Offers & Competitions7 mins ago
Second Runway at Gatwick.....
.....is a great idea, isn't it?
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flip_flop. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Yes it is. Unless, of course, you live in one of the many small villages to the south of the airport which will be affected by the scheme (and where homes will be “blighted” for many, many years whilst successive governments dither and interested parties force one planning appeal after another).
Nonetheless, the country (and especially the south-east) needs more airport capacity because, whatever forebodings the doom-mongers come up with, people are going to continue to fly in large numbers until forcibly prevented either by legisaltion or excessive taxation. A second runway at Gatwick (the busiest single runway airport in the world) makes as much sense as some of the other schemes being considered.
On the bright side, the expansion would enable people like some of the estimated 15,000 delegates to this week's so-called Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen to reach their destinations more easily. Which is just as well because by the time it is built the only people allowed to fly will be politicians (and members of their entourages and, of course, their families) flying to Climate Change conferences and to “fact finding” destinations. The plebs will long since have been forbidden that privilege as their “carbon allowance” will not stretch far enough to allow them a fortnight in Benidorm.
Nonetheless, the country (and especially the south-east) needs more airport capacity because, whatever forebodings the doom-mongers come up with, people are going to continue to fly in large numbers until forcibly prevented either by legisaltion or excessive taxation. A second runway at Gatwick (the busiest single runway airport in the world) makes as much sense as some of the other schemes being considered.
On the bright side, the expansion would enable people like some of the estimated 15,000 delegates to this week's so-called Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen to reach their destinations more easily. Which is just as well because by the time it is built the only people allowed to fly will be politicians (and members of their entourages and, of course, their families) flying to Climate Change conferences and to “fact finding” destinations. The plebs will long since have been forbidden that privilege as their “carbon allowance” will not stretch far enough to allow them a fortnight in Benidorm.
I have always believed it should be sited in the Thames estuary. Even Boris Johnson thinks so and thats coming from a Tory.
Just take some mitigating facts:
Planes can take off and land at a more shallower angle than on land.
The noise created will be less of a nuisance
No more valuable land in the SE to be used up and in fact they could close Gatwick.
Most of the travel to Europe would be across the North Sea so the flight paths could be more suitable.
There would be very little restriction on expansion.
It could link with the high speed railway line Eurostar
As a hub it could take pressure of Heathrow.
Free up traffic on the M25 and M23 so less road building in the congested areas..
and many more.
Just take some mitigating facts:
Planes can take off and land at a more shallower angle than on land.
The noise created will be less of a nuisance
No more valuable land in the SE to be used up and in fact they could close Gatwick.
Most of the travel to Europe would be across the North Sea so the flight paths could be more suitable.
There would be very little restriction on expansion.
It could link with the high speed railway line Eurostar
As a hub it could take pressure of Heathrow.
Free up traffic on the M25 and M23 so less road building in the congested areas..
and many more.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
No, it won’t make much of a difference, jno.
But neither will forcing me to change my light bulbs for inefficient unsuitable ones that make some people ill.
And nor will suggesting that I drive “five miles a week less” (when many weeks of the year I don’t even drive five miles in total).
And nor will erecting huge windmills all over the countryside and the sea which need an equal measure of “conventional” electricity generating capacity as backup for when the wind is not blowing and which consume more energy in their construction and installation than they will ever produce.
And nor will adding £20 to the cost of a short haul air ticket.
And nor ....I can’t be bothered, but you get my drift.
The one thing that would tackle climate change (if it is due to human activity) enormously is at least the stabilisation and preferably a reduction in human population (which has doubled in the last 40 years and will probably double again before the end of the century. Now that would make a difference and cost next to nothing. But to scupper the idea that it is somehow “Green” for the human population to continue to rise at a ridiculous rate is somehow not quite “on message”.
But neither will forcing me to change my light bulbs for inefficient unsuitable ones that make some people ill.
And nor will suggesting that I drive “five miles a week less” (when many weeks of the year I don’t even drive five miles in total).
