You know we have gone barking mad when you read that a decision on future of Heathrow has had to be delayed because the government omitted to carry out a "race and gender impact assessment" of a new runway. There now has to be a new consultation to see how the proposals would affect ethnic minorities, women, the disabled and the elderly. So if you are a white middle aged male you don't count.
Let me save Ruth Kelly a lot of time and expense. If the runway is built there will be a lot more jobs for women, ethnic minorities and the disabled. If it isn't there won't be. If it's built, there will be a bit more noise and pollution. If it isn't, there won't be.
I do hope that whatever legislation governs this political correctness gone mad state of affairs will be repealed by the next Tory government.
60 comments:
Will it be repealed? I fear that David Cameron is into all this stuff.
I can't see how there will be ALOT more job and a BIT more pollution.
Why not a FEW more jobs and ALOT more pollution.
Living in Kent you don't care about that.
At the weekend, Iain, I wrote a variation on a similar theme due to the legal requirement of Wellingborough Council to formulate a Race Equality Scheme.
Anyone who is interested can read my argument against such schemes and the incessant focus on diversity. I would be really interested to hear the comments of other people on this.
I'm normally really wary of any posts which mention the evils of PC, fearing that you're having a Daily Mail moment Iain but if this is true its baffling and very very dangerous. WTF does it matter what gender or race you are when we're talking about an airport runway???? Just how different do these people think we all are?
It has always struck me as odd that people who live near airports complain and protest about them.
Who actually thinks of buying a house near it, or on the flight path, unless they are prepared to accept some noise?
And then what do they do? Hope it will somehow all go away? Heathrow was there first, I mean, Heathrow has been a commercial airport for over 50 years. By my reckoning, the only minority assessment that you could legitimately apply would be regarding the impact upon octogenarians.
Heathrow is from the age of steam. It's a pain to get to and from. It sends pollution and noise over the nicest parts of west london. It's is an anachronism.
Close it down, and build a new city there.
Open a MAGLEV train service from St Pancras to Manston on the Kent Coast. It travels 10 miles every 2minutes.
It would be quicker to London than journey's from Heathrow. There is stacks of runway space available there.
City Centre check-in service could be made available, and everyone would experience an uninterrupted glide to the airport, not a stressful battle with traffic.
London could start afresh without overflying and with reduced traffic. Phew!
Well there will be lots of jobs for the girls as trolley dollies.
Is this serious? What is happening to this country??
"there will be a bit more noise and pollution".
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4276798.ece
"Mike Pilling, who chairs the government’s expert group on air quality, said the public were being misled over claims that Heathrow’s expansion would not cause unlawful and dangerous levels of pollution."
Surely you have not been misled, Iain?
Not bad Iain, apart from the fact that if you are a white middle aged male you have already counted 100 times over. The assessment may indeed be rather as you suggest and it may take longer than ten minutes, but not that much longer.
"I do hope that whatever legislation governs this political correctness gone mad state of affairs will be repealed by the next Tory government."
What's the betting it's connected via 'umen rites' to Brussels?
And even if it isn't we'd be better off out. DC hasn't a snowballs hope in hell of implementing much of the proposals he introduced in yesterday's speech whilst we are under the jackboot of the Brussels Mafia.
You're right - it was a crazy reason and a totally fallacious one. DfT called for further evidence recently and that was the only reason it needed to give. A second look at the environmental and economic data is perfectly reasonable given the controversy over airport expansion, so wouldn't it have been easier just to tell the truth?
This whole positive discrimination thing is weird. I had thought that I was a 34 year old white bloke who had to compete on my merits but actually it now turns out that I am and anglo-Irish disabled person (MS) and that actually will trump any merits I may have had but probably lose out to a coloured female lesbian in the new identity-politics view of employability. Who can trade me a midget?
You are wrong Ian. A third runway will reduce noise. They can put the late and early flights down the middle runway, further away from the locals. (most of whom work there anyway)
There is a money making angle here that Shaun's comment has excited in my entrepreneurial brain.
London could become the centre of a 'Minorities Market'. Just as there is now a market in carbon emissions so there could be a market in 'Minority Credits' (mcs) We could all be allocated a 'Minority Credit' balance on the ID database and use said credits to trade for cash or jobs or drugs even (not for cigarettes though).
Here are my suggestions for some of the opening prices for 'Minority Credits'
White Male Anglo Saxon -500mcs
White Female Anglo Saxon -250mcs
Dusky Male Immigrant evens.
Black Female Lesbian +150mcs
Member of Parliament +500mcs
2MPs married to each other +1750mcs
Runway = pollution = noise = failure to cut CO2 emissions = climate change catastrophe = lives lost to flooding in developing countries = no one else taking the promises to address the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change seriously = the planet goes to hell in a hand cart = great profits for BA/BAA though = Iain gets to travel wherever he wants whenever he wants and buy a nice tie in duty free = well, that's alright then, the planet may fry, and millions may die, but South East England has 'jobs' and Dale has a fancy tie = NO PROBLEM !!
Good for the wimmin and ethnics. Anything that delays this proposal is positive news
Just think of how much worse this would be with Harriet "the manhater" Harman in charge !
Yes, a load of low-paid jobs on unbearable shifts. Whoopee!
But iain,
Boris is going to move Heathrow to the Thames Estuary!
Lots of jobs then!
How shameful that Darling, the Dirty Man of Europe, and bully boy Brown didn't do an environmental and health impact study or objective assessment of the economic need they alleged required doubling passenger volumes. SERAS was a stitch up and riddled with lies from start to finish.
I live under the flight paths of Stansted - no, I didn't choose to, they were dumped on me - and I am totally opposed another runway at either Heathrow or Stansted on order to enrich the Spanish owners if BAA.
Imagine being unable to bear going out in your garden for a whole summer because of the unbearable noise and air pollution, Iain.
Imagine that you work at home and are unable to concentrate for the noise. imagine sitting in your bath and being unable to hear the radio. Imagine your family rowing for a whole summer because of the stress.
Imagine your sleep being disturbed SIXTEEN times a night as research confirmed the people of Heathrow are.
Imagine being told by Darling that an average noise measurement index comprised of 50% flights generating way above the level of decibels that damage health and 50% below is a fair one.
What they're effectively saying is that a measure which averages the temperature of one foot in a bowl of ice water and the other in a bowl of scalding water and shows those feet are blissfully comfortable is spot on.
Worst of all, think of the children aged 5 and under living near busy airports whose blood pressure has been shown to be raised by the stress.
And think of how planes flying over schools every minute or so damage the education of those classes who are forced to have 'noise pauses' each time a flight passes.
Is that what you really want?
You believe there are compelling economic reasons and this runway will bring more jobs? That's not so, Iain.
Basing the economy of a town or district on an airport is so highly precarious, it's madness.
Around 24% of Heathrow's staff were made redundant during the last recession. Those redundancies devastated Heathrow, the lives of its people and its network of SMEs.
I've not looked at Heathrow's current figures but I can tell you that Stansted#s passengers are down in the current slow down and that this will become progressively worse and worse as the recession bites.
I'm really getting fed up with the way Labour is using non white people as scapegoats for problems. first it's Harman saying no jobs for white blokes, then now it makes out we're special teacher's pets concerning the impact of Heathrow. With an economic downturn on the cards, I fear Labour is just stoking up hatred for non white people, race riots even, by white people who have simply had enough.
I really wish Labour would get off our backs, what part of 'we don't need special help?' don't they understand?
Labour are institutionally unfair, racist and sexist.
They are a menace to the social cohesion of this country.
The only way we will avoid social disaster in this country is by making this a colour-blind society. Accordingly, all legislation that refers to divisions by race and gender must be repealed and the Equality and Human Rights Commission along with Trevor must be abolished.
As usual Labour have got it all totally wrong. They are very bad for this country.
(Well said, African mum)
"I do hope that whatever legislation governs this political correctness gone mad state of affairs will be repealed by the next Tory government."
It doesn't necessarily mean that repeals are the complete answer. Zeitgeist is the answer. The Tories should create and promulgate a strong ethos where all the loonies return to the shadows and let people get on with running their own lives; a new climate in which burglars are bad and an Englishman's castle is his home, for example.
The police are adept at following the "narrative", as some people call it. In Thatcher's day the narrative was screw the workers (they needed screwing on the whole) and they followed it with zeal.Why shouldn't they be pursuaded stop arselicking minorities?
The new Tory era should herald freedom with responsibility and yes, a declaration of right and wrong.
In the new Tory era, schools and doctors will self govern. The free market will be not only an unencumbered market, but one that is responsible for its actions.
