'Oh, so that's who Richard Morris is..." Lord Hattersley on The Daily Politics

'An influential activist' - The Guardian

'Iain Dale, without the self loathing' - Matthew Fox in The New Statesman

You are a tinker...' - Tim Farron

Friday, 3 January 2014

The Heathrow Consultation is just utter madness

So, local residents in and around Heathrow are to be consulted by the airport which of the 2 expansion plans for Heathrow they prefer - a new third runway ( offering more respite periods for individual communities but bringing new aircraft noise to loads more residents) or an extended second runway (which will not bring new areas under the flightpath but will reduce respite as the runway will be used for both take off and landing).

As John Stewart of HACAN has said, the choice was like being asked "whether you prefer being murdered by the Boston Strangler or Jack the Ripper.

Of course, the real problem is this - residents are being asked which of the 2 evils they find 'lesser'. There is a danger that the results will be presented as which of the two routes has greater support - whereas in fact neither are required.

Frankly - especially as the survey is being carried out, not by the Davies Commission but by Heathrow Airport - the whole thing looks, to me, like a bit of a fix...


  1. And that was my (main) problem with AV. Putting one option above another does not mean that the first option is liked yet the AV campaigners would have had us believe otherwise.

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. Is that really the problem with AV? Surely you can say the same about FPTP? If you really don't like any of the options - don't vote. which is what I hope happens with this ludicrous consultation (although I accept they'll probably then announce that residents aren't bothered either way).

  4. The problem is that I hate some options more than other. If consulted on all four open options I'd vote LGW, Boris Island, LHR1/2. I would do that to try and stop the LHR options, not because I actively supported BI or LGW.

    Under FPTP I would vote tactically for BI or LGW depending on which seemed the likelier to succeed.

    My problem with AV, at least with the way that it was presented in the campaign, is that it claimed that it gives a winner with majority support but my successful vote for, say, LGW, would not have been given with any support at all.

    That said, I accept that this particular consultation only has LHR in it and I agree that this is a nonsense. A meaningful consultation should have a "do nothing" or "do something else" but this is a sham consultation and has no intention of being meaningful. I think that the best bet is to ignore it and hope to get a low positive vote for either option.

  5. Agreed - hope everyone ignores the consultation so it has no clout