And nor will erecting huge windmills all over the countryside and the sea which need an equal measure of “conventional” electricity generating capacity as backup for when the wind is not blowing and which consume more energy in their construction and installation than they will ever produce.
And nor will adding £20 to the cost of a short haul air ticket.
And nor ....I can’t be bothered, but you get my drift.
The one thing that would tackle climate change (if it is due to human activity) enormously is at least the stabilisation and preferably a reduction in human population (which has doubled in the last 40 years and will probably double again before the end of the century. Now that would make a difference and cost next to nothing. But to scupper the idea that it is somehow “Green” for the human population to continue to rise at a ridiculous rate is somehow not quite “on message”.
Well said, New Judge!
It must be obvious by now that with the economic downturn, the development of conferencing technology and climate change requirements, there is no need for any new runways, as a lot less people will be flying. If we could ensure that the population did not grow any more, that would make the major difference, so in with contraception and a 1 child limit!
It must be obvious by now that with the economic downturn, the development of conferencing technology and climate change requirements, there is no need for any new runways, as a lot less people will be flying. If we could ensure that the population did not grow any more, that would make the major difference, so in with contraception and a 1 child limit!
They will have to pay for them themselves in the same way as many people - me included - have been required to do.
The notion that we have to have an ever increasing population to support older people is illogical and unsustainable. Of course the difficulty arises when those who have been unwilling to fund their old age require sustenance. Then you encounter the problem where State pensions, which have not been funded sufficiently (if at all) by many recipients become payable to an ever increasing population. The population growth then becomes a bigger problem than the one you are suggesting it cures because, in short, everybody eventually gets old and the more “youngsters” you have, the more older people you will have.
There needs to be a robust challenge to the ridiculous notion that says we must have more people to fund the retirements of (believe it or not) more people.
The notion that we have to have an ever increasing population to support older people is illogical and unsustainable. Of course the difficulty arises when those who have been unwilling to fund their old age require sustenance. Then you encounter the problem where State pensions, which have not been funded sufficiently (if at all) by many recipients become payable to an ever increasing population. The population growth then becomes a bigger problem than the one you are suggesting it cures because, in short, everybody eventually gets old and the more “youngsters” you have, the more older people you will have.
There needs to be a robust challenge to the ridiculous notion that says we must have more people to fund the retirements of (believe it or not) more people.
The notion that we have to have an ever increasing population to support older people is illogical and unsustainable
Classic NJ stuff that - dismiss logic you don't like but provide no evidence to the contrary
Not surprising really because in actual fact the numbers are pretty incontravertable.
Without immigration there will simply not be enough people to keep the country running - that's a fallicy say some - we just keep raising the retirement age
So those already retired on here are effectively saying to those of us who are younger "bu66er you- I'm OK"
I am beginning to get the feeling that some of the older members of AB really don't care about anything like population or climate change where the greatest effect is likely to be felt after they've gone
Classic NJ stuff that - dismiss logic you don't like but provide no evidence to the contrary
Not surprising really because in actual fact the numbers are pretty incontravertable.
Without immigration there will simply not be enough people to keep the country running - that's a fallicy say some - we just keep raising the retirement age
So those already retired on here are effectively saying to those of us who are younger "bu66er you- I'm OK"
I am beginning to get the feeling that some of the older members of AB really don't care about anything like population or climate change where the greatest effect is likely to be felt after they've gone
[Part 1]
First of all, jake, I did not mention anything about immigration. Since we were talking about “global” warming my remarks referred to the global population growth, as was evident by the numbers I mentioned. (As far as I know, the population of the UK has not doubled in the past forty years).
Now, since you raised it, to describe as logical the philosophy that we simply go on increasing the UK population ad infinitum “to keep the country running” and, principally in this discussion, to fund people’s requirements in old age, beggars belief. The problem we have is that there are too many people, not too few. To attempt to cure that problem by shipping in even more people is rather like trying to excessively borrow and spend to cure a problem that has been caused by excessive spending of borrowed money.
