UKtravelbear

Now add some construction industry inflation on to that figure

Then strip anything from the LHR cost so that it matches the MAN specification.

That's the cost to compare otherwise it's an apples to oranges comparison.

callum9999

I was shying away from that quote as I'm not entirely convinced democracy is even the "least worst"!

I think the UK public will whole-heartedly disagree with your view that democracy is about enacting legislation against public opinion. And as the public decide who runs the country, it's not remotely feasible for anyone without a death wish to run the country in such a manner!

Cris L

So where do I vote for Runway 5 and Terminal 6?

FrancisA

I really don't agree with your sentiments. When did a government since the sixties attempt to bring back the death penalty, even though public opinion was very much in favour of that until very recently?

The public need politicians who are willing to step up to the plate and educate and inform. Some kind of idealogical beliefs are a good start.

The last PM we had who was committed to an agenda was Mrs Thatcher. She took some popular decisions, but also some very unpopular ones too. The public did not punish her at the polls. Far from, her second term majority increased and then she took on the miners.

Where I agree with you is that large parts of the UK public can at best be described as moronic. Hence the ridiculous views on immigration and the EU, which run contrary to all the independent evidence. Sadly, there is a section of the public who see evidence as a conspiracy against their views by some mythical liberal urban elite.

Fortunately, the UK is a democracy for but one day every five years (unlike a more mature country like Switzerland where there is a real opportunity for the public to enact policy via quarterly referenda).

The sad thing about UK democracy is it means that demagogic politicians like Cameron can cynically play to a racist element of the UK public that fears the Scots to secure re-election.

I really hope we can get some-one who actually believes in something to stand for election and patiently explain the concept to the public. It has been done.

If someone asked what Mrs Thatcher believed in, many would be quick to offer an answer; ask the same of Mr Cameron and there will be much reticence and navel gazing. However, if his only believe is that he wants to retain power and to pander to the public, like so many politicians of his generation, then perhaps that's not surprising.

callum9999

When has the death penalty ever been a campaign issue? While the majority may have supported it, it was never (in my, probably comparatively short, lifetime) a huge issue for people at election time - or even an issue at all bar a line in the UKIP manifesto.

Of course they need politicians like that. They however do not want them. You keep citing the existence of those politicians as proof that the public want politicians who ignore their views - they don't. They are merely too lazy, ignorant and indifferent to do anything about it. And I'd wager, in the majority of cases, these "unpopular policies" were actually popular with a decent proportion of the electorate.

The majority of England supports austerity in some form, the majority of Scotland seems not to AND elected a party whose stated aim is to dismantle the UK. I'd say the English would therefore be quite right to "fear" the influence of the Scots in the UK parliament. There's absolutely nothing "racist" whatsoever about that... (In fact, it sounds more like you're the one being inflammatory with that sort of accusation!)

What Cameron believes in - or at least portrays his beliefs as - seems rather obvious to me. If it's not obvious to others then it just adds more proof to the ignorant electorate claims.

FrancisA

All governments of all complexions take decisions that are unpopular and all political parties choose to ignore potentially populist policies if they do not suit their outlook - hence the main parties have not advocated a parliamentary vote or referendum on the death penalty for the last 50 years.

I categorise the Scots issue as racist on the basis that that is how the Conservative party played it. It would be naive to ignore the fact that the Conservatives did not suggest that Labour would be in a coalition that did not whole-heartedly support austerity - they said that the SNP would be calling the shots (even writing the budget). The emphasis was heavily on the Scottishness of the SNP, just as Camaron's response to the Scottish independence referendum was to raise the issue of English votes for English laws. The point is that English views are being overrun by the Scots - "Ajockalypse Now" in Boris Johnson's words. Sounds racist to me.

I have been actively following politics since the 1978 winter of discontent, but I couldn't say what Cameroon believes in. Deficit reduction/debt repayment is after all not a political belief system; it's just a policy-based method, obviously as once you have achieved it, the policy ends. "One Nation Tory", as ascribed to himself by Cameron, is totally at odds with his policies to the less fortunate in society and small-minded English nationalism. Jumping on the band wagon of any populist cause is also not a political belief system - it is the actions of a cynic who has no fundamental beliefs of their own, a person who quite literally lacks principles.

I find it unsurprising that the public don't get it.

In my view however that is no reason to do away with democracy. Quite the reverse, we need politicians that engage the people and revitalise their belief in politics. That requires leaders and parties with clear and distinct policies. Not puppets offering the same basic policies.

The public will get behind a leader. Football fans support the manager when it brings success; when they are on a losing streak, lack of support of a manager is not a desire to get rid of all managers, it is a desire for a new manager with a better approach. They protest because they want a leader, not a dictator.

Back on topic, in this instance we need a leader with the conviction to do what is right for the country and the economy, who can ignore the vested interests around and in the two competing airports. We need someone who looks to the long-term, aware that this is a tough political decision and not one that any politician will want to take again in the next 20 or 30 years. On that basis going for both the LGW and LHR options is the best choice. it is not what either operator wants; it is not what many who live near either airport wants; it is what the whole country needs.

lorcancoyle

Report expected on Wednesday - giving this a bit of a bump as imagine there'll be some interest from these parts!

Calchas

What do we think?

My hunch is that LGW will be preferred

seat 13a

A fudge...LHR extended option, plus LGW fallback...
So, eventually, both...

nufnuf77

As a foreigner here (only lived here for 6 years now), I do understand why government has anything to say to this expansion and the expected report on Wednesday. Why cannot the airport owners just decide whether to invest or not and then discuss this with property owners and local councils to compensate them?
Hope both airports get the runway btw.

simons1

Some form of caveated report that will enable the government to carry on prevaricating.

MPH1980

There are a number of reasons why the government has to make the choice rather than local councils:

1. The local councils will actually refuse to do it. The local electors will hate it. So if you want it to happen - it has to be decided by someone who won't be affected by the local vote
2. The planning areas may well span multiple councils
3. In the case of LHR - it'll affect major government assets - such as parts of the M25
4. Moving on from that - you'll need better transport links - that'll require government support too

Basically - look at HS2. If you left the decision to the local landowners in each area - it'd have died a death already. It requires government backing to happen (whether or not it has a valid business case).

MPH1980

I'd agree - this last minute stuff about air pollution would certainly lean that way.

I, personally, think it's a mistake. I think they should be provisioning now for a 4th (not just a 3rd) runway at Heathrow and a 2nd at Gatwick.

E.g. do both. Sort your capacity problem out for 100 years - by then - who knows what transport we'll be using.

SonTech

And a complete waste of money it will be as everyone will still want to fly from Heathrow....

Calchas

Many reasons; but for two reasons, there will be a lot of property to purchase against the will of the owners and no doubt many ancient public footpaths over private land will need to be extinguished. These powers rest with the central government.