
It's Monday …


Winter is coming, the cats are getting keener to be in rather than out — not that this stops them going out for a little light mouse-foraging! All afternoon I’ve had two of our three cats with me in the study, very asleep and both determinedly trying to make it rain.
Wiz has found the warm spot in front of the airing cupboard …


So, as usual it seems, we’re now being told that the bill for Heathrow Runway Three is going to be much higher than is being said. Worse, that extra cost is going to fall on the taxpayer and not on the private enterprise (the airport). Yesterday’s Guardian reported former Transport Secretary as the person raising the concern:
“There will be a number of specific things we will be doing for Heathrow. The government and Heathrow need to come clean on what the cost to the taxpayer is going to be.” … While the [Davies] commission report estimated a £5bn bill for new roads and rail links, Transport for London put the potential cost as being as high as £18.4bn.
Heathrow said it had earmarked just £1bn, and that it only accepted direct responsibility for works to the M25, which the third runway would cross, and a few minor roads. The airport contends that it will be cutting traffic, despite adding up to 55 million passengers a year, and that revenues could offset the bill.
Oh? Pray tell me how adding 55 million passengers a year will reduce traffic.
Moreover:
Heathrow confirmed on Wednesday that executives would be paid bonuses, for securing a new runway, that would be expected to run into several million pounds.
And there’s even more …
Campaigners have highlighted an apparent admission that pollution is likely to rise in parts of London with a third runway, which they say potentially makes the scheme illegal.
The report, produced by Parsons Brinckerhoff for the DfT, said that Heathrow was “at risk of worsening exceedances of limit values alongside some roads within greater London, but this would be unlikely to affect the overall zone compliance”.
However, this is likely to be contested. Legal opinion obtained by the Clean Air in London campaign, from Robert McCracken QC, states that worsening pollution in any areas that already exceed legal limits would break the law.
That’s alright then, bugger the law. Oh we’ve already done that.
And don’t you just love “at risk of worsening exceedances of limit values”. WTF language do they think they’re writing? Can’t be Vogon; we’d stand a chance of understanding that.
So as usual it seems we’re not being told the whole story; there are hidden vested interests and conflicts of interest. And the whole funding situation is being fudged so that in years to come it will be too expensive (financially and politically) to scrap the project so it is completed with money we don’t have, provided by central government and filched from the pockets of the already screwed taxpayers — or worse borrowed on the never-never. (See HS2 and London’s proposed Garden Bridge for similar current likely examples.)
It’s another plane crash (in so many ways) waiting to happen. And government don’t get it. In spades. FFS!
PS. I know I live near Heathrow (though not under the main flightpaths) but I don’t care where this runway is going to be built. We shouldn’t be doing it. And we certainly shouldn’t be doing it — like most major projects — in such an underhand way.
So yesterday, quite predictably and after years of dithering, the government decided that it is going to build a third runway at Heathrow Airport.
They still don’t get it, do they? See a number of earlier posts hereabouts.
So why do they do it? I suspect it is a combination of (A) vested interests (ie. the business lobby and politicians share portfolios), (B) the fact that governments (like senior managers) have to be seen to do something and almost anything will do especially if it distracts from the real problems they should be fixing, and (C) vanity. And that, of course, is all that matters. Bugger the environment etc. etc.
Not that any work is likely to be done for 4 or 5 years. There is still to be (another?) public consultation followed by parliamentary approval. Add to that all the planning decisions, every one of which you can be sure will be appealed by someone, causing even further delay. Meanwhile the whole of west London — already a disaster jungle of concrete — has another Sword of Damocles (in addition to that of HS2) hanging over it.
So there is still plenty of chance the third runway will never happen, and even by the time it can happen some people will have got the message that (a) it will be an environmental disaster (wherever it is sited) and (b) we really should not need to be flying people around the world the way they do.
As someone commented yesterday, we suddenly seem to be building big things — most of which we really don’t need (eg. runway three, HS2). Moreover we cannot afford them — we have no money, at least so we’re always being told. Nor do we have the labour to either build or operate these facilities as unemployment is at historic low levels. So where do we find the cash and the workers? Oh yes, of course: inward investment and immigrants, neither of which will happen after Brexit.
There is still time for common sense to prevail, but don’t hold your breath.
Gawdelpus!
No, OK, I do understand why. But it is a real pain …
Yesterday morning I had my ‘flu jab. I do this every year as (a) I’m now over 65 and (b) I have diabetes so I’m considered to be at “high risk”.
By mid-afternoon yesterday I was feeling rough. Last night I might as well have had ‘flu, I felt so awful — and I was so hot you could have fried an egg on me. (What a nasty idea!) I felt marginally better this morning and luckily I’ve gradually been improving as today has gone on.
Every year follows a similar pattern. 10+ years ago when I first started having ‘flu jabs they would make me feel rough for maybe half a day; on one classic occasion I felt awful for just one hour.
However a few years ago, when the vaccine contained “bird ‘flu” it knocked me out for over a week. Each year since then the vaccination has affected me for at least two full days, usually starting about24 hours after the injection. Consequently I scheduled this year’s shot when I knew I had three four days clear afterwards. It’s just as well I did, although if it has knocked me down for little more than 24 hours this year that’s definitely progress.
