Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Confessions of a door to door fireplace salesman

2

Comments

  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    DavidL said:

    If Buttler brings this home (highly unlikely ) his status as the best ODI batsman in the world will be confirmed.

    He certainly is that.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Scott_P said:
    Well, that's the last thing that's needed. The SNP need to grow up.
    Great news. Last week I emailed each SNP MP personally with the reasons why they should not back Heathrow expansion and got responses from over half of them including a nice response from Ian Blackford.
    May I ask why you do not back Heathrow expansion?
    In short: faulty modelling, very suspicious process, takes too long (possibly will never happen).

    Gatwick immediately shovel ready with similar economic benefits at half the cost and a quarter of the disruption.
    LOL. No. Gatwick isn't really a practical option - at least not if we want a hub airport.

    You say HR3 will 'possibly never happen' : I'll guarantee you one thing: if HR3 does not go ahead after all the time spent on it and political woe it has caused, Gatwick expansion will not happen either. No politician will want to touch it.

    As I say below, I think BI is the best long-term alternative. But once the decision was made I did not want to press it, as something is needed. If LH3 is stopped, don't expect to get your wish either. Perhaps you should have done the same ...
    The Davies Airports Commission thought Gatwick was a practical option (and BI not practical) though Gatwick was not its preferred option.

    EDIT: I'm going to concentrate my efforts on lobbying MPs rather than PBers. :)
    Gatwick is not a practical option if you want a hub airport. From the Davies synopsis: "The Gatwick scheme is feasible, but the additional capacity would be more focused on short-haul intra-European routes and the economic benefits considerably smaller."

    Besides, if the modelling was faulty and the process suspicious, surely that counts for Gatwick as much as it does LH3? ;)
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Williamson, Grayling, Fox, Johnson, Davis ... a cabinet of all the talents.

    What an absolute shower.

    I just had a very pleasant lunch. Someone - who I won’t name but is well known in these circles - made the point that the one advantage of Brexit was that it had made us all realise how useless our politicians are
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Scott_P said:
    Well, that's the last thing that's needed. The SNP need to grow up.
    Recall Boris and march him through the lobby!

    To be honest it’s pretty much SOP for the SNats to renague at the last minute, not particularly unexpected.
    To make it clear: I don't particularly like the current proposals. I still think a Boris Island-style approach is the way to go, would be very future-proofed and enable a heck of a lot of associated development. However that battle has been lost, and it is obvious that we need to expand capacity at Heathrow. The current proposals might not be the best, but they are needed.
    What I really don’t like about the current proposals is that there’s no 4th runway being voted on. Given it’s taken half our lifetimes to get a vote on the third one, we should be planning for the builders to start on 4 as soon as they finish 3.

    The concept of starting again is good, but BI was in completely the wrong location.
    In the short term, yes. But BI would be a development for the next 100 years, and many of the locational issues would be 'solved' by associated developments it would enable. Heathrow R3 is only a sticking plaster for ten or twenty years - as you say, it'll soon need to be R4. And that will be massively costly.
    There’s an awful lot of businesses West of LHR, down the M3, M4 and increasingly M40 corridors who will disagree with you.
    Well yes, they may. But we are talking about infrastructure that will last a century or more, and those businesses will cope. Basically: a BI-style project offers us a heck of a lot of opportunities for the future - and far more than the crowded corridors you mention.
    +1
    Mr Tyndall: we appear to be agreeing a little too much recently. May I ask when normal service will be resumed? ;)
    Oh I am sure one of us will say something dumb at some point and will be deservedly hammered for it :)

    I certainly won't take any bets on which of us it will be!
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    edited June 2018

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Scott_P said:
    Well, that's the last thing that's needed. The SNP need to grow up.
    Great news. Last week I emailed each SNP MP personally with the reasons why they should not back Heathrow expansion and got responses from over half of them including a nice response from Ian Blackford.
    May I ask why you do not back Heathrow expansion?
    In short: faulty modelling, very suspicious process, takes too long (possibly will never happen).

    Gatwick immediately shovel ready with similar economic benefits at half the cost and a quarter of the disruption.
    LOL. No. Gatwick isn't really a practical option - at least not if we want a hub airport.

    You say HR3 will 'possibly never happen' : I'll guarantee you one thing: if HR3 does not go ahead after all the time spent on it and political woe it has caused, Gatwick expansion will not happen either. No politician will want to touch it.

    As I say below, I think BI is the best long-term alternative. But once the decision was made I did not want to press it, as something is needed. If LH3 is stopped, don't expect to get your wish either. Perhaps you should have done the same ...
    The Davies Airports Commission thought Gatwick was a practical option (and BI not practical) though Gatwick was not its preferred option.

    EDIT: I'm going to concentrate my efforts on lobbying MPs rather than PBers. :)
    Gatwick is not a practical option if you want a hub airport. From the Davies synopsis: "The Gatwick scheme is feasible, but the additional capacity would be more focused on short-haul intra-European routes and the economic benefits considerably smaller."

    Besides, if the modelling was faulty and the process suspicious, surely that counts for Gatwick as much as it does LH3? ;)
    No. On the contrary. The process and modelling was slanted to favour Heathrow. There was an exchange of key senior people between the DoT and Heathrow Airports plc. This will all come out in the planning appeals.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143

    The 'Peace Dividend' was always a stupid idea. It should have been obvious to anyone with a brain that the end of the Cold War and the disruption of the East/West balance was going to result in more, not less, conflict around the world.

    Would you have maintained the defence budget at around 4% of GDP?

    I'm not sure I see what benefit would have been derived from that extra spending.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Scott_P said:
    Well, that's the last thing that's needed. The SNP need to grow up.
    Great news. Last week I emailed each SNP MP personally with the reasons why they should not back Heathrow expansion and got responses from over half of them including a nice response from Ian Blackford.
    May I ask why you do not back Heathrow expansion?
    In short: faulty modelling, very suspicious process, takes too long (possibly will never happen).

    Gatwick immediately shovel ready with similar economic benefits at half the cost and a quarter of the disruption.
    LOL. No. Gatwick isn't really a practical option - at least not if we want a hub airport.

    You say HR3 will 'possibly never happen' : I'll guarantee you one thing: if HR3 does not go ahead after all the time spent on it and political woe it has caused, Gatwick expansion will not happen either. No politician will want to touch it.

    As I say below, I think BI is the best long-term alternative. But once the decision was made I did not want to press it, as something is needed. If LH3 is stopped, don't expect to get your wish either. Perhaps you should have done the same ...
    The Davies Airports Commission thought Gatwick was a practical option (and BI not practical) though Gatwick was not its preferred option.

    EDIT: I'm going to concentrate my efforts on lobbying MPs rather than PBers. :)
    Gatwick is not a practical option if you want a hub airport. From the Davies synopsis: "The Gatwick scheme is feasible, but the additional capacity would be more focused on short-haul intra-European routes and the economic benefits considerably smaller."

    Besides, if the modelling was faulty and the process suspicious, surely that counts for Gatwick as much as it does LH3? ;)
    No. On the contrary. The process and modelling was slanted to favour Heathrow. There was an exchange of key senior people between the DoT and Heathrow Airports plc. This will all come out in the planning appeals.
    May I ask if you have any skin in the game?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    https://twitter.com/ahencyclopedia/status/1010898187450834944

    I bet he did it without decades of dicking about, too. [Also, CE remains the excrement of Beelzebub].
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Barnesian said:

    Scott_P said:
    Well, that's the last thing that's needed. The SNP need to grow up.
    Great news. Last week I emailed each SNP MP personally with the reasons why they should not back Heathrow expansion and got responses from over half of them including a nice response from Ian Blackford.
    May I ask why you do not back Heathrow expansion?
    Because he lives locally and prioritises his own interests above the country’s need for additional capacity
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771
    Fire Williamson, promote Morduant to SoS for Defence, bring in Stewart at DfID*.

    * Although I'd make DfID a sub-cabinet post at the Foreign Office. Not clear why giving away taxpayers money should rate a seat at the big table.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    Charles said:

    Williamson, Grayling, Fox, Johnson, Davis ... a cabinet of all the talents.

    What an absolute shower.

    I just had a very pleasant lunch. Someone - who I won’t name but is well known in these circles - made the point that the one advantage of Brexit was that it had made us all realise how useless our politicians are
    Most of them are extremely capable but twice now we have put them in a near impossible situation.

    Not only Brexit, but an NOM government to enact it.

    Not to say that this hasn't in turn put a particularly useless group front and centre.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. 1000, I agree. Mordaunt should be promoted on her way to becoming the next PM.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    edited June 2018

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Scott_P said:
    Well, that's the last thing that's needed. The SNP need to grow up.
    Great news. Last week I emailed each SNP MP personally with the reasons why they should not back Heathrow expansion and got responses from over half of them including a nice response from Ian Blackford.
    May I ask why you do not back Heathrow expansion?
    In short: faulty modelling, very suspicious process, takes too long (possibly will never happen).

    Gatwick immediately shovel ready with similar economic benefits at half the cost and a quarter of the disruption.
    LOL. No. Gatwick isn't really a practical option - at least not if we want a hub airport.

    You say HR3 will 'possibly never happen' : I'll guarantee you one thing: if HR3 does not go ahead after all the time spent on it and political woe it has caused, Gatwick expansion will not happen either. No politician will want to touch it.

    As I say below, I think BI is the best long-term alternative. But once the decision was made I did not want to press it, as something is needed. If LH3 is stopped, don't expect to get your wish either. Perhaps you should have done the same ...
    The Davies Airports Commission thought Gatwick was a practical option (and BI not practical) though Gatwick was not its preferred option.

