PDA

View Full Version : Airlines concerned as Labour want to charge Tourists


crewmeal
20th Nov 2014, 06:19
Another tax suggested by the Labour party to charge tourists for visiting the UK. You name it they'll tax it.

http://www.travelmole.com/news_feature.php?news_id=2014204

Krystal n chips
20th Nov 2014, 06:31
" Another tax suggested by the Labour party to charge tourists for visiting the UK. You name it they'll tax it

It's only a proposal....there's an election looming in case you were unaware and all the parties churn out statements to grab a rapt public's attention prior to the day....

The "caring" Tory party have more of an obsession with taxing the population than Nu / Reincarnated / Labour.

And the airlines have been happily screwing the travelling public for years under the guise of "customer" service.

The passenger always pays in the end.

wiggy
20th Nov 2014, 06:35
Another tax suggested by the Labour party to charge tourists for visiting the UK. You name it they'll tax it.

Maybe, but our friends across the ocean have been already charging for an ESTA for several years now.

UK APD as it stands is insane and is the cause of many a grumble about ticket prices - at least with this proposed tax HMRC/"UK Gov" can't hide behind the airlines...

Blacksheep
20th Nov 2014, 08:07
Most countries charge a tax for visiting. They call it a Visa Fee.

In Nepal they then used to charge ten of whatever your currency was at the immigration desk. The Brunei members of our team paid B$10, we Britons paid 10. Shrug shoulders, hand over cash and proceed to the baggage carousel.

It wasn't a tax though - I doubt if the government of Nepal received much of the resulting revenue.:suspect:

radeng
20th Nov 2014, 08:12
In Ankara, it was 10 if you were British, 15 if you were non-British and EU, except France and Italy who got in free, and $20 if you were a US citizen...

Seldomfitforpurpose
20th Nov 2014, 09:25
The cost of a Visa for India, ouch!!!!!!

Shaggy Sheep Driver
20th Nov 2014, 09:43
Typical Labour.... tax & spend, tax & spend, never mind the unintended consequences. :rolleyes:

Loki
20th Nov 2014, 10:55
I had to pay to get out of one country (Argentina)....had to be in a proper currency too, i.e. not their own ( Pounds Sterling, US Dollar, or even the Euro (!))

Blacksheep
20th Nov 2014, 11:31
Typical Labour.... tax & spend, tax & spend, never mind the unintended consequences.
The taxes Miliband and Balls intend to introduce if elected include:
A tax rise on incomes - they oppose plans to cut income tax for middle income workers (like me) and their policiy is to take more of middle-England's hard-earned money
A new tax on pensions - they intend to re-introduce the stamp duty reserve tax charge, adding a 145 million tax on pensions
A new tax on homes - The two Eds pledge a new tax on family homes - the "Mansion Tax" and already senior Labour figures are calling for the threshold to apply to homes in the North of England worth 400,000 and above (Northern 'Mansions' are cheaper than southern ones, where 400,000 barely gets you a one bedroom Victorian conversion flat in North London)
Higher council tax - The opposition voted against the Coalition's freeze on council tax, and want councils to be able to tax you more so they can spend more
Higher fuel duty - Labour raised fuel duty 12 times when they were in power, and opposed the fuel duty stabiliser - ostensibly on "Green" grounds.
In reality they need all the money they can get to support their social engineering projects.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
20th Nov 2014, 13:16
We saw what Labour do the last two times they were in power. Sunny Jim made us the sick man of Europe, a laughing stock, and wrecked the economy. It took Maggie to sort that out (and she did!).

Maggie's successor handed over a by then very healthy economy and a prosperous country to Blair and Brown. What the Tories inherited from the outgoing Labour administration when that pair had finished with it was mess even worse than that Sunny Jim had left.

Dave is no Maggie, but he has at least got the country steered back in the right financial direction and considering the financial wreck they started with the economy is in far better shape than anyone would have predicted.

Now tell me, why do people vote Labour? Do they want another session of financial suicide, or could it be they are not the sharpest chisels, don't understand that things have to be paid for, and want the rest of us to support them? Or are they just financially illiterate?

'Mansion tax' indeed! How does the value of my house make me richer? I can't sell it without replacing it with another, as it's where we live. It would make not one jot of difference to our financial situation if the value of property fell by 90% overnight! It's where we live - it's not a pile of available money!

Rwy in Sight
20th Nov 2014, 13:59
Without reference to political comments here, taxes on airline travel can be very attractive to politicians: the people paying the tax are often no local voters so no chance of them being out of the office.


