[Tubby Isaacs]

I'm sympathetic to that POV. If planes are stacked up flying around Heathrow because they are at full capacity then a third runway could be justified. But deliberately expanding supply and demand for flying is ecologically negligent and the case unproven. If more routes to provincial Chinese cities are vital to our future prosperity (which sounds a highly questionable proposition that would appear in a corporate construction promo video) then prioritise them over more frivolous reasons to fly. These cities will be connected to Bejing by high speed rail and to ports where the vast majority of trade with Europe is moved.

Reeves mocks environmental concern in true Trumpian fashion, claiming that people object to schemes like the third runway she has just announced at Heathrow because they “might add something to carbon emissions in 20 years’ time”. There’s no “might” about it. They will. But who cares what happens in 20 years? It won’t be her problem.

This is private investment, so I assume that the business case is fairly plausible. The hub airport argument persuades me. It's not that lots of these people won't be flying, it's that they can fly direct from Heathrow to more destinations if the third runway is built, rather than changing at Schipol or Charles de Gaulle. Shuttle flights to Europe to change planes are very bad for the environment because so much of the emissions come at take off and landing.

If there isn't the business for long haul from Heathrow, then it can take business off other London airports. For most of the country, Heathrow is much more convenient than Gatwick. I'm doing my one trip this year to Perugia, and getting to Stansted is an enormous pain. Put that flight at Heathrow as far as I'm concerned. Use the future growth to fund a direct rail link from Reading

What I would also like to see, as I always say, is HS2 going far enough that it can take out a chunk of the Scotland-London air market.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Do you really want to live in a society that tells you that you can't fly because your flight is 'frivolous'?

I think that's a very important point. One of the big cards Farage and co have is "the Prime Minister and business elite are still flying, they just want to stop you doing it" I think green energy is a much easier political sell, and that's where Labour are putting their efforts.

And what of immigration? It's an economic necessity, but it does mean a lot of extra air travel. Friend of mine is married to a Filipino. Is their one trip a year to see her family "frivolous"? If we just limit it to the European Union, nobody much is taking a train even from London to Lisbon, let alone Liverpool to Bucharest.

[kreuzberger]

Those of us who aren't totally stupid have to take these things into our own hands, largely because can't or won't do that for us.

We are now down to one return flight a year, regardless of whether changes are involved. (Given that this year's starts on 02/03, we'll see just how hard and fast that rule turns out to be.)

The only one that really irks me is the regular visit to Berchtesgadener Land. A flight to Salzburg takes just under five hours, door-to-door, whereas the train is nearer eleven hours, albeit a smidgen cheaper with a rail card.

[Tubby Isaacs]

That's exactly the same as me. And my friend and his Filipino wife.

[Crabcakes]

If your flight doesn't exist and you have to catch an overnight train to get pissed in Prague, Western civilization will still stand.
I'd love to see the Canadian and Alaskan wilderness or South America before I die but I can through videos and photos. My unimportant trivial privilege to have access to long haul leisure flights is not a fundamental human right.

Thing is, long haul is not really the issue here - per mile/person on a modern aircraft they’re not too bad. It’s short hops and commuter flights that are the issue, compounded by a lousy high speed train system across much of the globe.

If every country had decent bullet trains like Japan, we’d be in a much better state of affairs. And if a hilly country that goes from subtropical to freezing, and regularly experiences earthquakes, can do it we really have little excuse.

[Tubby Isaacs]

As you all know, I think HS2 should be built. But I also think the UK has more excuse for flights than more centrally located places in the Europe.

In a rare moment of magnanimity on my part, I was once BTL on the Guardian and the SNP contingent were getting some stick for their support for airports. I had to admit that they had a point. Even with HS2, even with a (likely very uneconomic) bypass of London, high speed rail from Scotland to anywhere much past Paris is going to be uncompetitive with air. I think the same thing applies to Britain generally really. This is something to consider when negotiations are done over carbon budgets.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Chris Philp, who never seems to read a brief, is lecturing Britons on their work ethic. And claiming that Truss's budget would have worked if she'd listened to him. And Priti Patel has had to apologize for sticking up for the visa system she and Bozo introduced (which well she might, it was strangely good).

[Youngian]

Patel losing the room here. Claims the Leave campaign made it clear to Sun readers in 2016 that we'd import more brown and black people after Brexit.
https://x.com/out_leica_light/status/18 ... -Il2g&s=19

[RedSparrows]

That is PERFECT.

The curtain is pulled back, and the audience says 'oh what? Anyway, on with the show'.