    EDIT: I'm going to concentrate my efforts on lobbying MPs rather than PBers. :)
    Gatwick is not a practical option if you want a hub airport. From the Davies synopsis: "The Gatwick scheme is feasible, but the additional capacity would be more focused on short-haul intra-European routes and the economic benefits considerably smaller."

    Besides, if the modelling was faulty and the process suspicious, surely that counts for Gatwick as much as it does LH3? ;)
    No. On the contrary. The process and modelling was slanted to favour Heathrow. There was an exchange of key senior people between the DoT and Heathrow Airports plc. This will all come out in the planning appeals.
    May I ask if you have any skin in the game?
    No. I am not invested in Gatwick or shorting Ferrovial, the foreign owners of Heathrow Airport. I am a user of both airports.

    With a background in operational research, I am interested in sound economic decision making and I detest political shenanigans.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    edited June 2018
    Off-topic:

    With the end of VTEC (Virgin's) time in charge of East Coast, the new nationalised LNER have taken over today.

    There are rumours that there have been some rather large price increases for some tickets.

    It'll be interesting to see if these rumours are true, and the scale of the changes.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846

    The 'Peace Dividend' was always a stupid idea. It should have been obvious to anyone with a brain that the end of the Cold War and the disruption of the East/West balance was going to result in more, not less, conflict around the world.

    Would you have maintained the defence budget at around 4% of GDP?

    I'm not sure I see what benefit would have been derived from that extra spending.
    I would not have rushed to slash it so rapidly. We now have a military that is unfit for almost any purpose even if we are reducing our ambitions.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Barnesian said:

    No. I am not invested in Gatwick or shorting Ferrovial, the foreign owners of Heathrow Airport. I am a user of both airports.

    With a background in operational research, I am interested in sound economic decision making and I detest political shenanigans.

    You detest political shenanigans, yet you wrote to SNP MPs - who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get - to kybosh it? LOL. :)

    Besides, as the Davies commission says, the economic benefits of Gatwick expansion are considerably smaller.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    F1: post-race ramble:
    http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2018/06/france-post-race-analysis-2018.html

    I did notice something interesting when filling in my records. McLaren scored at every one of the first four races, and have failed to score at the last four. Not great.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,400
    edited June 2018

    https://twitter.com/ahencyclopedia/status/1010898187450834944

    I bet he did it without decades of dicking about, too. [Also, CE remains the excrement of Beelzebub].

    Not to say that Trajan did not face his own pressures, but probably very different ones.

    Qin Shi Huang could get stuff built, but it'd take decades of course.

    I just find CE weird - you're still using the purported birth of Christ as the cut off for the 'Common Era', for little historical reason as far as I can see, so it just seems silly. It'd be too irritating to come up with a different calendar for us to use at this point, but if we're not going to do so, pretending we're making a non-christ distinction to it is just petty.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Barnesian said:

    No. I am not invested in Gatwick or shorting Ferrovial, the foreign owners of Heathrow Airport. I am a user of both airports.

    With a background in operational research, I am interested in sound economic decision making and I detest political shenanigans.

    You detest political shenanigans, yet you wrote to SNP MPs - who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get - to kybosh it? LOL. :)

    Besides, as the Davies commission says, the economic benefits of Gatwick expansion are considerably smaller.
    You do realise Barnes is under the flightpath?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,757
    kle4 said:

    https://twitter.com/ahencyclopedia/status/1010898187450834944

    I bet he did it without decades of dicking about, too. [Also, CE remains the excrement of Beelzebub].

    Not to say that Trajan did not face his own pressures, but probably very different ones.

    Qin Shi Huang could get stuff built, but it'd take decades of course.

    I just find CE weird - you're still using the purported birth of Christ as the cut off for the 'Common Era', for little historical reason as far as I can see, so it just seems silly. It'd be too irritating to come up with a different calendar for us to use at this point, but if we're not going to do so, pretending we're making a non-christ distinction to it is just petty.
    Also of course it isn't the birth date of Jesus, which would have been before 4 BC.

    I think however originally it was meant to be 'Christian Era' and they substituted 'Common' when they decided that was still politically incorrect. (Also arguably inaccurate, as the global Christian Era probably only kicked off in the nineteenth century.)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771
    Barnesian said:

    No. I am not invested in Gatwick or shorting Ferrovial, the foreign owners of Heathrow Airport. I am a user of both airports.

    With a background in operational research, I am interested in sound economic decision making and I detest political shenanigans.

    Ferrovial's accounting is very... errr... opaque.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. kle4, quite.

    Trajan was arguably the greatest emperor, though we know surprisingly little detail about him. After his death, new emperors were wished to be as virtuous as Trajan.

    Mr. Doethur, indeed.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Charles said:

    Barnesian said:

    No. I am not invested in Gatwick or shorting Ferrovial, the foreign owners of Heathrow Airport. I am a user of both airports.

    With a background in operational research, I am interested in sound economic decision making and I detest political shenanigans.

    You detest political shenanigans, yet you wrote to SNP MPs - who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get - to kybosh it? LOL. :)

    Besides, as the Davies commission says, the economic benefits of Gatwick expansion are considerably smaller.
    You do realise Barnes is under the flightpath?
    That's a good point ...
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227

    The 'Peace Dividend' was always a stupid idea. It should have been obvious to anyone with a brain that the end of the Cold War and the disruption of the East/West balance was going to result in more, not less, conflict around the world.

    Would you have maintained the defence budget at around 4% of GDP?

    I'm not sure I see what benefit would have been derived from that extra spending.
    I would not have rushed to slash it so rapidly. We now have a military that is unfit for almost any purpose even if we are reducing our ambitions.
    Britain should be a nuclear power and capable of defending itself - that's it. No poncing about. No need for Trident. At £1bn per hospital, we can build 25 hospitals for each Trident!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,757
    surby said:

    The 'Peace Dividend' was always a stupid idea. It should have been obvious to anyone with a brain that the end of the Cold War and the disruption of the East/West balance was going to result in more, not less, conflict around the world.

    Would you have maintained the defence budget at around 4% of GDP?

    I'm not sure I see what benefit would have been derived from that extra spending.
    I would not have rushed to slash it so rapidly. We now have a military that is unfit for almost any purpose even if we are reducing our ambitions.
    Britain should be a nuclear power and capable of defending itself - that's it. No poncing about. No need for Trident. At £1bn per hospital, we can build 25 hospitals for each Trident!
    That seems contradictory. You're saying we should be, and should not be, a nuclear power?
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,695
    I think Gavin is trying to earn himself some publicity after his disastrous outing Richard Madley...
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Scott_P said:
    Well, that's the last thing that's needed. The SNP need to grow up.
    Great news. Last week I emailed each SNP MP personally with the reasons why they should not back Heathrow expansion and got responses from over half of them including a nice response from Ian Blackford.
    May I ask why you do not back Heathrow expansion?
    In short: faulty modelling, very suspicious process, takes too long (possibly will never happen).

    Gatwick immediately shovel ready with similar economic benefits at half the cost and a quarter of the disruption.
    LOL. No. Gatwick isn't really a practical option - at least not if we want a hub airport.

    You say HR3 will 'possibly never happen' : I'll guarantee you one thing: if HR3 does not go ahead after all the time spent on it and political woe it has caused, Gatwick expansion will not happen either. No politician will want to touch it.

    As I say below, I think BI is the best long-term alternative. But once the decision was made I did not want to press it, as something is needed. If LH3 is stopped, don't expect to get your wish either. Perhaps you should have done the same ...
    The Davies Airports Commission thought Gatwick was a practical option (and BI not practical) though Gatwick was not its preferred option.

    EDIT: I'm going to concentrate my efforts on lobbying MPs rather than PBers. :)
    Gatwick is not a practical option if you want a hub airport. From the Davies synopsis: "The Gatwick scheme is feasible, but the additional capacity would be more focused on short-haul intra-European routes and the economic benefits considerably smaller."

    Besides, if the modelling was faulty and the process suspicious, surely that counts for Gatwick as much as it does LH3? ;)
    I am a Socialist and I support expansion of both the airports. Capitalists would love it and why not ? It creates jobs.

    P.S. I use both the airports though Heathrow more frequently. I use LHR about once a month.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771
    John McAfee charges $105,000 per tweet.

    I just thought I'd mention that.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    https://twitter.com/ahencyclopedia/status/1010898187450834944

    I bet he did it without decades of dicking about, too. [Also, CE remains the excrement of Beelzebub].

    Well, yes. But I doubt you'd like some of the methods the leaders back then used to avoid the 'dicking about'. Health and safety gets a lot of bad press, but not necessarily if you're one of the people being kept safe.

    Heck, China nowadays is bad enough, but at least they've stopped burying thousands of the workers in the world-famous structure they're building ... ;)
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    edited June 2018
    rcs1000 said:

    John McAfee charges $105,000 per tweet.

    I just thought I'd mention that.

    He's an *interesting* character. I've no idea if he's a genius or just insane. Or both.

    edit: also, $105,000 is a rather specific sum. Why not just $100,000 ? ;)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771
    GIN1138 said:

    I think Gavin is trying to earn himself some publicity after his disastrous outing Richard Madley...

    I think he's about the only Minister that TM could fire without consequences.

    She should fire him.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    rcs1000 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    I think Gavin is trying to earn himself some publicity after his disastrous outing Richard Madley...

    I think he's about the only Minister that TM could fire without consequences.