Rwy in Sight

KBPsen
20th Nov 2014, 14:00
As opposed to the other party who'd outsource and privatize the robbery of both Peter and Paul.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
20th Nov 2014, 14:46
What's your point, KBP? Do you think the state should still be running a loss making state airline, or a phone system where you wait 6 months for the state to deign to rent you a state-owned phone (you were not allowed to connect any other), on a line you share with next door, at exorbitant rate?

KBPsen
20th Nov 2014, 15:29
My point is that neither side has a monopoly on robbery. They just have different methods and it would suit them to stop pretending otherwise.

Blacksheep
20th Nov 2014, 16:16
The best interests of the working man are served by ensuring plenty of jobs are available. That means a healthy economy.

. . . the other party who'd outsource and privatize the robbery of both Peter and Paul. Excuse me but I recall that as Chancellor, Gordon Brown had the Head of Goldman Sachs in UK as a regular dinner guest at No.11. Now, 'Gormless Gordon' not only sold off our gold reserves, he announced it in advance, saying that gold was outmoded as a means of exchange in the modern world. The price of gold predictably fell and Goldman Sachs, which had "gone short" on gold two weeks previously, made a killing of aroung $1.3 billion. Was this a coincidence? The man on the Clapham omnibus might have good reason to be suspicious. :suspect:

So who was robbing Peter and Paul? . . . and who was the Chief Economic Advisor to Gordon Brown at the time? None other than Ed Balls, the man who is in line to be Chancellor in any future Labour Government. :rolleyes:

Only one party has policies that meet the best interests of the working man. I am happy to have them in power regardless of how much the business barons and entrepreneurs may benefit. They benefit by providing jobs - is that exploitation?

. . . or is it exploitation to take money off me and give to other people to buy their votes?

Trossie
20th Nov 2014, 16:21
Now tell me, why do people vote Labour?Simple: because the class-conscious section of the population will get taken in by lots of class-ist claptrap about the 'toffs' and millionaires that will be thrown about as sound-bites by Labour just before the election. (They will of course conveniently forget that most of those 'toffs' and millionaires will be running the businesses that are keeping most of those Labour supporters employed and that those 'toffs' and millionaires are already paying most of the taxes that are paying the 'benefits' for those Labour supporters that aren't employed. Something about 'goose' and 'golden egg'?)

Back to this 'tax': they think that they can get away with it exactly because those hit won't be voters; they won't give a single thought to the fact that it will be hurting one of Britain's big industries, the airline industry. But then isn't it the "pick something to tax" season for Labour? (They'll be taking Mylene up on that suggestion of taxing her glass of water next!)

KBPsen
20th Nov 2014, 17:23
Only one party has policies that meet the best interests of the working man.I suppose that's why the number of low-paid jobs keeps setting new record highs, low and middle class income is going nowhere and income inequality just keeps going up?

Shaggy Sheep Driver
20th Nov 2014, 17:46
I doubt anyone would say the economy isn't in remarkably good shape (though far from fixed) given the wreckage inherited from Brown, and it's headed the right way to continue the recovery (long way to go yet).

Think how much worse the situation in UK would be if Labour had got in again and continued (as they no doubt would have done) their damage? Or how all the good work done on the economy since Brown's escapades would be undone (and then some!) if, god forbid, Labour get in next time.

charliegolf
20th Nov 2014, 17:58
Now tell me, why do people vote Labour?
Simple: because the class-conscious section of the population will get taken in by lots of class-ist claptrap about the 'toffs' and millionaires that will be thrown about as sound-bites by Labour just before the election. (They will of course conveniently forget that most of those 'toffs' and millionaires will be running the businesses that are keeping most of those Labour supporters employed and that those 'toffs' and millionaires are already paying most of the taxes that are paying the 'benefits' for those Labour supporters that aren't employed. Something about 'goose' and 'golden egg'?)

Simpler: Labour will always pay better state benefits.

CG

Gertrude the Wombat
20th Nov 2014, 19:48
Labour will always pay better state benefits
But only until the economy is bankrupted (again), at which point they leave office and give the mess to someone else to sort out for a few years (again).

radeng
20th Nov 2014, 22:33
I can't help feeling, Gertrude, that this dose of reality that you are providing doesn't fit too well with Labour's ideas......

It's really all Mr. Micawber again, isn't it?

Gertrude the Wombat
20th Nov 2014, 23:23
I can't help feeling, Gertrude, that this dose of reality that you are providing doesn't fit too well with Labour's ideas......
I'm sure they know perfectly well what they're doing - to be sure this strategy can never keep them permanently in power, but it seems to be pretty well guaranteed to get them in power about half the time, and that seems to be their objective.

