DJ Barry Hammond Posted 4 September 2012 Posted 4 September 2012 I'm amazed there's no topic on this yet, given some of the political heavy weights that used to be on here so come on, what's peoples thoughts on this? Personally, I can't believe Cameron has moved Jeremy Hunt to the NHS - does he understand anything about public opinion and what he'd need to do to secure a second term? Surely even some staunch Torries would have to see that move as suicide or am I missing something?
Captain... Posted 4 September 2012 Posted 4 September 2012 It is just all a load of bollocks, it doesn't matter how you shuffle the deck if all the cards are cvnts. The fact that Gove still has any sort of influence over Education is just plain wrong, and the fact a disgraced PM has been brought back in to the fold just sums up what a corrupt bunch of cvnts they are, the only one who comes out of this with any credit is IDS who refused to leave the post of welfare secretary so he could continue to fight Osbourne's further benefits cuts.
anotherharboroughfox Posted 4 September 2012 Posted 4 September 2012 Jeremy Hunt, the man who called for the scrapping of the NHS is now health secretary...
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 4 September 2012 Author Posted 4 September 2012 Agree completely, seems like Gove wants to take schooling back 40 years, so I wouldn't be surprised if bringing back the kane is brought up as a policy soon and I completely disagree with his stance over these exams that were marked differently. You may not be able to go in and make a decision for the exam board, but what you can do is highlight your concern at the situation and ensure they act quickly and correctly on this matter. He should also be looking to ensure that all grades given are based on one set of marking criteria so that the grades received by all that took the exam fairly represent what they achieved, otherwise how the hell are employees and universities supposed to judge potential candidates. IDS is the only likeable Torrie left in cabinet - funny that the party stabbed him in the back when he was leader (Hauge can be ok I suppose).
LJS Posted 4 September 2012 Posted 4 September 2012 I'm amazed there's no topic on this yet, given some of the political heavy weights that used to be on here so come on, what's peoples thoughts on this? Personally, I can't believe Cameron has moved Jeremy Hunt to the NHS - does he understand anything about public opinion and what he'd need to do to secure a second term? Surely even some staunch Torries would have to see that move as suicide or am I missing something? The only thing that will get Cameron a second term is a substantial improvement in our economic position, which doesn't seem to be coming. Jeremy Hunt being promoted to health is an odd one, but certainly not a killer of election chances. I'd be amazed if most people could name even the previous five secretaries of state for health. Lansley being demoted isn't a huge shock, not because of his health white paper, which did contain some good ideas and was no more than a continuation of Blairite health policy (and even of Ken Clarke's ideas for the NHS as far back as 1989) in large part anyway, but because of his appalling inability to communicate them effectively. His stock response to anybody who asked him to explain his ideas was "what's to explain?". A pity, really, because there is probably no politician apart from Lansley, and perhaps Andy Burnham, who knows the health brief intimately, given how familiar both are with the politics of health. That said, it's unlikely that Hunt can do much damage now. The reforms are happening. The political NHS job is over for this parliament, it's all about managing the transition. I'm a bit surprised at you considering Duncan-Smith the only likeable Tory left in the cabinet. Not to say that he isn't likeable, or anything, but when he had his go the Tories were polling terribly. Had he remained in post the party would have been looking at a third consecutive massive landslide defeat in 2005. They didn't treat the man particularly well, that much is true, but he had to go.
ADK Posted 4 September 2012 Posted 4 September 2012 Not sure, maybe someone can do a round up as i couldn't really care less which **** is in which cushy job.
Fox92 Posted 5 September 2012 Posted 5 September 2012 I still don't get why they don't give one of the World's busiest Airport a third runway... It will make more money, give people more business and create loads of jobs.
breadandcheese Posted 5 September 2012 Posted 5 September 2012 Agree completely, seems like Gove wants to take schooling back 40 years, so I wouldn't be surprised if bringing back the kane is brought up as a policy soon and I completely disagree with his stance over these exams that were marked differently. You may not be able to go in and make a decision for the exam board, but what you can do is highlight your concern at the situation and ensure they act quickly and correctly on this matter. He should also be looking to ensure that all grades given are based on one set of marking criteria so that the grades received by all that took the exam fairly represent what they achieved, otherwise how the hell are employees and universities supposed to judge potential candidates. IDS is the only likeable Torrie left in cabinet - funny that the party stabbed him in the back when he was leader (Hauge can be ok I suppose). Why all the Gove hate? Is schooling that much better today than it was 40 years ago?
