I can accept that a politician is neither strongly for or against a particular position, but surely Justine. Greening anti LHR stance disqualifies her from making an objective decision on the merits of LHR R3?
If she gets moved in the forth coming reshuffle then I think R3 is back on the agenda, it's worth remembering that had Labour got back in then 1000's of people would now be employed building R3 at no cost to HMG
The whole green thing is fast becoming a joke I must haven seen over 500 wind turbines this week static
Ah well take up the hold at BOV delay no more than 10 min or Holly Willo May it just doesn't happen at CDG or AMS
I seem to remember that the manifesto from the Labour party ruled oyut expansion at Heathrow, I could be wrong though.
And since when having a stance disqualifies anybody from taking an objective decision. Hunt had a stance on the digger's influence on television but it didn't stop him....Cabinet ministers have to make decisions per the Wednesbury rules otherwise they are subject to judicial review. Heathrow expansion is different in many cases, unlike the decision to stuff the Bearded one and award First Group the Franchise on the West Coast because the decision to proceed with it or not is innately political. A judge cannot force a politican to give the go-ahead to Heathrow because the heavy briefings by various very vested interests believe it to be the case.....