff out, and Boris must be desperately trying to swot up on what Herodotus said about Syria or some such crap.

I suspect Davis will be the one briefing against Hammond.

Sean_F said:

logical_song said:

Could the Democrats really win the House as well as the Senate and the Presidency?

"Yet now, with less than four weeks to go, Democrats are suddenly hopeful they can pick up the 30 seats they need to recapture the majority.
“It’s no longer, 'Can we fight to win the House?'" said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Xavier Becerra of California. "It’s, 'Can [Republicans] fight to keep from losing the House?'"
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/nancy-pelosi-house-speaker-229807

Yes, they could win the House, although paradoxically, if Hilary Clinton is seen as a certainty, it likely strengthens the Republicans' chances of holding it.

The Americans do, justifiably like checks and balances, but if Trump turns off natural Republican voters enough so that many don't vote that should help the Democrats.

NEW THREAD

Anorak said:

Both LHR and LGW could self-fund, but the latter only if LHR didn't go ahead. Knowing this, it would seem the right thing to do is to recommend only one runway to be built. To do otherwise is exactly the same as announcing R3 is the winner but without appearing in anyway decisive.

Secondly, are you suggesting that there's a big pile of private money that will only be invested in the UK? 'Cos that ain't true, as far as I know.

It seems ridiculous that Gatwick could only be successful by hamstringing the competition.

As for money and investment, there is always money to invest in projects which can show decent a return. GR2 would be a decent investment (£7bn) but would be dipping into the same well as HR3 so would find it tough going initially. I think once the dust settles they would be able to raise enough money to get it done. Not because there is some specific UK money for UK projects, just because new money is always looking to be invested, especially at a time of ridiculously low yield.

In the end I think both will get the go ahead and both will get investment guarantees from the government. Stansted will be out of luck but get a commitment for the future.

But to the original statement of nothing happening if they all got the go ahead, that's patently false. HR3 will happen as normal, just without being seen to be playing favourites. There is no way that Gatwick could build a court case on the back of stopping Heathrow from expanding because they can't raise the money.

logical_song said:

Sean_F said:

logical_song said:

Could the Democrats really win the House as well as the Senate and the Presidency?

"Yet now, with less than four weeks to go, Democrats are suddenly hopeful they can pick up the 30 seats they need to recapture the majority.
“It’s no longer, 'Can we fight to win the House?'" said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Xavier Becerra of California. "It’s, 'Can [Republicans] fight to keep from losing the House?'"
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/nancy-pelosi-house-speaker-229807

Yes, they could win the House, although paradoxically, if Hilary Clinton is seen as a certainty, it likely strengthens the Republicans' chances of holding it.

The Americans do, justifiably like checks and balances, but if Trump turns off natural Republican voters enough so that many don't vote that should help the Democrats.

Jobabob said:

Sean_F said:

logical_song said:

Could the Democrats really win the House as well as the Senate and the Presidency?

"Yet now, with less than four weeks to go, Democrats are suddenly hopeful they can pick up the 30 seats they need to recapture the majority.
“It’s no longer, 'Can we fight to win the House?'" said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Xavier Becerra of California. "It’s, 'Can [Republicans] fight to keep from losing the House?'"
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/nancy-pelosi-house-speaker-229807

Yes, they could win the House, although paradoxically, if Hilary Clinton is seen as a certainty, it likely strengthens the Republicans' chances of holding it.

Agreed. I too suspect we may see the return of split-ticket voting to prevent the Dems from a clean sweep. I have relatives who are normally dyed-in-the wool Republicans who will vote for Hillary but GOP congressmen (I am assuming the latter part).

It's far better for Republicans that their voters back Clinton (or Johnson), and then vote Republican down-ballot, than stay at home.

Clinton is an unpopular candidate who's winning because Trump is more unpopular, so there's probably a better than usual chance of split-ticket voting. She's not likely to have much in the way of coat-tails.

PlatoSaid said:

The Star Sheffield
Eight men found guilty of sexually abusing teenage girls in Rotherham...
https://t.co/I5H9q1jwxc https://t.co/IMzcDxKSqJ

"The court heard details of how the central complainant in the case had reported her abuse to police on two occasions when she was just 13 years old in 2003 - but no action was ever taken.

"Her family also wrote to then Home Secretary David Blunkett to highlight what they said was happening to her at the hands of a group of Asian males."

"...her clothing seized at the time was lost and no scientific examination ever conducted.

"...the girl made further disclosures to the police in October 2003 about other men involved her alleged abuse - but the case did not proceed after her family were subjected to threats."

Sean_F said:

logical_song said:

Sean_F said:

logical_song said:

Could the Democrats really win the House as well as the Senate and the Presidency?

"Yet now, with less than four weeks to go, Democrats are suddenly hopeful they can pick up the 30 seats they need to recapture the majority.
“It’s no longer, 'Can we fight to win the House?'" said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Xavier Becerra of California. "It’s, 'Can [Republicans] fight to keep from losing the House?'"
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/nancy-pelosi-house-speaker-229807

Yes, they could win the House, although paradoxically, if Hilary Clinton is seen as a certainty, it likely strengthens the Republicans' chances of holding it.

The Americans do, justifiably like checks and balances, but if Trump turns off natural Republican voters enough so that many don't vote that should help the Democrats.

Jobabob said:

Sean_F said:

logical_song said:

Could the Democrats really win the House as well as the Senate and the Presidency?

"Yet now, with less than four weeks to go, Democrats are suddenly hopeful they can pick up the 30 seats they need to recapture the majority.
“It’s no longer, 'Can we fight to win the House?'" said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Xavier Becerra of California. "It’s, 'Can [Republicans] fight to keep from losing the House?'"
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/nancy-pelosi-house-speaker-229807

Yes, they could win the House, although paradoxically, if Hilary Clinton is seen as a certainty, it likely strengthens the Republicans' chances of holding it.

Agreed. I too suspect we may see the return of split-ticket voting to prevent the Dems from a clean sweep. I have relatives who are normally dyed-in-the wool Republicans who will vote for Hillary but GOP congressmen (I am assuming the latter part).

It's far better for Republicans that their voters back Clinton (or Johnson), and then vote Republican down-ballot, than stay at home.

Clinton is an unpopular candidate who's winning because Trump is more unpopular, so there's probably a better than usual chance of split-ticket voting. She's not likely to have much in the way of coat-tails.

If you were a Republican who couldn't stand Trump but disliked Clinton, you'd have to REALLY hate Trump to actually bother to turn out to vote for her. Isn't it more likely that you'd just stay away - and the down ticket Republicans would suffer.
Admittedly some may vote just for Congressmen and Senators, but overall Trump is a negative for the rest of the GOP candidates.