Air traffic requirements for Britain are today’s PoliNews*1 subject and, for once, Boris is right. Dave, as usual is wrong and incapable of vision.
This blog, and my book ‘The Normal Curve‘, are largely about how and why the party political system is incapable of rational thought. We need, instead, a system of infrastructure and resource planning that can think 30-50 years into the future.
Time after time cockups of such gravity have been made and none of the perpetrators are ever called to account.
See here, and here and here and here, but, for the twenty worst see here!
Third London Airport must stopped and are used for housing
Here are some salient points, all of which would drive a rational decision maker to the inescapable conclusion that a new airport away from people is the obvious and only long term answer. Anything else adds to pollution, misery for people under the flightpath, years of disruption in an already overpopulated area and in any case will need unpicking by our grand children.
1) The South East is desperate for new housing, So use the land, once Heathrow is demolished, for houses, parks and woodland. Simples!
2) Pollution is reduced; forever!
3) The air becomes quite again; forever! (People become happier… Oops, economically irrelevant, sorry)
4) Logic would tell us that air travel will diminish in 30 years, rather than keep expanding. Those who argue for continuing economic growth are just not thinking clearly. We the people of this earth need smaller and more local solutions to food and resource management. The Chinese experiment with capitalism is doomed to failure, it simply cannot go on consuming more and more like us; there just ain’t enough stuff to feed, clothe and maintain an ever unchecked and increasing population.
*1 PoliNews – that which the media deem to be newsworthy according to the redefinition of Politics (See *2)
*2 “Politics” as defined in the Oxford English Dictionary “Of , belonging or pertaining to the state or body of citizens, its government and policy, especially in civil and secular affairs”.
“Politics” as defined in common usage today, “the discussion of how what ‘someone’ said might be perceived by ‘others’ and whether or not this will damage their ‘credibility’. And, can we fit it into the slot time available?”
I agree with you that party politicians are the least likely to make a good decision, but the markets are the last people to trust here, they will go for the cheapest way to maximise short to medium term revenues. They are convinced that revenues will continue to rise; which they may do, for the next 10-15 years or so, but then the factors I mention will prevail and “we the people” will be left with the clean up bill, just as we are paying now for the privatisation of power generation & distribution and the bills for nuclear fuel clean up which will continue for generations.
The markets never pay the “real” price for anything.
Hmmm, maybe we should consult those with in-depth market knowledge and inherant commercial interest. Last week I read the piece by Michael O’Leary, chief executive of Ryanair, to leave this mega-decision to the market. The idea is worthy of serious consideration. Mr O’Leary proposes that the Government commissions Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports each to build a new runway and let the airlines decide where they would prefer to fly. Accepting that Boris Island is highly unlikely ever to get off the ground, the idea would remove, at a stroke, the inept decision-making process from the very people who have made such a mess of this business for half a century – the politicians.