Yes, I do understand why this happens. Although the vaccine cannot give you ‘flu (the constituent strains are either live but attenuated or are totally inactive) like all vaccines they stimulate the immune system into producing antibodies — that’s what they’re supposed to do. And it is this reaction of the immune system, which thinks the body is being attacked, which causes the “illness” side-effects. What’s curious is that not everyone get these side-effects; and of course there are a small number of people (eg. those who are allergic to eggs) who cannot have the vaccine (or have to have an expensively produced alternative).
While the side effects are not pleasant they generally only last a day or two, and for my money they are far better than having real ‘flu which could last 2 weeks even without complications.
It’s just a nuisance to have to go through this every year. However until a way is found to produce a reliable “one shot forever” ‘flu vaccine we are stuck with annual injections. The ‘flu viruses are so variable, and they mutate so quickly, that the vaccine has to be changed every year. The game is to pre-guess which strains are most likely to be active during ‘flu season — for the northern hemisphere this guess has to be taken in February for the following winter; that’s because of the time required to produce the vaccine. When the experts guess right the vaccine is maybe 75-80% effective; guess wrong (as happened last year because of a late mutation) and effectiveness may be down at around 10%.
So while having a ‘flu jab is an annual PITA, it is one which for me is worth it. Until we get a universal vaccination, that is.
In a comment piece entitled Climate change means no airport expansion — at Heathrow or anywhere in yesterday’s Guardian, George Monbiot has got his knife out again.
His thesis is that:
The inexorable logic that should rule out new sources of oil, gas and coal also applies to the expansion of airports. In a world seeking to prevent climate breakdown, there is no remaining scope for extending infrastructure that depends on fossil fuels … While most sectors can replace fossil fuels with other sources, this is not the case for aviation … Aviation means kerosene.
Essentially The UK cannot meet it’s climate change commitments now and building another airport runway (whether at Heathrow, Gatwick or anywhere else) is only going to compound the problem.
We have to fly less — for both business and leisure. Business has to wake up to the fact that it doesn’t have to fly people around the world — or even drive them around the country — to meetings. We all have to wake up to the fact that we cannot afford — environmentally, and probably soon financially — to jet off around the world on holiday several times a year.
I know I keep saying it, but it really is time to wake up and smell the coffee at home!
[And no, Monbiot doesn’t make this stuff up. There’s a fully referenced and linked version of the article at http://www.monbiot.com/2016/10/19/the-flight-of-reason/.]
Law and Lawyers reports that the House of Lords EU Select Committee has issued a new report, Brexit: Parliamentary Scrutiny.
There are three key findings:
But critically, as Law and Lawyers quotes from the report:
The forthcoming negotiations on Brexit will be unprecedented in their complexity and their impact upon domestic policy … it seems … inconceivable that [the executive] should take the many far-reaching policy decisions that will arise in the course of Brexit without active parliamentary scrutiny.
[The government must] recognise a middle ground between the extremes of micromanagement and mere accountability after the fact.
Within this middle ground, Parliament, while respecting the Government’s need to retain room for manoeuvre, should be able both to monitor the Government’s conduct of the negotiations, and to comment on the substance of the Government’s negotiating objectives as they develop. Only if these principles are accepted will Parliament be able to play a constructive part in helping the Government to secure the best outcome for the United Kingdom. Such scrutiny will also contribute to a greater sense of parliamentary ownership of the process, strengthening the Government’s negotiating position and increasing the likelihood that the final agreement will enjoy parliamentary and public support.
Which, in my view, is quite correct. However I perceive two flies in the ointment:
Honest, open and considered Parliamentary scrutiny is essential.
We’re not doing very well at posting this month, mainly because everything is both manic and upside down. However here is this month’s collecton of interesting/amusing/thouyght-provoking quiotes.
If organic chemistry was easy it would be called biology.
The planet does not need more ‘successful people’. The planet desperately needs more peacemakers, healers, restorers, storytellers and lovers of all kinds.
[Dalai Lama]
As much of the history of England has been brought about in public houses as in the House of Commons.
[Sir William Harcourt, 1872]
I don’t have a solution, but I do admire the problem.
[R]omantic relationships are tricky because they are so clearly a nest of mutual delusion. A romantic relationship is a collaborative delusion with someone else in which you encourage the other person to think that you will, can, or should make them happy, and vice versa. Even if your relationship is more subtle and nuanced than this, the hidden subtext is that you expect the other person to make you happy, or at least less unhappy.
[Gesshin Greenwood at http://thatssozen.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/get-unstuck.html]
I have not read a work of literature for several years. My head is full of pebbles & rubbish & broken matches & bits of glass.
[James Joyce, letter to Harriet Shaw Weaver, 24 June 1921]
As I’ve grown older I’ve learned that pleasing everyone is impossible, but pissing everyone off is a piece of cake.
A real girl isn’t perfect and a perfect girl isn’t real.
[Harry Styles]
In the morning you beg to sleep more, in the afternoon you are dying to sleep, and at night you refuse to sleep.
Oh you want to have your cake and eat it too? Darn right, what good is cake if you can’t eat it ?
Not all chemicals are bad. Without chemicals such as hydrogen and oxygen for example, there would be no way to make water, a vital ingredient in beer.
It is so shocking to find out how many people do not believe that they can learn, and how many more believe learning to be difficult.
[Frank Herbert, Dune]
Anyone unable to understand how useful religion can be founded on lies will not understand this book either.
[Kurt Vonnegut, Cat’s Cradle]