    She should fire him.
    Totally agree
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227
    ydoethur said:

    surby said:

    The 'Peace Dividend' was always a stupid idea. It should have been obvious to anyone with a brain that the end of the Cold War and the disruption of the East/West balance was going to result in more, not less, conflict around the world.

    Would you have maintained the defence budget at around 4% of GDP?

    I'm not sure I see what benefit would have been derived from that extra spending.
    I would not have rushed to slash it so rapidly. We now have a military that is unfit for almost any purpose even if we are reducing our ambitions.
    Britain should be a nuclear power and capable of defending itself - that's it. No poncing about. No need for Trident. At £1bn per hospital, we can build 25 hospitals for each Trident!
    That seems contradictory. You're saying we should be, and should not be, a nuclear power?
    I am not contradicting myself at all. You have been mugged by the Military Industrial lobby. We already have nuclear submarines, nuclear capable bombers, battlefield tactical weapons etc. etc. This does not mean we have to put all our eggs [ 512 of them ? ] in one [ Trident ] basket.

    I am equally aware of the intellectual blackmail from my Union brothers and sisters. Saving 6000 jobs. How many jobs will alternative investments create ?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    surby said:

    The 'Peace Dividend' was always a stupid idea. It should have been obvious to anyone with a brain that the end of the Cold War and the disruption of the East/West balance was going to result in more, not less, conflict around the world.

    Would you have maintained the defence budget at around 4% of GDP?

    I'm not sure I see what benefit would have been derived from that extra spending.
    I would not have rushed to slash it so rapidly. We now have a military that is unfit for almost any purpose even if we are reducing our ambitions.
    Britain should be a nuclear power and capable of defending itself - that's it. No poncing about. No need for Trident. At £1bn per hospital, we can build 25 hospitals for each Trident!
    Is that the capital infrastructure cost, or the long-term operational costs, including things like staffing? It'd be good to compare like-for-like. It's no good building hospitals if you cannot afford to run them.

    Instead of saying 'this money would buy xx new hospitals, I wish people would instead say: this money would pay for xxxx new hospital beds, or xxxxxxx GP appointments, per year.'
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,757
    surby said:

    ydoethur said:

    surby said:

    The 'Peace Dividend' was always a stupid idea. It should have been obvious to anyone with a brain that the end of the Cold War and the disruption of the East/West balance was going to result in more, not less, conflict around the world.

    Would you have maintained the defence budget at around 4% of GDP?

    I'm not sure I see what benefit would have been derived from that extra spending.
    I would not have rushed to slash it so rapidly. We now have a military that is unfit for almost any purpose even if we are reducing our ambitions.
    Britain should be a nuclear power and capable of defending itself - that's it. No poncing about. No need for Trident. At £1bn per hospital, we can build 25 hospitals for each Trident!
    That seems contradictory. You're saying we should be, and should not be, a nuclear power?
    I am not contradicting myself at all. You have been mugged by the Military Industrial lobby. We already have nuclear submarines, nuclear capable bombers, battlefield tactical weapons etc. etc. This does not mean we have to put all our eggs [ 512 of them ? ] in one [ Trident ] basket.

    I am equally aware of the intellectual blackmail from my Union brothers and sisters. Saving 6000 jobs. How many jobs will alternative investments create ?
    You do realise that Trident is the only actual nuclear weapons system we have? Or has that passed you by?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958
    GIN1138 said:

    I think Gavin is trying to earn himself some publicity after his disastrous outing Richard Madley...

    Outing of, or outing with???
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979

    Barnesian said:

    No. I am not invested in Gatwick or shorting Ferrovial, the foreign owners of Heathrow Airport. I am a user of both airports.

    With a background in operational research, I am interested in sound economic decision making and I detest political shenanigans.

    You detest political shenanigans, yet you wrote to SNP MPs - who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get - to kybosh it? LOL. :)

    Besides, as the Davies commission says, the economic benefits of Gatwick expansion are considerably smaller.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dfv7KKjXkAEq5wK.png:large

    SNP MPs who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get will have the same vote as London MPs. They have been offered a sweetener by Heathrow Airports Ltd of a £1.5m investment in a marketing campaign to promote Scotland.
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Scott_P said:
    Well, that's the last thing that's needed. The SNP need to grow up.
    Recall Boris and march him through the lobby!

    To be honest it’s pretty much SOP for the SNats to renague at the last minute, not particularly unexpected.
    To make it clear: I don't particularly like the current proposals. I still think a Boris Island-style approach is the way to go, would be very future-proofed and enable a heck of a lot of associated development. However that battle has been lost, and it is obvious that we need to expand capacity at Heathrow. The current proposals might not be the best, but they are needed.
    What I really don’t like about the current proposals is that there’s no 4th runway being voted on. Given it’s taken half our lifetimes to get a vote on the third one, we should be planning for the builders to start on 4 as soon as they finish 3.

    The concept of starting again is good, but BI was in completely the wrong location.
    In the short term, yes. But BI would be a development for the next 100 years, and many of the locational issues would be 'solved' by associated developments it would enable. Heathrow R3 is only a sticking plaster for ten or twenty years - as you say, it'll soon need to be R4. And that will be massively costly.
    There’s an awful lot of businesses West of LHR, down the M3, M4 and increasingly M40 corridors who will disagree with you.
    BI would make expansion of airports like Birmingham and Bristol more feasible rather than having a cluster of airports that were vaguely ‘London’.
    One of the great failings of successive governments - highlighted by this one - is the failure to disperse the growth in air traffic across the UK. We need much more long haul investment in other airports around the country.
    But business is also located in a lopsided manner in and around London. The airport comes with it. To some extent France also has this problem but TGV helps to disperse it somewhat. Germany does not have this problem as there are many large cities and none dominates. Probably, this was helped by Berlin being divided for so long.
  • “Give Me £20bn Or I’ll Bring You Down” says man who lost a battle of wits against Richard Madeley.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    kle4 said:

    https://twitter.com/ahencyclopedia/status/1010898187450834944

    I bet he did it without decades of dicking about, too. [Also, CE remains the excrement of Beelzebub].

    Not to say that Trajan did not face his own pressures, but probably very different ones.

    Qin Shi Huang could get stuff built, but it'd take decades of course.

    I just find CE weird - you're still using the purported birth of Christ as the cut off for the 'Common Era', for little historical reason as far as I can see, so it just seems silly. It'd be too irritating to come up with a different calendar for us to use at this point, but if we're not going to do so, pretending we're making a non-christ distinction to it is just petty.
    With computers it should be really easy to convert between different calendar systems. It's the 24th June in the 67th year of the reign of QEII, to take our current calendar system back to its pre-Christian roots.

    I do wonder how far the Chinese might try to encourage other countries to use their calendar system in preference to the Christian system.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    No. I am not invested in Gatwick or shorting Ferrovial, the foreign owners of Heathrow Airport. I am a user of both airports.

    With a background in operational research, I am interested in sound economic decision making and I detest political shenanigans.

    You detest political shenanigans, yet you wrote to SNP MPs - who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get - to kybosh it? LOL. :)

    Besides, as the Davies commission says, the economic benefits of Gatwick expansion are considerably smaller.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dfv7KKjXkAEq5wK.png:large

    SNP MPs who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get will have the same vote as London MPs. They have been offered a sweetener by Heathrow Airports Ltd of a £1.5m investment in a marketing campaign to promote Scotland.
    That's not the most professional infographic I've ever seen...

    But you avoid my point: you claim to detest political shenanigans, whilst performing them yourself ...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771

    rcs1000 said:

    John McAfee charges $105,000 per tweet.

    I just thought I'd mention that.

    He's an *interesting* character. I've no idea if he's a genius or just insane. Or both.

    edit: also, $105,000 is a rather specific sum. Why not just $100,000 ? ;)
    He's certainly insane. Genius? I'll reserve judgement.

    Have you read this article: https://www.wired.com/2012/12/ff-john-mcafees-last-stand/
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227
    edited June 2018
    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    No. I am not invested in Gatwick or shorting Ferrovial, the foreign owners of Heathrow Airport. I am a user of both airports.

    With a background in operational research, I am interested in sound economic decision making and I detest political shenanigans.

    You detest political shenanigans, yet you wrote to SNP MPs - who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get - to kybosh it? LOL. :)

    Besides, as the Davies commission says, the economic benefits of Gatwick expansion are considerably smaller.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dfv7KKjXkAEq5wK.png:large

    SNP MPs who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get will have the same vote as London MPs. They have been offered a sweetener by Heathrow Airports Ltd of a £1.5m investment in a marketing campaign to promote Scotland.
    That was not the main attraction I understand. Guaranteed Scotland slots was the key. However, the promises were similar to the PMs regarding Brexit. Depending on who she was talking to.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/heathrow-runway-snp-promised-16-000-new-jobs-in-exchange-for-backing-project-t2b8s5crl
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,757
    surby said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Scott_P said:
    Well, that's the last thing that's needed. The SNP need to grow up.
    Recall Boris and march him through the lobby!

    To be honest it’s pretty much SOP for the SNats to renague at the last minute, not particularly unexpected.
    To make it clear: I don't particularly like the current proposals. I still think a Boris Island-style approach is the way to go, would be very future-proofed and enable a heck of a lot of associated development. However that battle has been lost, and it is obvious that we need to expand capacity at Heathrow. The current proposals might not be the best, but they are needed.
    What I really don’t like about the current proposals is that there’s no 4th runway being voted on. Given it’s taken half our lifetimes to get a vote on the third one, we should be planning for the builders to start on 4 as soon as they finish 3.

