| Sustainable aviation, Mrs Reeves? 09:00 - Jan 29 with 3290 views | NthQldITFC |
 |  |
| |  |
| Sustainable aviation, Mrs Reeves? on 09:02 - Jan 29 with 2343 views | blueasfook |
Appalling decision. If the tories had given the go-ahead for a third runway at Heathrow imagine the mouth frothing on here. |  |
| |
| Sustainable aviation, Mrs Reeves? on 09:05 - Jan 29 with 2317 views | mutters |
It's a horrendous decision imo.
If there is a real need for another major hub then let's try and spread it out across the country. We've plenty of really decent sized airports that could be expanded rather than shoe horn it into the London corridor |  |
| |
| Sustainable aviation, Mrs Reeves? on 09:08 - Jan 29 with 2295 views | DanTheMan |
Yeah, not a great decision. I'm sure there are other ways we can grow the economy without adding more planes. |  |
| |
| Sustainable aviation, Mrs Reeves? on 09:09 - Jan 29 with 2278 views | NthQldITFC |
| Sustainable aviation, Mrs Reeves? on 09:02 - Jan 29 by blueasfook |
Appalling decision. If the tories had given the go-ahead for a third runway at Heathrow imagine the mouth frothing on here. |
Fair point. | |
| |
| Sustainable aviation, Mrs Reeves? on 09:10 - Jan 29 with 2257 views | soupytwist |
| Sustainable aviation, Mrs Reeves? on 09:05 - Jan 29 by mutters |
It's a horrendous decision imo.
If there is a real need for another major hub then let's try and spread it out across the country. We've plenty of really decent sized airports that could be expanded rather than shoe horn it into the London corridor |
Even if it is going to be in the London area, Gatwick is a better option despite the potentially negative impact on availability of parking. |  | | |
| Sustainable aviation, Mrs Reeves? on 09:20 - Jan 29 with 2169 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
Sustainable Capitalism.....lol. |  |
| |
| Sustainable aviation, Mrs Reeves? on 09:21 - Jan 29 with 2179 views | Ryorry |
Jonathon Reynolds (Business Sec.) was terrible on Today (R4) about it. Just waffle waffle waffle with pre-planned spiel, completely ignoring very pertinent questions of interviewer (who didn't interrupt & was very fair). |  |
| |
| Sustainable aviation, Mrs Reeves? on 09:22 - Jan 29 with 2180 views | Swansea_Blue |
It’s a pipe dream. Engine improvements and a low %age of sustainable jet fuel has limited the impact of increased passenger travel, true. But to mitigate the impacts of another runway seems to be pie in the sky.
It will probably have some limited impact on growth, so may tick that box and calm the City down (for a while at least).
Environmentally, it takes us in the wrong direction. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Sustainable aviation, Mrs Reeves? on 09:23 - Jan 29 with 2159 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
On the plus side, I’m sure we’ll finally get to see Boris lie down in front of those bulldozers… |  | | |
| Sustainable aviation, Mrs Reeves? on 09:24 - Jan 29 with 2160 views | Dubtractor |
| Sustainable aviation, Mrs Reeves? on 09:02 - Jan 29 by blueasfook |
Appalling decision. If the tories had given the go-ahead for a third runway at Heathrow imagine the mouth frothing on here. |
It is a dreadful decision, but isn't it the case that the tories did give the go ahead, but just didn't ever implement it?
Also, this thread is full of lefties calling it a terrible decision.... [Post edited 29 Jan 9:42]
|  |
| |
| Sustainable aviation, Mrs Reeves? on 09:25 - Jan 29 with 2154 views | DJR |
A couple of observations on Reeves' announcements today, leaving aside the environmental issues.
1. The announcements appear to favour the south given the following paragraphs from the Guardian.
Reeves’ decision to revive the Oxford-Cambridge corridor marks a return to political favour for a scheme shelved three years ago by Boris Johnson in order to prioritise levelling up spending in the north of England.
However, the chancellor’s growth strategy has underlined concerns the government is placing too much emphasis on the south of England as it seeks to kickstart the flagging economy. All of the airports earmarked for expansion – Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton – are in the south.
2. It is not clear to me that the sort of the hi-tech growth envisaged by the Oxford-Cambridge corridor will trickle down. After all, American growth as a result of Silicon Valley hasn't really benefited the average American. |  | | |
| Sustainable aviation, Mrs Reeves? on 09:28 - Jan 29 with 2122 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Sustainable aviation, Mrs Reeves? on 09:02 - Jan 29 by blueasfook |
Appalling decision. If the tories had given the go-ahead for a third runway at Heathrow imagine the mouth frothing on here. |
Probably true. Although the Tories giving the go ahead would have needed them to actually govern rather than gaslighting the nation for a nearly a decade, so that’s very hypothetical! | |
| |
| Sustainable aviation, Mrs Reeves? on 09:34 - Jan 29 with 2088 views | Dubtractor |
| Sustainable aviation, Mrs Reeves? on 09:22 - Jan 29 by Swansea_Blue |
It’s a pipe dream. Engine improvements and a low %age of sustainable jet fuel has limited the impact of increased passenger travel, true. But to mitigate the impacts of another runway seems to be pie in the sky.
