I really think this is yet another example of an ill-thought out policy from the most moronic government of living memory. (I say that as someone who normally supports the Conservative party.)

Having sold the general public (who do not know better) the idea that we have an unsustainable deficit which must be eliminared at all costs (this is of course nonsense); they have used this as an excuse to drive through an extreme right wing agenda - penalising the poor and reducing taxes for the rich. The end result is a triple dip recession and the worse economic performance in the EU; at a time when other countries have paid lip service to austerity and actively pursued polices to stimulate growth and eliminate deficits through the normal economic cycle.

The sad shame is that the people doing this have no conception of reality and limited intellectual ability to think things through. Has anyone heard of a Prime Minister who does not know what magna carta means and gets his country's news agenda from listening to the radio?

This is another fine example of a totally ill-thought out policy! How many alternative flights departing from the UK are there for most long haul destinations? Very, very few. However, there are numerous options to fly to AMS, CDG or FRA etc to start a LH flight there. Net result - reduced APD for the government and reduced profit for British airlines. How many realistic alternatives are there for SH? Is it green for me to drive to STN from the south coast rather than go to LGW? How is it legal under EU law, to subsidise one set of airports and airlines at the cost of another?

If there is congestion at London's two proper airports and much of that congestion is caused by people bringing business to Britain or going abroad to do business that will benefit Britain, the answer is surely to build extra capacity and stimulate growth, not try to drive that business into the hands of our competitors?

Yet, at a time of recession, we have a government addicted to introducing stealth taxes that harm the economy rather than promoting growth. Very clever