    The concept of starting again is good, but BI was in completely the wrong location.
    In the short term, yes. But BI would be a development for the next 100 years, and many of the locational issues would be 'solved' by associated developments it would enable. Heathrow R3 is only a sticking plaster for ten or twenty years - as you say, it'll soon need to be R4. And that will be massively costly.
    There’s an awful lot of businesses West of LHR, down the M3, M4 and increasingly M40 corridors who will disagree with you.
    BI would make expansion of airports like Birmingham and Bristol more feasible rather than having a cluster of airports that were vaguely ‘London’.
    One of the great failings of successive governments - highlighted by this one - is the failure to disperse the growth in air traffic across the UK. We need much more long haul investment in other airports around the country.
    But business is also located in a lopsided manner in and around London. The airport comes with it. To some extent France also has this problem but TGV helps to disperse it somewhat. Germany does not have this problem as there are many large cities and none dominates. Probably, this was helped by Berlin being divided for so long.
    Possibly also because the old West Germany had no one dominant city - Frankfurt was probably the most significant metropolis, but Bonn was the seat of government and Cologne was where most of the media hung out.
  • Off-topic:

    With the end of VTEC (Virgin's) time in charge of East Coast, the new nationalised LNER have taken over today.

    There are rumours that there have been some rather large price increases for some tickets.

    It'll be interesting to see if these rumours are true, and the scale of the changes.

    Almost certainly bollocks.

    The timetable changes twice a year, in May and December, the prices change once a year on the first working day of January.

    Cannot possibly see fare changes outside that timetable as screws up cross franchise ticketing.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    No. I am not invested in Gatwick or shorting Ferrovial, the foreign owners of Heathrow Airport. I am a user of both airports.

    With a background in operational research, I am interested in sound economic decision making and I detest political shenanigans.

    You detest political shenanigans, yet you wrote to SNP MPs - who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get - to kybosh it? LOL. :)

    Besides, as the Davies commission says, the economic benefits of Gatwick expansion are considerably smaller.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dfv7KKjXkAEq5wK.png:large

    SNP MPs who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get will have the same vote as London MPs. They have been offered a sweetener by Heathrow Airports Ltd of a £1.5m investment in a marketing campaign to promote Scotland.
    That's not the most professional infographic I've ever seen...

    But you avoid my point: you claim to detest political shenanigans, whilst performing them yourself ...
    "Tory MP Zac Goldsmith has accused the Government and Heathrow Airport of having a relationship that “borders on the corrupt”. He said the closeness of the interaction between the airport and Whitehall was “rotten”"

    http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2016/11/zac-too-close-relationship-between-heathrow-government-borders-on-corrupt-recent-examples/

    This is what I mean by political shenanigans. Not private citizens lobbying MPs.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    Off-topic:

    With the end of VTEC (Virgin's) time in charge of East Coast, the new nationalised LNER have taken over today.

    There are rumours that there have been some rather large price increases for some tickets.

    It'll be interesting to see if these rumours are true, and the scale of the changes.

    Almost certainly bollocks.

    The timetable changes twice a year, in May and December, the prices change once a year on the first working day of January.

    Cannot possibly see fare changes outside that timetable as screws up cross franchise ticketing.
    That was my first thought as well. However that doesn't mean they haven't done it, and promotions etc might have been cut.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,695

    “Give Me £20bn Or I’ll Bring You Down” says man who lost a battle of wits against Richard Madeley.

    I'm not sure Gavin is all that intelligent to be honest... And there's something about him that reminds me a bit of Frank Spencer... ;)
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    surby said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    No. I am not invested in Gatwick or shorting Ferrovial, the foreign owners of Heathrow Airport. I am a user of both airports.

    With a background in operational research, I am interested in sound economic decision making and I detest political shenanigans.

    You detest political shenanigans, yet you wrote to SNP MPs - who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get - to kybosh it? LOL. :)

    Besides, as the Davies commission says, the economic benefits of Gatwick expansion are considerably smaller.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dfv7KKjXkAEq5wK.png:large

    SNP MPs who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get will have the same vote as London MPs. They have been offered a sweetener by Heathrow Airports Ltd of a £1.5m investment in a marketing campaign to promote Scotland.
    That was not the main attraction I understand. Guaranteed Scotland slots was the key. However, the promises were similar to the PMs regarding Brexit. Depending on who she was talking to.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/heathrow-runway-snp-promised-16-000-new-jobs-in-exchange-for-backing-project-t2b8s5crl
    The SNP will have seen have much they can trust Mrs May's promises. Let's see what happens tomorrow. I'm much more interested in persuading MPs than fellow PBers.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    GIN1138 said:

    “Give Me £20bn Or I’ll Bring You Down” says man who lost a battle of wits against Richard Madeley.

    I'm not sure Gavin is all that intelligent to be honest... And there's something about him that reminds me a bit of Frank Spencer... ;)
    Yes! That's it! Frank Spencer. I knew he reminded me of someone. It's the slightly slack mouth and general gormlessness.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    No. I am not invested in Gatwick or shorting Ferrovial, the foreign owners of Heathrow Airport. I am a user of both airports.

    With a background in operational research, I am interested in sound economic decision making and I detest political shenanigans.

    You detest political shenanigans, yet you wrote to SNP MPs - who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get - to kybosh it? LOL. :)

    Besides, as the Davies commission says, the economic benefits of Gatwick expansion are considerably smaller.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dfv7KKjXkAEq5wK.png:large

    SNP MPs who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get will have the same vote as London MPs. They have been offered a sweetener by Heathrow Airports Ltd of a £1.5m investment in a marketing campaign to promote Scotland.
    That's not the most professional infographic I've ever seen...

    But you avoid my point: you claim to detest political shenanigans, whilst performing them yourself ...
    "Tory MP Zac Goldsmith has accused the Government and Heathrow Airport of having a relationship that “borders on the corrupt”. He said the closeness of the interaction between the airport and Whitehall was “rotten”"

    http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2016/11/zac-too-close-relationship-between-heathrow-government-borders-on-corrupt-recent-examples/

    This is what I mean by political shenanigans. Not private citizens lobbying MPs.
    ?

    Zac Goldsmith?

    *That* Zac Goldsmith?

    If you're a private citizen then lobby your local MP. Lobbying many MPs far away looks a bit like you've got skin in the game or are somewhat obsessed, especially when you know full well that those SNP MPs are likely to play the political shenanigan game.

    Did you write to any other MPs?

    BTW, I've probably been one of HS2's biggest supporters on here, and I've not written a single letter about it, yet alone to any MP. I'm very zen about it: I think it's the right thing to do, and will argue for it robustly. But I'd only ever write to my local MP, and think there are more important local and national issues to concentrate on.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,757
    Barnesian said:

    GIN1138 said:

    “Give Me £20bn Or I’ll Bring You Down” says man who lost a battle of wits against Richard Madeley.

    I'm not sure Gavin is all that intelligent to be honest... And there's something about him that reminds me a bit of Frank Spencer... ;)
    Yes! That's it! Frank Spencer. I knew he reminded me of someone. It's the slightly slack mouth and general gormlessness.
    But can he sing Music of the Night?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    John McAfee charges $105,000 per tweet.

    I just thought I'd mention that.

    He's an *interesting* character. I've no idea if he's a genius or just insane. Or both.

    edit: also, $105,000 is a rather specific sum. Why not just $100,000 ? ;)
    He's certainly insane. Genius? I'll reserve judgement.

    Have you read this article: https://www.wired.com/2012/12/ff-john-mcafees-last-stand/
    I've always associated Mcafee with antivirus software..
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,757
    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    John McAfee charges $105,000 per tweet.

    I just thought I'd mention that.

    He's an *interesting* character. I've no idea if he's a genius or just insane. Or both.

    edit: also, $105,000 is a rather specific sum. Why not just $100,000 ? ;)
    He's certainly insane. Genius? I'll reserve judgement.

    Have you read this article: https://www.wired.com/2012/12/ff-john-mcafees-last-stand/
    I've always associated Mcafee with antivirus software..
    Sounds as though he's been associated with all sorts of things:

    https://news.sky.com/story/john-mcafee-anti-virus-software-pioneer-claims-enemies-tried-to-kill-him-11413955

    Indeed, sounds an all-round charmer. I'm surprised he supported Horse-shit rather than Trump.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    John McAfee charges $105,000 per tweet.

    I just thought I'd mention that.

    He's an *interesting* character. I've no idea if he's a genius or just insane. Or both.

    edit: also, $105,000 is a rather specific sum. Why not just $100,000 ? ;)
    He's certainly insane. Genius? I'll reserve judgement.

    Have you read this article: https://www.wired.com/2012/12/ff-john-mcafees-last-stand/
    Yeah. The Belize situation is *odd*. But having looked into some of the stuff he did years ago, I do think he was a bit of a genius - though drugs have probably taken a toll.

    (Incidentally, some of the best but most inconsistent coders I have known have been recreational drug users. Brilliant for start-ups, terrible for big companies.)

    I wish him good luck in his 2020 presidential election campaign ...
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    edited June 2018

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    No. I am not invested in Gatwick or shorting Ferrovial, the foreign owners of Heathrow Airport. I am a user of both airports.

    With a background in operational research, I am interested in sound economic decision making and I detest political shenanigans.

    You detest political shenanigans, yet you wrote to SNP MPs - who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get - to kybosh it? LOL. :)

    Besides, as the Davies commission says, the economic benefits of Gatwick expansion are considerably smaller.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dfv7KKjXkAEq5wK.png:large

    SNP MPs who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get will have the same vote as London MPs. They have been offered a sweetener by Heathrow Airports Ltd of a £1.5m investment in a marketing campaign to promote Scotland.
    That's not the most professional infographic I've ever seen...