It will probably have some limited impact on growth, so may tick that box and calm the City down (for a while at least).
Environmentally, it takes us in the wrong direction. |
Even by 2040 the target is only 22% SAF.
https://www.letsrecycle.com/news/saf-now-comprises-2-per-cent-of-fuel-on-all-uk- | |
| |
| Sustainable aviation, Mrs Reeves? on 09:35 - Jan 29 with 2082 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Sustainable aviation, Mrs Reeves? on 09:25 - Jan 29 by DJR |
A couple of observations on Reeves' announcements today, leaving aside the environmental issues.
1. The announcements appear to favour the south given the following paragraphs from the Guardian.
Reeves’ decision to revive the Oxford-Cambridge corridor marks a return to political favour for a scheme shelved three years ago by Boris Johnson in order to prioritise levelling up spending in the north of England.
However, the chancellor’s growth strategy has underlined concerns the government is placing too much emphasis on the south of England as it seeks to kickstart the flagging economy. All of the airports earmarked for expansion – Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton – are in the south.
2. It is not clear to me that the sort of the hi-tech growth envisaged by the Oxford-Cambridge corridor will trickle down. After all, American growth as a result of Silicon Valley hasn't really benefited the average American. |
I imagine neither of those points matter to them as long as they give the impression they’re serious about growth, which will calm the City, which will ultimately mean more money in the government coffers (via lower debt repayments). Maybe.
Also I imagine they only need to show positive growth for the country as a whole. If that comes from the south (where it’s probably easier to achieve) so be it. They’ll still be able to say they boosted the economy of the uk, even if some areas are still ignored. I’m not sure how that would play out with voters though, and obviously isn’t a very progressive, socialist (small ‘s’) policy. | |
| |
| Sustainable aviation, Mrs Reeves? on 09:39 - Jan 29 with 2041 views | NthQldITFC |
...and at a monumental cost to biodiversity. | |
| |
| Sustainable aviation, Mrs Reeves? on 10:19 - Jan 29 with 1921 views | OldFart71 |
Seems to me Labour are scratching around trying to find ways of expanding the economy. What they don't seem to comprehend is if you tax industry more they put in less for expansion, new machinery, jobs etc and need to charge more for their products which in turn probably leads to fewer sales. What Labour really needs to do is make it worthwhile for businesses to expand by giving them tax breaks for buying new equipment and machinery and for taking on apprentices. Bringing in more to the exchequer by charging higher N.I. to industry may seem a great idea but the money is gobbled up by higher interest charges for UK borrowing which is running out of control and will lead to cuts in services rather than Labour's idea to improve them. The higher interest charges are brought about by the financial markets not liking the chancellors methods of achieving growth and it's the financial markets that run the country and not the Government as Lizz Truss found out very quickly. | | | |
| Sustainable aviation, Mrs Reeves? on 10:32 - Jan 29 with 1859 views | Ryorry |
| Sustainable aviation, Mrs Reeves? on 10:19 - Jan 29 by OldFart71 |
Seems to me Labour are scratching around trying to find ways of expanding the economy. What they don't seem to comprehend is if you tax industry more they put in less for expansion, new machinery, jobs etc and need to charge more for their products which in turn probably leads to fewer sales. What Labour really needs to do is make it worthwhile for businesses to expand by giving them tax breaks for buying new equipment and machinery and for taking on apprentices. Bringing in more to the exchequer by charging higher N.I. to industry may seem a great idea but the money is gobbled up by higher interest charges for UK borrowing which is running out of control and will lead to cuts in services rather than Labour's idea to improve them. The higher interest charges are brought about by the financial markets not liking the chancellors methods of achieving growth and it's the financial markets that run the country and not the Government as Lizz Truss found out very quickly. |
"What Labour really needs to do is make it worthwhile for businesses to expand by giving them tax breaks for buying new equipment and machinery and for taking on apprentices."
Agree - particularly to expand a green economy! (renewables etc). Why are our govts. apparently so blind to this  | |
| |
| Sustainable aviation, Mrs Reeves? on 10:59 - Jan 29 with 1744 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Sustainable aviation, Mrs Reeves? on 09:35 - Jan 29 by Swansea_Blue |
I imagine neither of those points matter to them as long as they give the impression they’re serious about growth, which will calm the City, which will ultimately mean more money in the government coffers (via lower debt repayments). Maybe.