The key word should be accountability. For too long our public servants have hidden behind a cloak of secrecy and a raft of Orwellian powers. Expose them to the light of day.
The biased BBC should go. As a compromise, perhaps they could do a minority impact review at the Beeb - for the tiny number of white straight males who will lose their jobs.
Harriet Harman should be forced to do a pole dance wearing only panties and pasties to an invited audience of Northern builders. Bring it on.
Remember, it's often conservatives and others who want deregulation or better regulation who insist on government having to jump through hoops such as regulatory impact assessments before they can proceed to legislate. At least part of this is the perverse outcome of a desire to reduce bureaucracy.
Off topic: I draw to yr attention the exchanges today on PB.com at http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2008/07/08/wholl-remember-what-this-was-supposed-to-be-about/#comments about 'Mr Speaker'. Mike S has moderated criticism of him by Tyndall 'because he sues'. He is apparently the only person in the UK who may not be criticised, because he is perfect, I presume.
Ruth Kelly, not to mention the rest of McBroon's sad collection of soon-to-be has-beens, is about as bright as 2 o'clock in the morning.
It's the trendy lefty PC mob being allowed out of their box again to cause more delay and run up costs.
If they weren't who they were, I would be generally in favour of all of them getting out a bit more...
Tapestry (9:50pm)said: "Open a MAGLEV train service from St Pancras to Manston on the Kent Coast. It travels 10 miles every 2minutes."
I see, it's ok for the people of Ramsgate to get significantly more noise and pollution but not for west Londoners.
Hemp, hemp, hemp ... where did I leave that length of hemp?
The new World Centre International Airport in Jebal Ali, Dubai, will have 6 parallel runways. Its construction will not be delayed by race and gender impact assessments. Meanwhile, Osborne can hardly contain his excitement at the prospect of joining the G8 climate bullshit jerk circle. The UK is doomed.
Oh dear, you have set off a minefiled here. Iain. You really ought to think carefully before getting involved in this litlle problem. Some points:
1 Heathrow has had it - compare to CDG in Paris, it is light years behind and any investment will not get it up to scratch with that one (or some others).
2 It is in the wrong place as the prevailing traffic is over lots of marginal WASP constituencies in west London.
3 The point about people choosing to live under a flight path does not apply for a new runway - they chose not to.
4 There are not as many jobs as is supposed and they are largely McJobs anyway.
5 The runway is for transfer passenger growth - who do they help economically save BAA and the shops in the terminals? Very marginal benefit for a large polluting cost.
6 It is Conservative policy to oppose the third runway.
I know your main point was on the discrimination thing, but frankly anything that delays this horrific developoment the better
With policies like these no wonder the BNP vote is rsing.
Invicta said...
re MAGLEV train service from St Pancras to Manston on the Kent Coast.
"I see, it's ok for the people of Ramsgate to get significantly more noise and pollution but not for west Londoners."
There are 40,000 people in Ramsgate and 7,000,000 in London.
I read an amusing article in New Criterion a year or so ago.
Apparently the Student Republican Society of Southern Baptist University held a "cookie bake" to raise funds, and put up a "positive discrimination price list". Cookies were 1 dollar for white students, 50 cents for hispanic students and 10 cents for afro-american students.
For some reason the college authorities to umbrage at this unsubtle swipe at their admission policy and ordered the student to take the sign down.
Moving Heathrow out East is plain stupid. People forget that Heathrow is not just London's airport, it is the UKs main airpot.
I dont' live anywhere near London (like most of the population of this Island) but just about every destination I need to go to can only be got by flying from Heathrow. It's bad enough getting outer west London but getting to outer east London would be a nightmare. Very few regional flights go into heathrow, I would hope that the third runway would change this.
Never understood why prople who buy a house near an airport protest about the airport and it doesn't take much nonce to realise that the nature of the beast is that it will grow.
"race and gender impact assessment"
Sigh.
Link?
Oh dear. Sister Ruth has forgotten about (ahem) sexual orientation.
Super. When the runway is turned down, all those nice young men on BA long-haul will be able to appeal because their job prospects are being damaged, and that's just SO unfair...