    But you avoid my point: you claim to detest political shenanigans, whilst performing them yourself ...
    "Tory MP Zac Goldsmith has accused the Government and Heathrow Airport of having a relationship that “borders on the corrupt”. He said the closeness of the interaction between the airport and Whitehall was “rotten”"

    http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2016/11/zac-too-close-relationship-between-heathrow-government-borders-on-corrupt-recent-examples/

    This is what I mean by political shenanigans. Not private citizens lobbying MPs.
    ?

    Zac Goldsmith?

    *That* Zac Goldsmith?

    If you're a private citizen then lobby your local MP. Lobbying many MPs far away looks a bit like you've got skin in the game or are somewhat obsessed, especially when you know full well that those SNP MPs are likely to play the political shenanigan game.

    Did you write to any other MPs?

    BTW, I've probably been one of HS2's biggest supporters on here, and I've not written a single letter about it, yet alone to any MP. I'm very zen about it: I think it's the right thing to do, and will argue for it robustly. But I'd only ever write to my local MP, and think there are more important local and national issues to concentrate on.
    You get your satisfaction by arguing on here. I get mine by trying to influence real world events. Though I must confess I do enjoy arguing on here as well. :) It's good practice and it certainly helps me hone my arguments.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771
    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    No. I am not invested in Gatwick or shorting Ferrovial, the foreign owners of Heathrow Airport. I am a user of both airports.

    With a background in operational research, I am interested in sound economic decision making and I detest political shenanigans.

    You detest political shenanigans, yet you wrote to SNP MPs - who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get - to kybosh it? LOL. :)

    Besides, as the Davies commission says, the economic benefits of Gatwick expansion are considerably smaller.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dfv7KKjXkAEq5wK.png:large

    SNP MPs who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get will have the same vote as London MPs. They have been offered a sweetener by Heathrow Airports Ltd of a £1.5m investment in a marketing campaign to promote Scotland.
    That's not the most professional infographic I've ever seen...

    But you avoid my point: you claim to detest political shenanigans, whilst performing them yourself ...
    "Tory MP Zac Goldsmith has accused the Government and Heathrow Airport of having a relationship that “borders on the corrupt”. He said the closeness of the interaction between the airport and Whitehall was “rotten”"

    http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2016/11/zac-too-close-relationship-between-heathrow-government-borders-on-corrupt-recent-examples/

    This is what I mean by political shenanigans. Not private citizens lobbying MPs.
    If he feels like that, he should definitely resign his seat and fight a totally ridiculous byelection.

    Again.

    Cock.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Barnesian said:

    You get your satisfaction by arguing on here. I get mine by trying to influence real world events. Though I must confess I do enjoy arguing on here as well. (: It's good practice and it certainly helps me hone my arguments.

    Could you answer the question: did you write to other MPs (and an extension: which ones) ?

    It just amuses me that you're taking part in the political shenanigans you decry.

    And an equally important question when you strongly believe in something: what would it require for you to change your mind?

    Oh, and I hope you don't find satisfaction in this particular matter. If we don't go ahead with LH3 we're looking at a worse solution, and one that will take at least another decade of arguing before a shovel hits the ground. I believe that would be harmful to the country.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    rcs1000 said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    No. I am not invested in Gatwick or shorting Ferrovial, the foreign owners of Heathrow Airport. I am a user of both airports.

    With a background in operational research, I am interested in sound economic decision making and I detest political shenanigans.

    You detest political shenanigans, yet you wrote to SNP MPs - who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get - to kybosh it? LOL. :)

    Besides, as the Davies commission says, the economic benefits of Gatwick expansion are considerably smaller.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dfv7KKjXkAEq5wK.png:large

    SNP MPs who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get will have the same vote as London MPs. They have been offered a sweetener by Heathrow Airports Ltd of a £1.5m investment in a marketing campaign to promote Scotland.
    That's not the most professional infographic I've ever seen...

    But you avoid my point: you claim to detest political shenanigans, whilst performing them yourself ...
    "Tory MP Zac Goldsmith has accused the Government and Heathrow Airport of having a relationship that “borders on the corrupt”. He said the closeness of the interaction between the airport and Whitehall was “rotten”"

    http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2016/11/zac-too-close-relationship-between-heathrow-government-borders-on-corrupt-recent-examples/

    This is what I mean by political shenanigans. Not private citizens lobbying MPs.
    If he feels like that, he should definitely resign his seat and fight a totally ridiculous byelection.

    Again.

    Cock.
    I hope he does but he definitely won't.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Off-topic:

    Blooming awful timing:

    "A fire suppression system was close to being activated when fire tore through the Glasgow School of Art earlier this month, according to a trade body."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-44592882
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718

    kle4 said:

    https://twitter.com/ahencyclopedia/status/1010898187450834944

    I bet he did it without decades of dicking about, too. [Also, CE remains the excrement of Beelzebub].

    Not to say that Trajan did not face his own pressures, but probably very different ones.

    Qin Shi Huang could get stuff built, but it'd take decades of course.

    I just find CE weird - you're still using the purported birth of Christ as the cut off for the 'Common Era', for little historical reason as far as I can see, so it just seems silly. It'd be too irritating to come up with a different calendar for us to use at this point, but if we're not going to do so, pretending we're making a non-christ distinction to it is just petty.
    With computers it should be really easy to convert between different calendar systems. It's the 24th June in the 67th year of the reign of QEII, to take our current calendar system back to its pre-Christian roots.

    I do wonder how far the Chinese might try to encourage other countries to use their calendar system in preference to the Christian system.
    Thasis use both Buddhist and Christian Era year identification. Which they use rather depends on the context!
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    No. I am not invested in Gatwick or shorting Ferrovial, the foreign owners of Heathrow Airport. I am a user of both airports.

    With a background in operational research, I am interested in sound economic decision making and I detest political shenanigans.

    You detest political shenanigans, yet you wrote to SNP MPs - who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get - to kybosh it? LOL. :)

    Besides, as the Davies commission says, the economic benefits of Gatwick expansion are considerably smaller.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dfv7KKjXkAEq5wK.png:large

    SNP MPs who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get will have the same vote as London MPs. They have been offered a sweetener by Heathrow Airports Ltd of a £1.5m investment in a marketing campaign to promote Scotland.
    That's not the most professional infographic I've ever seen...

    But you avoid my point: you claim to detest political shenanigans, whilst performing them yourself ...
    "Tory MP Zac Goldsmith has accused the Government and Heathrow Airport of having a relationship that “borders on the corrupt”. He said the closeness of the interaction between the airport and Whitehall was “rotten”"

    http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2016/11/zac-too-close-relationship-between-heathrow-government-borders-on-corrupt-recent-examples/

    This is what I mean by political shenanigans. Not private citizens lobbying MPs.
    ?

    Zac Goldsmith?

    *That* Zac Goldsmith?

    If you're a private citizen then lobby your local MP. Lobbying many MPs far away looks a bit like you've got skin in the game or are somewhat obsessed, especially when you know full well that those SNP MPs are likely to play the political shenanigan game.

    Did you write to any other MPs?

    BTW, I've probably been one of HS2's biggest supporters on here, and I've not written a single letter about it, yet alone to any MP. I'm very zen about it: I think it's the right thing to do, and will argue for it robustly. But I'd only ever write to my local MP, and think there are more important local and national issues to concentrate on.
    In the UK constitution, all MPs are supposed to represent all citizens. It is completely legitimate to write to whichever MP you want to.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    edited June 2018

    Barnesian said:

    You get your satisfaction by arguing on here. I get mine by trying to influence real world events. Though I must confess I do enjoy arguing on here as well. (: It's good practice and it certainly helps me hone my arguments.

    Could you answer the question: did you write to other MPs (and an extension: which ones) ?

    It just amuses me that you're taking part in the political shenanigans you decry.

    And an equally important question when you strongly believe in something: what would it require for you to change your mind?

    Oh, and I hope you don't find satisfaction in this particular matter. If we don't go ahead with LH3 we're looking at a worse solution, and one that will take at least another decade of arguing before a shovel hits the ground. I believe that would be harmful to the country.
    I didn't write to my own MP (Zac) because he and I are as one on this. I choose carefully who I write to because I'm a great believer in maximising leverage and that's why I chose SNP MPs.

    I also wrote to several carefully chosen members of the Lords about Dignity in Dying. I manned a street stall in the EU referendum, knocked on 1000's of doors in many GEs, delivered tens of thousands of leaflets, persuaded one MP and several councillors to stand for office. I can't compete with Paul Dacre or Murdoch but I can do my little bit in trying to change the world. The alternative is to sit in the pub or on PB and just chat.

    My position on Dignity in Dying is based on my view of human dignity and personal experience and I doubt I could be persuaded to change my mind. I think I could have been persuaded to vote Leave based on Germany's treatment of Greece but the gross anti-immigration stuff turned me off. I believe in nationalising the railways but I could be persuaded otherwise (but not by public bad, private good arguments). Short answer is - it depends.

    A new runway at Gatwick can be built well within ten years - though Heathrow is lobbying against Gatwick being next in line, even after LHR3 is built.

    https://www.gatwickairport.com/globalassets/publicationfiles/business_and_community/all_public_publications/second_runway/airports_commission/gatwick_sd3_engineering_plans_final.pdf Read the executive summary

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/25/heathrow-doubts-new-analysis-shows-gatwick-expansion-better/
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958
    Plumbers 1-0 down to the coke-growers.....
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Elliot said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    No. I am not invested in Gatwick or shorting Ferrovial, the foreign owners of Heathrow Airport. I am a user of both airports.