Captain... Posted 5 September 2012 Posted 5 September 2012 I still don't get why they don't give one of the World's busiest Airport a third runway... It will make more money, give people more business and create loads of jobs. Are you being serious, or is this ironic? I find it harder and harder to tell these days.
MooseBreath Posted 5 September 2012 Posted 5 September 2012 What are the arguments against the third runway?
Fox92 Posted 5 September 2012 Posted 5 September 2012 Are you being serious, or is this ironic? I find it harder and harder to tell these days. Me, ironic? Never on Foxestalk I just think it needs a third runway now, it is restricting growth in a way.
Bellend Sebastian Posted 5 September 2012 Posted 5 September 2012 Jeremy Hunt, the man who called for the scrapping of the NHS is now health secretary... He's spoken out in support of homeopathy in the past as well - I think you'd struggle to find a better candidate for the post. It doesn't matter if there's no NHS anymore, because all our ills will be cured by witchcraft
Captain... Posted 5 September 2012 Posted 5 September 2012 http://news.bbc.co.u...ews/7828694.stm Sorry for cut and paste job: Debate rages over Heathrow's proposed third runway. Here are some of the arguments put forward by each side: ARGUMENTS FOR THE THIRD RUNWAY • Heathrow needs more capacity Heathrow runs at close to 100% capacity. With demand for air travel predicted to double in a generation, Heathrow will not be able to cope without a third runway, say those in favour of the plan. Because the airport is over-stretched, any problems which arise cause knock-on delays. Heathrow, the argument goes, needs extra capacity if it is to reach the levels of service found at competitors elsewhere in Europe, or it will be overtaken by its rivals. Passenger numbers may be down as recession takes hold, but proponents argue we should not base transport decisions on the bad times, but look ahead to future upturn in demand. • The third runway will boost the economy The third runway will be worth £7bn a year to the economy, according to airport owner BAA. Some say a third runway is the only solution to the congestion at Heathrow. Tens of thousands of jobs will be created - in construction in the short term - and for business and in tourism over the longer term. Lack of expansion at Heathrow would threaten London's position as trading capital of the world, throttling the very international links Britain was built on. Business leaders argue London deserves and needs an airport of international quality. • Pollution concerns are overplayed Those pushing for the new runway argue that pollution caused by the airport will be closely monitored. Meeting targets is a condition of expansion. By 2020, when the runway would be completed, new technology will mean planes are much quieter and less polluting. The Airbus A380 already demonstrates that planes are moving in this direction. If the runway were not built, the argument runs, there would be no cut in emissions. Flights would simply move to other European airports. CO2 would not be reduced, merely transferred elsewhere to the UK's detriment. • There is no alternative Building a brand new airport in the Thames Estuary is not feasible according to those in favour of the third runway. Transport Minister Geoff Hoon says lack of transport infrastructure, fears of 'bird strike', cost and lack of available finance all make the project prohibitive. ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE THIRD RUNWAY • We need to reduce, not increase, emissions Heathrow generates 50% of UK aviation emissions. This makes 6% of total emissions, according to Department for Transport figures. With a third runway and as the UK as a whole cuts emissions, Heathrow's contribution to overall UK emissions would rise significantly by 2050, some calculate to as much as 50% of total. A third runway could mean an extra 200,000 flights a year over London. Why should aviation capacity be increased indefinitely? At a time when most accept the need for emission cuts, say opponents, should we not stick with the capacity we have and allow market forces to price out inessential flyers? • Health of Londoners at risk A Greater London Authority (GLA) report suggested Heathrow would even now breach the EU regulations on levels of Nitrous Oxide due to come into force in 2010. Extra flights would only make this worse. Even the Environment Agency admits that with a third runway, Heathrow would breach these limits. The GLA study also found that the airport would breach noise pollution limits as a result of the extra flights. • Economic case overstated Many of the new passengers the extra runway would bring would be transit passengers. According to former BA boss Bob Ayling they would spend little or nothing in London, only boosting airline profits. According to Sir David King, former chief scientific adviser to the government, the runway would over time come to be seen as a 'white elephant'. Long before investment in it were repaid, demand for flying will have fallen away as pressure to reduce carbon increases and competition with other forms of travel grows. The downturn is already forcing people to find substitutes for air travel. This pattern will continue, he suggests. • Impact on the local area Transport infrastructure around Heathrow already struggles. The extra demands would create gridlock. To make way for the runway, Sipson - a village of 700 houses - would be demolished and hundreds of acres of greenbelt land would be swallowed up. • Alternatives For historical reasons, Heathrow is badly located. It is the only major airport with flight paths over a large capital city, for instance. Some, like London Mayor Boris Johnson, believe this is a perfect opportunity to start again and propose a new airport in the Thames Estuary. Planes would approach and leave over water, reducing the impact of noise and the airport could operate 24 hours a day. Further to this is the argument that the burden on London is too great and it should be spread out around the country by improving regional airports, such as Birmingham, Manchester and Glasgow, this will bring more business to outside the capital, and provide more access for residents rather than having to travel to London all the time to fly anywhere other than popular tourist destinations.