During the early 70's I was involved with the design of an aircraft noise monitoring system at Manchester Airport. Chains of sound transducers were mounted at various distances from the airport to detect and monitor aircraft approach. The idea was to fine airlines that exceeded certain noise levels. This whole scenario, repeated at airports thoughout the UK, helped stop low level approach and use of reverse thrust for breaking effect, but at the same time was directly responsible for the building of longer runways. I've often wondered if the fines levied on aircraft ever found their way back to the people who suffered the noise - I rather think not!
Blackacre said...
" The point about people choosing to live under a flight path does not apply for a new runway - they chose not to."
I live and work under the flight path for the proposed new runway. The present noise levels are extremely high (I already knew that when I chose to move here). The new flight path is very close to the existing flight paths, so noise levels will be little different.
Almost everyone who lives and works here accepts that, although there might be a slight increase in noise, it is more than compensated for by the economic benefits that Heathrow brings.
Most of the protesters live outside the area and have their own agendas.
"If the runway is built there will be a lot more jobs for women, ethnic minorities and the disabled."
I think you meant to say that if the runway is built there will be a lot more jobs mostly for women, ethnic minorities and the disabled.
"I do hope that whatever legislation governs this political correctness gone mad state of affairs will be repealed by the next Tory government."
No chance. The tories are hopeless. Did you hear the tory bloke talking about Al-Beeb yesterday? - Reducing the bbc to 1 tv channel and 1 radio channel is 'an extreme view'. Hopeless!
So the runway is the nigger in the woodpile eh?
Maybe the Tory party still needs that assessment. Same old reactionary racists, with a dull PR man up front trying to deny it.
Strapworld is not quite correct. Boris wisely wanted other possibilities to be looked at, though the estuary airport option isn't feasible in reality (there has already been a lot of work done in recent years on something similar in the same general area, and it turned out to be a non-goer).
It is always sensible to consider options, rather than taken an "it's this or nothing" approach, and important to demonstrate to the public that whatever eventually happens wasn't a pre-decided fait accompli.
However, the Heathrow (or whatever) situation is far from being solved; and perhaps others might like to brainstorm (or is that now "thought shower") other possibilities.
Personally, I'd prefer someone to develop teleports and render the whole road/rail/air/sea methodology obsolete at a stroke, eliminating all their pollution with them.
But that's probably just me...
More jobsworth employment, less actual work. Is this why the Western Roman Empire collapsed?
It'll be fine if Max Moseley chairs it. Yowzers!!
I understand that there is a problem with locating a major airport in Kent because there will be contention for air space with the Paris airports
There is a serious proposal to build an airport on an artificial island in the Severn estuary. I'm sure the people of Bristol and Newport will be delighted.
Why build a 3rd runway north of the M4 when there's one there already? It's called Northolt.
Iain,
I oppose the third runway as it entrenches a monopoly and increases the danger for all Londoners.
If you lift planning control the sensible place for incrased capacity for London is a new airport in the Thames estuary.
Anon 10.42 -"More jobsworth employment, less actual work. Is this why the Western Roman Empire collapsed?"
One of the reasons the WRE collapsed was that they offered Roman citizenship to foreigners or relied heavily on foreign mercenaries. Whilst this was originally a building block of its greatness it resulted in the ultimate loss of control, particularly its borders. They were overun and the structures of Roman civilisation collapsed. (Gibbon took six books to explain this, you get this shortened version free, from me.)(Oh and like everybody else these days, he blamed Christianity.)
You can apply this model to any empire, be it the British or the European. It's the Amway principle. You can buy in at the beginning and win but sooner or later you run out of punters and the whole thing goes tits up and you have a shed full of crap that no one wants to buy.
And Hadrian's wall was a massive job creation scheme from start to finish, imortant only at the time to keep soldiers busy and to make a propaganda statement.
Nothing, but nothing changes.
London does need more aviation capacity.
But expanding LHR further is crazy and the product of BAA and BA lobbyists having too cozy a relationship with Government officials.
Much better is to build a 4th London airport in the Thames Estuary (northern coast):
- reduces stacking, pollution and noise over central London and, indeed, radically reduces wide-body aircraft traffic over central London which, after 9/11, is a factor transport planners didnt consider 10 years ago)
- reduces other forms of transport infrastructure stress; with the creation of fast-rail services into the expanded King's X/St Pancras
- offers better air-hub access for the Midlands and the north (for which LHR useless unless you go via London)
The total 20-year costs of London4 and expanding LHR, taking into account other transport infrastructure needs and economic impact are about the same.