    With a background in operational research, I am interested in sound economic decision making and I detest political shenanigans.

    You detest political shenanigans, yet you wrote to SNP MPs - who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get - to kybosh it? LOL. :)

    Besides, as the Davies commission says, the economic benefits of Gatwick expansion are considerably smaller.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dfv7KKjXkAEq5wK.png:large

    SNP MPs who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get will have the same vote as London MPs. They have been offered a sweetener by Heathrow Airports Ltd of a £1.5m investment in a marketing campaign to promote Scotland.
    That's not the most professional infographic I've ever seen...

    But you avoid my point: you claim to detest political shenanigans, whilst performing them yourself ...
    "Tory MP Zac Goldsmith has accused the Government and Heathrow Airport of having a relationship that “borders on the corrupt”. He said the closeness of the interaction between the airport and Whitehall was “rotten”"

    http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2016/11/zac-too-close-relationship-between-heathrow-government-borders-on-corrupt-recent-examples/

    This is what I mean by political shenanigans. Not private citizens lobbying MPs.
    ?

    Zac Goldsmith?

    *That* Zac Goldsmith?

    If you're a private citizen then lobby your local MP. Lobbying many MPs far away looks a bit like you've got skin in the game or are somewhat obsessed, especially when you know full well that those SNP MPs are likely to play the political shenanigan game.

    Did you write to any other MPs?

    BTW, I've probably been one of HS2's biggest supporters on here, and I've not written a single letter about it, yet alone to any MP. I'm very zen about it: I think it's the right thing to do, and will argue for it robustly. But I'd only ever write to my local MP, and think there are more important local and national issues to concentrate on.
    In the UK constitution, all MPs are supposed to represent all citizens. It is completely legitimate to write to whichever MP you want to.
    I thought they represented their constituents.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516
    Barnesian said:

    rcs1000 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    I think Gavin is trying to earn himself some publicity after his disastrous outing Richard Madley...

    I think he's about the only Minister that TM could fire without consequences.

    She should fire him.
    Totally agree
    Fire him and then beef up the defence budget.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    Elliot said:

    Barnesian said:

    rcs1000 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    I think Gavin is trying to earn himself some publicity after his disastrous outing Richard Madley...

    I think he's about the only Minister that TM could fire without consequences.

    She should fire him.
    Totally agree
    Fire him and then beef up the defence budget.
    Definitely. Call him in like a naughty schoolboy and do an Osborne on him. Back door.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165

    Off-topic:

    With the end of VTEC (Virgin's) time in charge of East Coast, the new nationalised LNER have taken over today.

    There are rumours that there have been some rather large price increases for some tickets.

    It'll be interesting to see if these rumours are true, and the scale of the changes.

    Almost certainly bollocks.

    The timetable changes twice a year, in May and December, the prices change once a year on the first working day of January.

    Cannot possibly see fare changes outside that timetable as screws up cross franchise ticketing.
    January is when regulated fares change. There are plenty of unregulated fares on LNER.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    edited June 2018
    kle4 said:

    https://twitter.com/ahencyclopedia/status/1010898187450834944

    I bet he did it without decades of dicking about, too. [Also, CE remains the excrement of Beelzebub].

    Not to say that Trajan did not face his own pressures, but probably very different ones.

    Qin Shi Huang could get stuff built, but it'd take decades of course.

    I just find CE weird - you're still using the purported birth of Christ as the cut off for the 'Common Era', for little historical reason as far as I can see, so it just seems silly. It'd be too irritating to come up with a different calendar for us to use at this point, but if we're not going to do so, pretending we're making a non-christ distinction to it is just petty.
    Archaeologists and historians work with colleagues all over the world and, in the case of the Mediterranean ancient civilisations, particularly with those from Arabic countries. They are content to use our dating system but it was and is felt that referencing the Christian religion specifically is insensitive and could cause unnecessary strains in professional relationships.

    I have absolutely no issue with that position and think it is petty in the extreme to moan about it.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,400
    Elliot said:



    It is completely legitimate to write to whichever MP you want to.

    Yes it is. I suspect that a lot of the time if someone appears to be mass emailing all MPs, or a huge number, it gets filed in the 'potentially trouble' folder by the admin, but if people want to take the trouble to contact an MP I see no reason they should not. It'd be more common to be a constituent, but some matters may not affect a constituency directly but the MP still has a say in the decision.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,400
    surby said:
    A little closer than earlier I see, but still no runoff sadly.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    kle4 said:

    https://twitter.com/ahencyclopedia/status/1010898187450834944

    I bet he did it without decades of dicking about, too. [Also, CE remains the excrement of Beelzebub].

    Not to say that Trajan did not face his own pressures, but probably very different ones.

    Qin Shi Huang could get stuff built, but it'd take decades of course.

    I just find CE weird - you're still using the purported birth of Christ as the cut off for the 'Common Era', for little historical reason as far as I can see, so it just seems silly. It'd be too irritating to come up with a different calendar for us to use at this point, but if we're not going to do so, pretending we're making a non-christ distinction to it is just petty.
    With computers it should be really easy to convert between different calendar systems. It's the 24th June in the 67th year of the reign of QEII, to take our current calendar system back to its pre-Christian roots.

    I do wonder how far the Chinese might try to encourage other countries to use their calendar system in preference to the Christian system.
    "With computers it should be really easy to convert between different calendar systems. "

    It should be, but it isn't. I looked into doing this once for an Operating System (we were thinking of storing time as a number with a very historic epoch), and it is a 'there be dragons' situation if you want worldwide accuracy.

    First of all, the easy things: the same second occurs everywhere around the world at the same time, and the 'day' is a common division of time: it is therefore easy to allocate each day and second a number - let's say a Julian Day.

    The problem comes in converting local times to that number and vice versa. In the case of the west, this involves (amongst other things) the Julian to Gregorian calendar: except that happened at different times: e.g. 1580s in France and Spain, 1918 in Russia. Which means to convert 'local' time to 'standard', you need to know the locale. And then work out which territories were invaded and taken over in the meantime ...

    Then there are the problems with leap seconds, leap years and other eccentricities. Oh, and all the non-western calendars.

    This probably only matters seriously to astronomers, which was why we dropped it. :)
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227

    Plumbers 1-0 down to the coke-growers.....

    To the current leadership in Poland: the blacks are beating you , like they did last week.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,400
    RobD said:



    I thought they represented their constituents.

    They do both. How else could they vote on things which may well have zero impact on their constituency? "Sorry, Prime Minster, but my constituency is landlocked, I don't know why you're asking me to vote on this fisheries policy"

  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,469
    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    You get your satisfaction by arguing on here. I get mine by trying to influence real world events. Though I must confess I do enjoy arguing on here as well. (: It's good practice and it certainly helps me hone my arguments.

    Could you answer the question: did you write to other MPs (and an extension: which ones) ?

    It just amuses me that you're taking part in the political shenanigans you decry.

    And an equally important question when you strongly believe in something: what would it require for you to change your mind?

    Oh, and I hope you don't find satisfaction in this particular matter. If we don't go ahead with LH3 we're looking at a worse solution, and one that will take at least another decade of arguing before a shovel hits the ground. I believe that would be harmful to the country.
    I didn't write to my own MP (Zac) because he and I are as one on this. I choose carefully who I write to because I'm a great believer in maximising leverage and that's why I chose SNP MPs.

    I also wrote to several carefully chosen members of the Lords about Dignity in Dying. I manned a street stall in the EU referendum, knocked on 1000's of doors in many GEs, delivered tens of thousands of leaflets, persuaded one MP and several councillors to stand for office. I can't compete with Paul Dacre or Murdoch but I can do my little bit in trying to change the world. The alternative is to sit in the pub or on PB and just chat.

    My position on Dignity in Dying is based on my view of human dignity and personal experience and I doubt I could be persuaded to change my mind. I think I could have been persuaded to vote Leave based on Germany's treatment of Greece but the gross anti-immigration stuff turned me off. I believe in nationalising the railways but I could be persuaded otherwise (but not by public bad, private good arguments). Short answer is - it depends.

    A new runway at Gatwick can be built well within ten years - though Heathrow is lobbying against Gatwick being next in line, even after LHR3 is built.

    https://www.gatwickairport.com/globalassets/publicationfiles/business_and_community/all_public_publications/second_runway/airports_commission/gatwick_sd3_engineering_plans_final.pdf Read the executive summary

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/25/heathrow-doubts-new-analysis-shows-gatwick-expansion-better/
    +1
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    kle4 said:

    RobD said:



    I thought they represented their constituents.

    They do both. How else could they vote on things which may well have zero impact on their constituency? "Sorry, Prime Minster, but my constituency is landlocked, I don't know why you're asking me to vote on this fisheries policy"

    Because their constituents need food to live? :p
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    You get your satisfaction by arguing on here. I get mine by trying to influence real world events. Though I must confess I do enjoy arguing on here as well. (: It's good practice and it certainly helps me hone my arguments.

    Could you answer the question: did you write to other MPs (and an extension: which ones) ?

    It just amuses me that you're taking part in the political shenanigans you decry.

    And an equally important question when you strongly believe in something: what would it require for you to change your mind?

    Oh, and I hope you don't find satisfaction in this particular matter. If we don't go ahead with LH3 we're looking at a worse solution, and one that will take at least another decade of arguing before a shovel hits the ground. I believe that would be harmful to the country.
    I didn't write to my own MP (Zac) because he and I are as one on this. I choose carefully who I write to because I'm a great believer in maximising leverage and that's why I chose SNP MPs.