Captain... Posted 5 September 2012 Posted 5 September 2012 Either way we need more Air transport capacity. No, we want it, we don't need it.
ADK Posted 5 September 2012 Posted 5 September 2012 No, we want it, we don't need it. Depends what you define by "want" and "need", we "need" it in the sense that we are in danger of losing out on vast amounts of trade to other european countries that have got their transport networks in order quicker than us. Its not really about cheap air travel for passengers as a low budget airline can set up out of any old airfield, its about freight. The so called environmental arguements are poor as under that logic we would ban all further development of the country which obviously is not going to happen. Nobody has had the balls to take the political gamble of going ahead with a scheme so far and the price will be paid in the future.
MooseBreath Posted 5 September 2012 Posted 5 September 2012 I assume other airports don't have the same demand as Heathrow, otherwise expanding elsewhere would be a good alternative. Those arguments against mean nothing to me. They are exactly the same generic arguments peddled by the same kind of people against any kind of development. If it was up to then we'd still be living in caves. They deserve nothing more than to be disregarded. The demand is there, we should build the runway. It's a no-brainer.
ADK Posted 5 September 2012 Posted 5 September 2012 Either way we've heard all the arguements by now. Its about time someone made a decision and stuck with it.
Captain... Posted 5 September 2012 Posted 5 September 2012 I assume other airports don't have the same demand as Heathrow, otherwise expanding elsewhere would be a good alternative. Those arguments against mean nothing to me. They are exactly the same generic arguments peddled by the same kind of people against any kind of development. If it was up to then we'd still be living in caves. They deserve nothing more than to be disregarded. The demand is there, we should build the runway. It's a no-brainer. But the demand is only there because flights are cheaper, if it was still very expensive to fly around everywhere people wouldn't, but the price dropped creating more demand, with the proposed increase in supply created by a new runway prices will drop further, as everyone knows an increase in supply leads to a drop in prices. Which will then increase the demand further, and will need greater supply to fulfil, which will cause prices to drop and so on... Until flights are dirt cheap and numerous and the sky is full of polluting machines, people will fly instead of getting the train and the sky will be a permanent grey criss crossed with vapour trails to create the most depressing tartan ever. Many of the worlds ills today could have been prevented by people saying stop. Just because people want more, doesn't mean we have to give it to them, that is how we have ended up with a spoilt world, full of spoilt brats, expecting what they want when they want, on demand and right now, and weak governments parenting, by caving to every demand. Oh you want to lend more money at higher rates, well, the current regulations prohibit you from doing so, "waah", "waah", I won;t vote for you, "waah". Oh go on then, we'll deregulate the financial sector for you, just promise to play nicely with it.
ADK Posted 5 September 2012 Posted 5 September 2012 But the demand is only there because flights are cheaper, if it was still very expensive to fly around everywhere people wouldn't, but the price dropped creating more demand, with the proposed increase in supply created by a new runway prices will drop further, as everyone knows an increase in supply leads to a drop in prices. Which will then increase the demand further, and will need greater supply to fulfil, which will cause prices to drop and so on... Until flights are dirt cheap and numerous and the sky is full of polluting machines, people will fly instead of getting the train and the sky will be a permanent grey criss crossed with vapour trails to create the most depressing tartan ever. Many of the worlds ills today could have been prevented by people saying stop. Just because people want more, doesn't mean we have to give it to them, that is how we have ended up with a spoilt world, full of spoilt brats, expecting what they want when they want, on demand and right now, and weak governments parenting, by caving to every demand. Oh you want to lend more money at higher rates, well, the current regulations prohibit you from doing so, "waah", "waah", I won;t vote for you, "waah". Oh go on then, we'll deregulate the financial sector for you, just promise to play nicely with it. Sorry but this isn't one of your better posts. Air travel is greener than rail per mile travelled and this isn't really so much about passenger travel anyway.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.