Also I imagine they only need to show positive growth for the country as a whole. If that comes from the south (where it’s probably easier to achieve) so be it. They’ll still be able to say they boosted the economy of the uk, even if some areas are still ignored. I’m not sure how that would play out with voters though, and obviously isn’t a very progressive, socialist (small ‘s’) policy. |
The sovereign debt markets aren’t going to be fooled by this any more than any posters on here. What are the tangible economic benefits of a few extra transiting flights (many passengers on which will never even leave the airport). This reeks of desperation and a government devoid of ideas. | | | |
| Sustainable aviation, Mrs Reeves? on 11:00 - Jan 29 with 1742 views | judespiveyg |
I hope it goes through, I want to see Britain actually build something. There's always something stopping us doing it. HS2 should have gone to it's original destinations, we could have afforded it if we'd just told the home counties constituencies to get stuffed and not had to faf around with digging tunnels. Crossrail is fab. Every other country does ambitious infrastructure projects but us and I'm bored of it always being 'oh but the wildlife/my view/the taxpayer'. Some of these criticisms are legitimate but when its every single time it does get old. |  |
| I survived Ipswich 0-0 Burton |
| |
| Sustainable aviation, Mrs Reeves? on 11:23 - Jan 29 with 1646 views | baxterbasics |
| Sustainable aviation, Mrs Reeves? on 11:00 - Jan 29 by judespiveyg |
I hope it goes through, I want to see Britain actually build something. There's always something stopping us doing it. HS2 should have gone to it's original destinations, we could have afforded it if we'd just told the home counties constituencies to get stuffed and not had to faf around with digging tunnels. Crossrail is fab. Every other country does ambitious infrastructure projects but us and I'm bored of it always being 'oh but the wildlife/my view/the taxpayer'. Some of these criticisms are legitimate but when its every single time it does get old. |
Quite so. The time and unnecessary costs to our infrastructure projects via overregulation and archaic planning law is mind boggling.
I'm not sure we need to be like the Chinese who built an entire Olympic village, stadium and airport in about 2 years whilst evicting and demolishing a bunch of homes already there and sod the residents, but there must be a happy medium. |  |
| |
| Sustainable aviation, Mrs Reeves? on 11:34 - Jan 29 with 1609 views | NthQldITFC |
| Sustainable aviation, Mrs Reeves? on 11:00 - Jan 29 by judespiveyg |
I hope it goes through, I want to see Britain actually build something. There's always something stopping us doing it. HS2 should have gone to it's original destinations, we could have afforded it if we'd just told the home counties constituencies to get stuffed and not had to faf around with digging tunnels. Crossrail is fab. Every other country does ambitious infrastructure projects but us and I'm bored of it always being 'oh but the wildlife/my view/the taxpayer'. Some of these criticisms are legitimate but when its every single time it does get old. |
Do the words 'Climate Emergency' mean anything at all to you? | |
| |
| Sustainable aviation, Mrs Reeves? on 11:39 - Jan 29 with 1584 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Sustainable aviation, Mrs Reeves? on 09:24 - Jan 29 by Dubtractor |
It is a dreadful decision, but isn't it the case that the tories did give the go ahead, but just didn't ever implement it?
Also, this thread is full of lefties calling it a terrible decision.... [Post edited 29 Jan 9:42]
|
Are any of the lefties calling it a terrible decision going use aviation this year?
I'm also assuming that Ed Miliband has handed in his resignation this morning on a point of principle. [Post edited 29 Jan 11:47]
|  |
| |
| Sustainable aviation, Mrs Reeves? on 11:39 - Jan 29 with 1586 views | blueasfook |
| Sustainable aviation, Mrs Reeves? on 11:00 - Jan 29 by judespiveyg |
I hope it goes through, I want to see Britain actually build something. There's always something stopping us doing it. HS2 should have gone to it's original destinations, we could have afforded it if we'd just told the home counties constituencies to get stuffed and not had to faf around with digging tunnels. Crossrail is fab. Every other country does ambitious infrastructure projects but us and I'm bored of it always being 'oh but the wildlife/my view/the taxpayer'. Some of these criticisms are legitimate but when its every single time it does get old. |
You'd probably be upset too if suddenly you have hundreds of noisy jet aircraft passing over your house every day. Even if the third runway gets govt backing, it'll be many years (if ever) before any building begins due to legal wrangling. I guess when Keir Starmer said last week they want to cut down the allowed legal appeals to building projects, this is what he had in mind! [Post edited 29 Jan 11:40]
| |
| |
| Sustainable aviation, Mrs Reeves? on 11:47 - Jan 29 with 1515 views | positivity |
| Sustainable aviation, Mrs Reeves? on 11:39 - Jan 29 by GlasgowBlue |
Are any of the lefties calling it a terrible decision going use aviation this year?
I'm also assuming that Ed Miliband has handed in his resignation this morning on a point of principle. [Post edited 29 Jan 11:47]
|
not planning to, no (though i accept it's not a choice everyone's able to make) | |
| |
| Sustainable aviation, Mrs Reeves? on 11:49 - Jan 29 with 1502 views | NthQldITFC |
| Sustainable aviation, Mrs Reeves? on 11:39 - Jan 29 by GlasgowBlue |
Are any of the lefties calling it a terrible decision going use aviation this year?
I'm also assuming that Ed Miliband has handed in his resignation this morning on a point of principle. [Post edited 29 Jan 11:47]
|
No and no. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
