Advanced search

to think the government and Zac goldsmith think we're fools?

(21 Posts)
stollenbites Thu 10-Dec-15 20:45:44

I used to quite like Zac Goldsmith and thought he'd give Sadiq Khan a run for his money in the London mayoral race. He's  seemed to be a genuine, principled man who does the best by his constituents. He's always said he would resign from the Tory party if the government gave the go ahead for a 3rd runway at Heathrow.

So of course the government has decided to postpone the decision about a 3rd runway until the middle of next year. Yes,to just after the mayoral election.

Do they think we're stupid? I think it's an utter disgrace that important decisions about national infrastructure are being messed around with because of party politics. Whatever you're opinion on the airport, it is grossly unfair and PATHETIC to do this.

Of course Zac goldsmith is 'pleased' the government have decided to pause for thought on Heathrow. Weren't you demanding a solid 'NO TO A 3RD RUNWAY' answer five minutes ago Zac? Unsurprisingly he's the only one with this take on the situation 

I wonder how his election campaign will be affected now he's been shown to be just like the rest of them.

I'm quite angry about this and I don't even care about bloody Heathrow!!

howtorebuild Thu 10-Dec-15 20:50:42

His Father I am sure was the author of a famous quote. Marry your mistress and you create a vacancy. He is probably like his Father, an honest Man who cheats!

MotherofFlagons Thu 10-Dec-15 20:55:45

Infrastructure decisions are always political. Look at TfL, the never-ending back and forth over London river crossings, HS2 and any other infrastructure project you'd care to name.

Zac Goldsmith is no different to any other politician. He might have a nice manner and be easy on the eye, but his aim, and that of the vast majority of politicians, is to gain power and influence.

TwoSmellyDogs Thu 10-Dec-15 20:57:06

Exactly what Mother said. Expect any more than that and you'll end up disappointed. Or being a Corbynista. Neither of these is particularly appealing as an option!

Kpo58 Thu 10-Dec-15 20:59:44

I would have thought that the security implications of flying most planes across London would have said no to expanding Heathrow...

wasonthelist Thu 10-Dec-15 21:01:06

Very few politicians seem to have any respect for our intelligence - paradoxically, the few that do are ridiculed for it.

MotherofFlagons Thu 10-Dec-15 21:04:56

Planes already fly across London. The decisions about increasing airport capacity have nothing to do with security.

It really is nothing more than a political football and all parties use it to score points off each other, generally using environmental concerns to validate their stance.

AuntieStella Thu 10-Dec-15 21:08:36

There is no proposal to decrease capacity is there?

And it's pretty important to London, so even though not a Londoner I can see why they need to consider interplay between Mayoral elections and big policy decisions.

And yes, I think putting even more planes over such a major conurbation is a seriously bad idea.

wasonthelist Thu 10-Dec-15 21:13:19

If we are going on to talk about the merits of more runways/airports/planes for London, doesn't it seem odd that the same politicians who claim to care about the environment are keen to tell us how vital it is to have more and more noisy polluting planes flying people and goods who aren't even staying here in and out of one of the world's most densely populated cities?

MotherofFlagons Thu 10-Dec-15 21:17:12

Given that there are currently five international airports (and god knows how many small airports) in and around London, how much more dangerous do you think it's going to be to have extra flights on one of those airports?

The issue around airport capacity in the south east is not one of security, it's largely down to a combination of noise, environmental concerns including pollution, and displacement of existing communities. All of those things are ripe for political involvement, which is exactly what has happened.

AuntieStella Thu 10-Dec-15 21:23:08

Only City and Heathrow paths go over the centre, don't they?

So sounds like there are at least three others which could be expanded.

Risk? One of them falling out of the sky for any reason and landing on a densely populated area. I expect I'll be shouted at because it's a rare event, and therefore too insignificant to matter. But given that we are targeted (and Blair had tanks on Heathrow perimeter for a while) it's not something that the government always rules out.

BadLad Thu 10-Dec-15 22:11:28

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Kpo58 Thu 10-Dec-15 22:13:13

I wonder how much airport capacity would be freed up if we didn't have internal flights (and better & cheaper rail to make up for it). hmm

seasidesally Thu 10-Dec-15 22:25:25

is Richmond near the flight path???

Indole Thu 10-Dec-15 22:30:05

Yes, Richmond is under a busy flight path.

Indole Thu 10-Dec-15 22:33:15

I also think they think we are idiots. I live in Richmond and have just got an email from Mr Goldsmith which is, quite frankly, a load of utter waffle.

Shame I'm a Labour supporter but I did think he was surprisingly good for a Tory - genuine local interests and stuff. He's voted against them quite a bit.

Hobbes8 Thu 10-Dec-15 22:41:20

They've already said no to a third runway at Heathrow. Trouble is they'll keep asking until they say yes, so it's an inevitability really. So it's just a question of spinning it so that they make the unpopular decision at the most politically expedient time.

seasidesally Thu 10-Dec-15 22:42:54

so Richmond is under the flight path

well mummy Lady Annabelle Goldsmith lives there im sure she's had a word with Zak as to not spoil her massive home with more aircraft noise grin

BlueJug Thu 10-Dec-15 23:05:05

I think Zac is a good MP. He does vote against the government when he thinks it is the right thing to do and he is fighting for his constituents. He is playing it well. I don't think LHR 3 will go ahead - but it is a long game.

GiddyOnZackHunt Thu 10-Dec-15 23:10:34

Well yes, now you mention it, they probably do think the general population are mostly dumb fucks.

Indole Thu 10-Dec-15 23:39:45

It's not noise that we are objecting to in Richmond! At least, I'm not and Zac Goldsmith's emails don't give that impression either. I personally am objecting to the increase in pollution and the increase in road traffic that will be a natural consequence. We already have more than enough of both.

I agree that he has been a good local MP. And I really hope the third runway doesn't go ahead but think it probably will.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: