How Can A Paragraph Generator Help With...
News1 min ago
Dave Kicks The Heathrow Can A Little Further Down The Road...again.
http://
In October 2009, before he became Prime Minister David Cameron said the third runway at Heathrow is not going ahead, no ifs, no buts"
Perhaps he is waiting to make a decision until after he has resigned as Prime Minister, before the next Election.
In October 2009, before he became Prime Minister David Cameron said the third runway at Heathrow is not going ahead, no ifs, no buts"
Perhaps he is waiting to make a decision until after he has resigned as Prime Minister, before the next Election.
Answers
The UK needs a new runway at either Heathrow or Gatwick. It needs it urgently as both those airports are running close to capacity and their competitiven
19:14 Mon 07th Dec 2015
Perhaps they need to think 'outside the box'.
Instead of saying they have to compete with Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris, perhaps use them instead to provide the links they say we need.
Then do something with taxes, charges or law to move some traffic out of Heathrow to other airports so that it can cope better.
I don't believe that an extra runway at Gatwick solves the problems at Heathrow any more than developing Stansted did.
Instead of saying they have to compete with Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris, perhaps use them instead to provide the links they say we need.
Then do something with taxes, charges or law to move some traffic out of Heathrow to other airports so that it can cope better.
I don't believe that an extra runway at Gatwick solves the problems at Heathrow any more than developing Stansted did.
Stansted is a damn sight more accessible to many than Gatwick is, but that didn't help.
It was supposed to be the solution, but it's just the no frills airline airport now.
If you build a new runway at Gatwick, Heathrow will still grind to a halt at the slightest wisp of fog or light dusting of snow.
It was supposed to be the solution, but it's just the no frills airline airport now.
If you build a new runway at Gatwick, Heathrow will still grind to a halt at the slightest wisp of fog or light dusting of snow.
it'll be more accessible to people north of London (who also have Luton); but access from London itself (the big market) is much better to Gatwick: a dedicated express, an equally fast and much cheaper service from London Bridge and assorted other mainline services as well as a motorway taking you to the M25. Nothing like that choice for Stansted, unfortunately.
There's also the possibility of using Northolt more - currently the preserve of the military and rich men with private jets
http://
There's also the possibility of using Northolt more - currently the preserve of the military and rich men with private jets
http://
Let's hope then, Viv, that you never want to fly or drive anywhere, or travel by train or use a hospital or send any children to school and that you're quite content to see the nation's housing crisis get progressively worse. Most of the "concreting over" is being done to build houses for an ever-increasing population. Population growth is the driver behind almost all expansion plans, be they for housing or infrastructure.
As I have said in response to numerous questions on AB, population growth is a far greater threat to the wellbeing of mankind than "climate change" (or whatever it is called today) ever will be. Furthermore, it is a problem which can be far more readily tackled. But successive governments seem intent on trying to cope with an ever increasing population – a phenomenon which is unsustainable in the long term and which needs urgent attention – and even encourage it by allowing vast numbers of people to settle here from abroad. Apparently we cannot do without this influx. Well I’ve some news for people who believe that – if population growth continues unabated (and I’m only talking about the UK – don’t even start me off on Africa) the future of the human race is very bleak indeed and will make alleged climate change seem like a walk in the park.
There are parts of the UK where over population is already stretching services to the limit and where housing is an unaffordable luxury. It’s no good saying that people should move to where there is room – they don’t want to live on the North Yorkshire Moors or in the Scottish Highlands. The “environmentalists” of which you speak, Viv, need to shift their emphasis away from building useless windmills and towards building a few condom factories. Those companies could sell their wares here. But they could help the export drive by selling them in the countries where the sole aim of most of their population seems to be to up sticks and move to Europe.
As I have said in response to numerous questions on AB, population growth is a far greater threat to the wellbeing of mankind than "climate change" (or whatever it is called today) ever will be. Furthermore, it is a problem which can be far more readily tackled. But successive governments seem intent on trying to cope with an ever increasing population – a phenomenon which is unsustainable in the long term and which needs urgent attention – and even encourage it by allowing vast numbers of people to settle here from abroad. Apparently we cannot do without this influx. Well I’ve some news for people who believe that – if population growth continues unabated (and I’m only talking about the UK – don’t even start me off on Africa) the future of the human race is very bleak indeed and will make alleged climate change seem like a walk in the park.
There are parts of the UK where over population is already stretching services to the limit and where housing is an unaffordable luxury. It’s no good saying that people should move to where there is room – they don’t want to live on the North Yorkshire Moors or in the Scottish Highlands. The “environmentalists” of which you speak, Viv, need to shift their emphasis away from building useless windmills and towards building a few condom factories. Those companies could sell their wares here. But they could help the export drive by selling them in the countries where the sole aim of most of their population seems to be to up sticks and move to Europe.
Quite so, viv.
But no government either here or abroad (except the Chinese) seem to accept human population growth as a threat – both to humans and all the other species that live here. They prattle on about “Climate Change” (so much so that 40,000 people recently converged on Paris to “reach an agreement” on the subject) with such stupidity, believing that they can alter the Earth’s climate by building a few windfarms and stopping me using proper light bulbs. Meanwhile none of them sees the real threat. All they see is millions of people adding to their nations’ GDP.
Without the utterly unsustainable population growth there would be no need for anything to be concreted over.
But no government either here or abroad (except the Chinese) seem to accept human population growth as a threat – both to humans and all the other species that live here. They prattle on about “Climate Change” (so much so that 40,000 people recently converged on Paris to “reach an agreement” on the subject) with such stupidity, believing that they can alter the Earth’s climate by building a few windfarms and stopping me using proper light bulbs. Meanwhile none of them sees the real threat. All they see is millions of people adding to their nations’ GDP.
Without the utterly unsustainable population growth there would be no need for anything to be concreted over.
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.