    I also wrote to several carefully chosen members of the Lords about Dignity in Dying. I manned a street stall in the EU referendum, knocked on 1000's of doors in many GEs, delivered tens of thousands of leaflets, persuaded one MP and several councillors to stand for office. I can't compete with Paul Dacre or Murdoch but I can do my little bit in trying to change the world. The alternative is to sit in the pub or on PB and just chat.

    My position on Dignity in Dying is based on my view of human dignity and personal experience and I doubt I could be persuaded to change my mind. I think I could have been persuaded to vote Leave based on Germany's treatment of Greece but the gross anti-immigration stuff turned me off. I believe in nationalising the railways but I could be persuaded otherwise (but not by public bad, private good arguments). Short answer is - it depends.

    A new runway at Gatwick can be built well within ten years - though Heathrow is lobbying against Gatwick being next in line, even after LHR3 is built.

    (Snip)
    Ah, so you admit to taking part in political shenanigans then!

    A runway in Gatwick will not be built in ten years, because another set of NIMBYs will start complaining about it, and stifling it, in the same manner you are. And the Gatwick lot of form, for example the deal with West Sussex Council that has stopped a seconf runway for decades. Yes, it runs out next year.

    They're just more successful than you. ;)
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Elliot said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    No. I am not invested in Gatwick or shorting Ferrovial, the foreign owners of Heathrow Airport. I am a user of both airports.

    With a background in operational research, I am interested in sound economic decision making and I detest political shenanigans.

    You detest political shenanigans, yet you wrote to SNP MPs - who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get - to kybosh it? LOL. :)

    Besides, as the Davies commission says, the economic benefits of Gatwick expansion are considerably smaller.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dfv7KKjXkAEq5wK.png:large

    SNP MPs who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get will have the same vote as London MPs. They have been offered a sweetener by Heathrow Airports Ltd of a £1.5m investment in a marketing campaign to promote Scotland.
    That's not the most professional infographic I've ever seen...

    But you avoid my point: you claim to detest political shenanigans, whilst performing them yourself ...
    "Tory MP Zac Goldsmith has accused the Government and Heathrow Airport of having a relationship that “borders on the corrupt”. He said the closeness of the interaction between the airport and Whitehall was “rotten”"

    http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2016/11/zac-too-close-relationship-between-heathrow-government-borders-on-corrupt-recent-examples/

    This is what I mean by political shenanigans. Not private citizens lobbying MPs.
    ?

    Zac Goldsmith?

    *That* Zac Goldsmith?

    If you're a private citizen then lobby your local MP. Lobbying many MPs far away looks a bit like you've got skin in the game or are somewhat obsessed, especially when you know full well that those SNP MPs are likely to play the political shenanigan game.

    Did you write to any other MPs?

    BTW, I've probably been one of HS2's biggest supporters on here, and I've not written a single letter about it, yet alone to any MP. I'm very zen about it: I think it's the right thing to do, and will argue for it robustly. But I'd only ever write to my local MP, and think there are more important local and national issues to concentrate on.
    In the UK constitution, all MPs are supposed to represent all citizens. It is completely legitimate to write to whichever MP you want to.
    Indeed.

    But it does make it look like lobbying, i.e. 'political shenanigans' ;)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,400
    edited June 2018

    kle4 said:

    https://twitter.com/ahencyclopedia/status/1010898187450834944

    I bet he did it without decades of dicking about, too. [Also, CE remains the excrement of Beelzebub].

    Not to say that Trajan did not face his own pressures, but probably very different ones.

    Qin Shi Huang could get stuff built, but it'd take decades of course.

    I just find CE weird - you're still using the purported birth of Christ as the cut off for the 'Common Era', for little historical reason as far as I can see, so it just seems silly. It'd be too irritating to come up with a different calendar for us to use at this point, but if we're not going to do so, pretending we're making a non-christ distinction to it is just petty.
    Archaeologists and historians work with colleagues all over the world and, in the case of the Mediterranean ancient civilisations, particularly with those from Arabic countries. They are content to use our dating system but it was and is felt that referencing the Christian religion specifically is insensitive and could cause unnecessary strains in professional relationships.

    I have absolutely no issue with that position and think it is petty in the extreme to moan about it.
    Yes it is petty, but that's my point - they are still referencing the Christian religion specifically even if they say BCE rather than BC, since they are the same.

    And one, are people not allowed to have pet peeves anymore? I had no idea you were the arbiter of what people are allowed to find mildly irritating - not every complaint about something means it is considered to a major issue by the complainant, and only an idiot would think that.

    And for two I've used both references, thank you, so you can save the patronising sanctimony for where it is warranted - what I object to is the pretence it is some noble change for the sake of sensitivity as you have just done. It's not, it is a petty little change which doesn't really change anything. I find changing things without really changing things to be mildly irriating.

    Key word there was mild. Certainly people getting uppity and holier than thou about others having a pet peeve is far more irritating. Why don't you get self rightously annoyed that I praised the building policies of Qin Shi Huang while you are at it. The man was an extreme tyrant, how dare I suggest he'd make a good builder to follow the example of? And to dare be peeved by historical referencing, in defence of christian dogma no doubt despite being an atheist, how dare I?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    .

    kle4 said:

    https://twitter.com/ahencyclopedia/status/1010898187450834944

    I bet he did it without decades of dicking about, too. [Also, CE remains the excrement of Beelzebub].

    Not to say that Trajan did not face his own pressures, but probably very different ones.

    Qin Shi Huang could get stuff built, but it'd take decades of course.

    I just find CE weird - you're still using the purported birth of Christ as the cut off for the 'Common Era', for little historical reason as far as I can see, so it just seems silly. It'd be too irritating to come up with a different calendar for us to use at this point, but if we're not going to do so, pretending we're making a non-christ distinction to it is just petty.
    With computers it should be really easy to convert between different calendar systems. It's the 24th June in the 67th year of the reign of QEII, to take our current calendar system back to its pre-Christian roots.

    I do wonder how far the Chinese might try to encourage other countries to use their calendar system in preference to the Christian system.
    "With computers it should be really easy to convert between different calendar systems. "

    It should be, but it isn't. I looked into doing this once for an Operating System (we were thinking of storing time as a number with a very historic epoch), and it is a 'there be dragons' situation if you want worldwide accuracy.

    First of all, the easy things: the same second occurs everywhere around the world at the same time, and the 'day' is a common division of time: it is therefore easy to allocate each day and second a number - let's say a Julian Day.

    The problem comes in converting local times to that number and vice versa. In the case of the west, this involves (amongst other things) the Julian to Gregorian calendar: except that happened at different times: e.g. 1580s in France and Spain, 1918 in Russia. Which means to convert 'local' time to 'standard', you need to know the locale. And then work out which territories were invaded and taken over in the meantime ...

    Then there are the problems with leap seconds, leap years and other eccentricities. Oh, and all the non-western calendars.

    This probably only matters seriously to astronomers, which was why we dropped it. :)
    https://infiniteundo.com/post/25326999628/falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-time :)
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    edited June 2018
    The local MP certainly gives the impression that she’s not interested in anything from outside the constituency. Odd that, since she was once a professional lobbyist.
    However she seems quite happy to put her name to anything which slags off the nearby LibDem run council.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,400
    edited June 2018
    RobD said:

    kle4 said:

    RobD said:



    I thought they represented their constituents.

    They do both. How else could they vote on things which may well have zero impact on their constituency? "Sorry, Prime Minster, but my constituency is landlocked, I don't know why you're asking me to vote on this fisheries policy"

    Because their constituents need food to live? :p
    But they don't need fish for that, and even if they did, those directly affected surely deserve a great say? My constituents in coastal-hellhole-by-the-sea rely upon the fishing industry, some hillbillies in Dunny-on-the-wold have no cause to interfere with it.

    Apologies to Richard_Tyndall for daring not to show sufficient sympathy to those in coastal areas and areas of rural poverty. Culturally insensitive of me, and insensitivity is the key and must be treated with absolute seriousness at all times. As we all know, any comment is always made as if it is 100% the most important thing in someone's life, and if you complain about it it means you are seething in rage about it, how petty indeed.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967

    Plumbers 1-0 down to the coke-growers.....

    It turns out the 'Polish Plumber' doesn't exist in most of the UK with 96% of construction workers outside of SE England being British:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/articles/migrantlabourforcewithintheconstructionindustry/2018-06-19

    There is IMO an irony that those parts of the country with the highest cost property are also those parts most dependent upon exploited immigrant construction workers.
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227

    Plumbers 1-0 down to the coke-growers.....

    It turns out the 'Polish Plumber' doesn't exist in most of the UK with 96% of construction workers outside of SE England being British:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/articles/migrantlabourforcewithintheconstructionindustry/2018-06-19

    There is IMO an irony that those parts of the country with the highest cost property are also those parts most dependent upon exploited immigrant construction workers.
    Exploited ? An electrician will cost me £115 tomorrow.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    rcs1000 said:

    Fire Williamson, promote Morduant to SoS for Defence, bring in Stewart at DfID*.

    * Although I'd make DfID a sub-cabinet post at the Foreign Office. Not clear why giving away taxpayers money should rate a seat at the big table.

    Haven't you heard, the UK is an 'Aid Superpower'.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516

    Plumbers 1-0 down to the coke-growers.....