Also, given the T5 fiasco, do you really want a country *more* reliant on BA and BAA???
Therefore, your minority impact study, Ian, could be a fig-leaf to hide behind the very sensible decision to rethink the process entirely.
PS: London4 = even *more* jobs.
PS: I ought to claify that the London4 vision = assumes closure of London City Airport.
London4 is faster into the City (which is vital) than LHR
and London City is a national security nightmare as anyone who has yanked and banked low over South London and Westminster can testify. It also has crummy capacity and assumes jet fleets which are inherantly uneconomic and unecological...
...although earlier this year it was way cool that, for an urgent meeting, I could leave our house in Provence early, TGV to Roissy direct and Air France to City in time for lunch and then do nthe reverse and be back in Provence by Midnight; holiday interrupted for only one day
Windsor Tripehound said...
"There is a serious proposal to build an airport on an artificial island in the Severn estuary. I'm sure the people of Bristol and Newport will be delighted."
The proposal was made in 2003 but was not seen as a 'serious' proposal. It was laughed out of court.
I might be wrong but it may come under a legal requirement of the European Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive which requires assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment including social and economic objectives.
I think this is a fair point. Who will be most disadvantaged by more aircraft noise? Londoners - particularly in areas of dense population with relatively high proportions of ethnic minority residents. Who are the customers who might particularly benefit? White business people living in the home counties who don't live under the flight paths.
Who would in contrast suffer from more aircraft noise at Stansted? White people in the relatively lightly populated areas of north Essex. Why do the interests of a few farmers in Essex count for more than the interests of the multitudinous residents of West and South London?
This is a complicated subject and surely justifies delaying the whole thing for two or three years whilst some in-depth research is carried out.
anonymous 10.27, having lived under the flight path and now moved as a result and hopefully a bit north of the 3rd runway flight path, I can assure you that it is A LOT worse under than next to. It is not the days that kill but the nights.
You must be one of the few who are affected who say "bring it on" and I wish you luck. I recommend Boots wax earplugs.
wrinkled weasel @ 11:47
I think we are in agreement!
Any policy has side-effects - and "Globalisation" has its, just like any other.
John M Ward said...
"Personally, I'd prefer someone to develop teleports and render the whole road/rail/air/sea methodology obsolete at a stroke, eliminating all their pollution with them.
But that's probably just me..."
You and Pierson's Puppeteers.
Perhaps Clive Sinclair will come up with something. I hear he's working on flying cars.
Anonymous said...
"Is this why the Western Roman Empire collapsed?"
No. Malaria came to Europe and caused a massive reduction of the Roman population. At the same time a massive wave of barbarian invasions occurred, possibly occasioed by the eruption of a giant volcano that covered the Asian Steppes with ash making it life there temporarily impossible.
Plus, what wrinkled weasel said.
I suspect the real reason for delay is to gauge how the aviation industry bears up under the increase in oil prices.
I believe aviation is an industry that has already "peaked". Further expansion will be rendered redundant.
SBD
Oh how I love to be bunched up in a group and patronised, simply because I am female. Whoever thinks they have to legislate for the special group they have put me in because I am a woman have SO got it wrong. Legislate to protect everyone's rights, forget about compartmentalising us. We were all human last time I looked.
If it's a bad idea to extend Heathrow, then surely it's a bad idea all round, not just for a particularly segregated few? What a total load of rubbish these ministers do talk.
I suppose they have to spout continous bilge in order to justify their hefty allowances somehow.
Under the south London flight path said...
Who would in contrast suffer from more aircraft noise at Stansted? White people in the relatively lightly populated areas of north Essex. Why do the interests of a few farmers in Essex count for more than the interests of the multitudinous residents of West and South London?
Wake up. There are over 80,000 people in Harlow alone, perhaps the same number in Bishops Stortford plus many 100,000s around Stansted.
All of us are under the Stansted flight path.
There is already a high speed rail line from London to Ashford in Kent. It appears to have gone totally unnoticed by the media that starting next year for the very first time we in the UK will have a true high speed commuter rail link from Ashford to London (about 30 minutes)
I'd happily see an expansion of Manston or Ashford airport. All these losers who moan usually work in the public sector (teachers and the like) who have no idea that a government has no money. It gets it from taxation of the private sector.
Post a Comment