As far as keeping the country running is concerned, there are upwards of five million people of working age in this country who are not working. Do you not think it would be a good idea to encourage some of them to become economically active before we ship in foreign labour? (And please don’t trot out your usual mantra of “skill shortages in the multi-national company I work for” as much of the labour shortage is within unskilled or semi-skilled industries, not brain surgery).
As far as pensions go, I certainly do not dismiss the problems that young people today will face. But they will not be solved by bringing in more people who will themselves either eventually become pensioners (probably without having funded their retirement), or return “home” with their loot. They will be solved by reducing unemployment among people already here which will enable workers to keep more of their own hard-earned and put it aside for their old age. Pensions should be funded by the individuals concerned during their working life, not by those still working.
First of all, jake, I did not mention anything about immigration. Since we were talking about “global” warming my remarks referred to the global population growth, as was evident by the numbers I mentioned. (As far as I know, the population of the UK has not doubled in the past forty years).
Now, since you raised it, to describe as logical the philosophy that we simply go on increasing the UK population ad infinitum “to keep the country running” and, principally in this discussion, to fund people’s requirements in old age, beggars belief. The problem we have is that there are too many people, not too few. To attempt to cure that problem by shipping in even more people is rather like trying to excessively borrow and spend to cure a problem that has been caused by excessive spending of borrowed money.
As far as keeping the country running is concerned, there are upwards of five million people of working age in this country who are not working. Do you not think it would be a good idea to encourage some of them to become economically active before we ship in foreign labour? (And please don’t trot out your usual mantra of “skill shortages in the multi-national company I work for” as much of the labour shortage is within unskilled or semi-skilled industries, not brain surgery).
As far as pensions go, I certainly do not dismiss the problems that young people today will face. But they will not be solved by bringing in more people who will themselves either eventually become pensioners (probably without having funded their retirement), or return “home” with their loot. They will be solved by reducing unemployment among people already here which will enable workers to keep more of their own hard-earned and put it aside for their old age. Pensions should be funded by the individuals concerned during their working life, not by those still working.
[Part 2]
Finally, no I don’t care much about climate change and my reasons have been well expanded on AB and elsewhere. However to suggest that I do not care about population growth makes me wonder whether I’ve been putting my point across well enough, so perhaps I’d better repeat it.
I believe that human population growth is the biggest threat to the planet – far bigger than all of the other threats, including Climate Change, that have been expounded in recent years put together. It makes no sense to continue to grow the population when many people are struggling to survive even now. To suggest as logical that the world as a whole or individual nations need a continually growing population to ensure their very survival is preposterous. Taken to its extreme, the human race will be at its most comfortable and successful when every scrap of land is occupied by humans standing shoulder to shoulder, for that is where the logic leads.
As a strategy, controlled population reduction is the simplest single action that can be taken by mankind. And before you jump in by suggesting I’m only thinking of areas where population growth is highest (i.e. Africa and Asia) I am not. It should be applied globally, with the UK taking the lead.
Finally, no I don’t care much about climate change and my reasons have been well expanded on AB and elsewhere. However to suggest that I do not care about population growth makes me wonder whether I’ve been putting my point across well enough, so perhaps I’d better repeat it.
I believe that human population growth is the biggest threat to the planet – far bigger than all of the other threats, including Climate Change, that have been expounded in recent years put together. It makes no sense to continue to grow the population when many people are struggling to survive even now. To suggest as logical that the world as a whole or individual nations need a continually growing population to ensure their very survival is preposterous. Taken to its extreme, the human race will be at its most comfortable and successful when every scrap of land is occupied by humans standing shoulder to shoulder, for that is where the logic leads.
As a strategy, controlled population reduction is the simplest single action that can be taken by mankind. And before you jump in by suggesting I’m only thinking of areas where population growth is highest (i.e. Africa and Asia) I am not. It should be applied globally, with the UK taking the lead.
1 to 19 of 19
Latest Posts
Film, Media & TV14 mins ago
Road rules35 mins ago
ChatterBank41 mins ago
Protests Erupt In Syria Over Christmas...
News52 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.