    It turns out the 'Polish Plumber' doesn't exist in most of the UK with 96% of construction workers outside of SE England being British:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/articles/migrantlabourforcewithintheconstructionindustry/2018-06-19

    There is IMO an irony that those parts of the country with the highest cost property are also those parts most dependent upon exploited immigrant construction workers.
    Do domestic repairs count as construction jobs?
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516

    Elliot said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    No. I am not invested in Gatwick or shorting Ferrovial, the foreign owners of Heathrow Airport. I am a user of both airports.

    With a background in operational research, I am interested in sound economic decision making and I detest political shenanigans.

    You detest political shenanigans, yet you wrote to SNP MPs - who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get - to kybosh it? LOL. :)

    Besides, as the Davies commission says, the economic benefits of Gatwick expansion are considerably smaller.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dfv7KKjXkAEq5wK.png:large

    SNP MPs who are about as far away from Heathrow/Gatwick as it is possible to get will have the same vote as London MPs. They have been offered a sweetener by Heathrow Airports Ltd of a £1.5m investment in a marketing campaign to promote Scotland.
    That's not the most professional infographic I've ever seen...

    But you avoid my point: you claim to detest political shenanigans, whilst performing them yourself ...
    "Tory MP Zac Goldsmith has accused the Government and Heathrow Airport of having a relationship that “borders on the corrupt”. He said the closeness of the interaction between the airport and Whitehall was “rotten”"

    http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2016/11/zac-too-close-relationship-between-heathrow-government-borders-on-corrupt-recent-examples/

    This is what I mean by political shenanigans. Not private citizens lobbying MPs.
    ?

    Zac Goldsmith?

    *That* Zac Goldsmith?

    If you're a private citizen then lobby your local MP. Lobbying many MPs far away looks a bit like you've got skin in the game or are somewhat obsessed, especially when you know full well that those SNP MPs are likely to play the political shenanigan game.

    Did you write to any other MPs?

    BTW, I've probably been one of HS2's biggest supporters on here, and I've not written a single letter about it, yet alone to any MP. I'm very zen about it: I think it's the right thing to do, and will argue for it robustly. But I'd only ever write to my local MP, and think there are more important local and national issues to concentrate on.
    In the UK constitution, all MPs are supposed to represent all citizens. It is completely legitimate to write to whichever MP you want to.
    Indeed.

    But it does make it look like lobbying, i.e. 'political shenanigans' ;)
    I would associate shenanigans with tit fir tat type deals, like the mentioned payment for Scottish tourism (if true).
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    Today's Tesco Strawberry score is a strong nine:

    Aberdeenshire
    Angus
    Perthshire
    Fife
    Lancashire
    Nottinghamshire
    Staffordshire
    Cambrdigeshire
    Kent

    The important change being the absence of Herefordshire which leaves Kent as the only county to feature continuously.

    Herefordshire makes partial amends by joining Kent in being a source of cherries.
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,469

    Off-topic:

    Blooming awful timing:

    "A fire suppression system was close to being activated when fire tore through the Glasgow School of Art earlier this month, according to a trade body."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-44592882

    Interestingly, reports in the Scottish press have suggested that there were 5 or 6 small explosions from the GSA and other buildings in the complex area at least half an hour before the fire took hold. Of course, an area of Glasgow that could rapidly be turned into a profitable complex would ever be considered a target for arson.... .
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    Elliot said:

    Plumbers 1-0 down to the coke-growers.....

    It turns out the 'Polish Plumber' doesn't exist in most of the UK with 96% of construction workers outside of SE England being British:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/articles/migrantlabourforcewithintheconstructionindustry/2018-06-19

    There is IMO an irony that those parts of the country with the highest cost property are also those parts most dependent upon exploited immigrant construction workers.
    Do domestic repairs count as construction jobs?
    I wondered that but couldn't find the answer.

    I suspect that a lot of domestic repairs don't get counted irrespective of whatever heading they come under.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    OchEye said:

    Off-topic:

    Blooming awful timing:

    "A fire suppression system was close to being activated when fire tore through the Glasgow School of Art earlier this month, according to a trade body."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-44592882

    Interestingly, reports in the Scottish press have suggested that there were 5 or 6 small explosions from the GSA and other buildings in the complex area at least half an hour before the fire took hold. Of course, an area of Glasgow that could rapidly be turned into a profitable complex would ever be considered a target for arson.... .
    “Went on fire” is I believe the local expression in Glasgow...
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    surby said:


    Exploited ? An electrician will cost me £115 tomorrow.

    Only reporting what I read in the Guardian:

    ' Dumitru Popescu, a 41-year old Romanian, is one of the thousands of migrant workers who make up half the labour force in London’s construction industry.

    He had just finished a trial shift, working from 7.30am until 5.30pm without a break, demolishing a block of flats with hand tools because machine digging was prohibited. Compared with his previous job, this was good work and he wanted to keep it, so he was trying to calculate what he needed to pay the two Romanians who controlled employment on this site.

    He said that giving a cut of your wages each week to supervisors as protection money was how the system worked. Newcomers were given the most back-breaking jobs; by paying his fellow Romanian overseers the right amount he would gradually move up the pecking order and stay safe on the same site. But how much that amount should be was not clear. He thought probably £50 a week but it was an anxious decision. Pay too little and you would be moved on and back to the bottom of the pile; too much and you would be subsidising them to stand around while you sweated, he explained.

    Popescu (not his real name) has a contract with a large, high-profile recruitment agency which supplies thousands of workers for sites around Greater London. On paper, arrangements look fine and much better than queueing by the road in the places where contractors pick up day labour. He is paid £9.15 per hour – above the minimum wage – with deductions for tax and national insurance, but he said he did not really understand the deductions and thought they were too high, even before the protection money.

    His first job on arrival in the UK had been as a casual worker in leading hotels where the hours were completely unpredictable, varying from 12 hours one day to four hours the next with no notice. He moved to construction, where the first company he worked for cheated him out of his pay so he cut his losses and moved on. He was taken on as a casual to work on a flat renovation but was never paid for most of his work, the owner claiming he had run into financial difficulties. With the agency he thinks he will be able to work seven days a week averaging 10 hours a day and so make ends meet. '

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/08/slaves-working-in-uk-construction-and-car-washes-report-finds
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    Poland must have qualified from a very weak group.

    They're a very dreary team with a very dodgy defence.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    Poland must have qualified from a very weak group.

    They're a very dreary team with a very dodgy defence.

    Romania, Denmark, Montenegro and a couple of other minnows
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Pulpstar said:

    Poland must have qualified from a very weak group.

    They're a very dreary team with a very dodgy defence.

    Romania, Denmark, Montenegro and a couple of other minnows
    Armenia, Kazakhstan
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Poland must have qualified from a very weak group.

    They're a very dreary team with a very dodgy defence.

    Romania, Denmark, Montenegro and a couple of other minnows
    Armenia, Kazakhstan
    And played only one friendly since Euro 2016 to rise to fifth in the FIFA rankings!
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    Pulpstar said:

    Poland must have qualified from a very weak group.

    They're a very dreary team with a very dodgy defence.

    Romania, Denmark, Montenegro and a couple of other minnows
    Compared to France and Netherlands being in one group and Spain and Italy being in another.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Sandpit said:
    Yep. Without boring all the non-programmers on here, it was a fascinating rabbit hole to fall down. The deeper I got, the more interesting it was, the less useful it would be to the majority of people, and the more complex the resultant code and the interface would be. Testing would also have been a bastard.

    Heck, even MS and Apple got their leap year code wrong in the past, and that's one of the simplest parts of current date/time code.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    edited June 2018

    surby said:


    Exploited ? An electrician will cost me £115 tomorrow.

    Only reporting what I read in the Guardian:

    ' Dumitru Popescu, a 41-year old Romanian, is one of the thousands of migrant workers who make up half the labour force in London’s construction industry.

    He had just finished a trial shift, working from 7.30am until 5.30pm without a break, demolishing a block of flats with hand tools because machine digging was prohibited. Compared with his previous job, this was good work and he wanted to keep it, so he was trying to calculate what he needed to pay the two Romanians who controlled employment on this site.

    He said that giving a cut of your wages each week to supervisors as protection money was how the system worked. Newcomers were given the most back-breaking jobs; by paying his fellow Romanian overseers the right amount he would gradually move up the pecking order and stay safe on the same site. But how much that amount should be was not clear. He thought probably £50 a week but it was an anxious decision. Pay too little and you would be moved on and back to the bottom of the pile; too much and you would be subsidising them to stand around while you sweated, he explained.

    Popescu (not his real name) has a contract with a large, high-profile recruitment agency which supplies thousands of workers for sites around Greater London. On paper, arrangements look fine and much better than queueing by the road in the places where contractors pick up day labour. He is paid £9.15 per hour – above the minimum wage – with deductions for tax and national insurance, but he said he did not really understand the deductions and thought they were too high, even before the protection money.

    His first job on arrival in the UK had been as a casual worker in leading hotels where the hours were completely unpredictable, varying from 12 hours one day to four hours the next with no notice. He moved to construction, where the first company he worked for cheated him out of his pay so he cut his losses and moved on. He was taken on as a casual to work on a flat renovation but was never paid for most of his work, the owner claiming he had run into financial difficulties. With the agency he thinks he will be able to work seven days a week averaging 10 hours a day and so make ends meet. '

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/08/slaves-working-in-uk-construction-and-car-washes-report-finds
    The builders were probably employed by one of the remain voting well off white middle class liberals who attended yesterday's second referendum march. Yes they have loved all that cheap labour over the years courtesy of EU freedom of movement.

    I am sure all this cash in hand no questions asked no VAT no Ni type of work makes it into the ONS official statistics!
This discussion has been closed.