After all, after a few years in power they need a few years off to concentrate on what they actually enjoy most, knifing each other in the back, without the distractions of actually trying to run a county.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
21st Nov 2014, 10:32
If you are not a socialist at age 17 you have no soul.

If you are still one at 27 you have no sense.

Those who work in the harsh reality of private enterprise know there's no soft option. Wishy washy pinko yogurt knitting is OK in the protected environment of a school staff room or a local authority office but it cuts no ice in the real world - the world where if you don't get the next project you and your colleagues may not get to keep your jobs ('cause they will cease to exist), the world that generates the wealth that pays for EVERYTHING else.

I remember one naive young chap at work years ago who, at election time, put up a Labour poster behind his desk. One of the grizzled old female project leaders stopped by. "Oh come on Nigel, you're old enough now to know better than that!".

Metro man
21st Nov 2014, 13:38
Socialism is easy, you simply make 51% of the population better off by robbing the remaining 49% and you are in.

The problems start when you run out of other peoples money.

ExXB
21st Nov 2014, 17:06
Metro man, that sounds a lot better than what we have today, making 1% of the population better off by robbing the remaining 99%. We middle class get screwed whomever is in power.

i would be happy to pay another 10 if they would guarantee me (non-EU, VISA exempt) that I could clear immigration formalities in no more than 5 minutes 95% of the time, and within 10 minutes 100% of the time!

But they won't, and I won't.

I've paid well over 150 this year in APD and have received nothing for it. (Airports and ATC all covered by users)

Shaggy Sheep Driver
21st Nov 2014, 18:07
I've paid well over 150 this year in APD and have received nothing for it. (Airports and ATC all covered by users)

Maybe it's because jet fuel carries no tax as if any country charged it the airlines would just fill up in those that don't. APD allows the gov to get some tax revenue to compensate for that.

Trossie
21st Nov 2014, 18:25
Maybe it's because jet fuel carries no tax...A common lie touted by politicians. For domestic flights full VAT is charged for the fuel. APD is also charged on those domestic flights.

Gertrude the Wombat
21st Nov 2014, 23:17
For domestic flights full VAT is charged for the fuel. APD is also charged on those domestic flights.
Too right, there shouldn't be any domestic flights in the UK, it's greener and no slower by train.

(OK, ses someone who flew to Glasgow a few weeks ago because he couldn't be arsed to work out the train times and prices.)

Metro man
22nd Nov 2014, 00:01
I refuse to pay APD for long haul business class from the UK. Instead I have a stop over in Europe and leave from there. The saving for two of us pays for a couple of days in Paris or Dublin and we get an extra to our holiday.

BTW From London to Glasgow flying is more popular than rail whereas from London to Newcastle, the train is the primary choice. There isn't a massive amount of difference in time and distance from London to either city by the same mode of travel, just a divide in people's minds of when to switch from rail to air. Flights to Newcastle and trains to Glasgow might have some good fares available.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
22nd Nov 2014, 01:05
Back when I was earning a crust the business traffic Manchester to London was by air. The train 'service' was just not reliable enough if you had to get to a meeting. Good old BR, eh? So BA used to operate an intensive (and no doubt very profitable) shuttle service often with 757 sized aeroplanes, with a standby aeroplane in case the main service filled up.

Now the only folk who fly to Heathrow from Manchester are those connecting with a flight. The Man - Lon service is an A319 shadow of what it used to be.

With a 2 hour, 3 times an hour, reliable Virgin train service, centre to centre, walk-up service with no security hassle (arrive at the station a few minutes before travel) that's no surprise.

When we get HS2 (fully implemented to Scotland), domestic air travel bar the remote routes will be history (as it mostly is in mainland Europe).

And there are still a few old dinosaurs who would like to see rail re-nationalised! Back to the future or what?

ExXB
22nd Nov 2014, 07:55
Maybe it's because jet fuel carries no tax as if any country charged it the airlines would just fill up in those that don't. APD allows the gov to get some tax revenue to compensate for that.

Actually aviation fuel for international flights is exempt from VAT for the same reason as products exported from a country are exempt from VAT. Fuel is being exported and consumed in a different jurisdiction. Yes some fuel is consumed on the domestic portions of these flights, but for most flights that would be a small fraction of the total.

Before you ask, the exemption is part of the Chicago Convention therefore applies to all international flights including those within the EU. (Much to the chagrin of Brussels)

I reiterate, I get nothing for the APD I pay. In some cases, such as clearing LGW immigration in the 'other' passports lane, I get significantly less than nothing compared to the EU passengers on the same plane. Last time 1 1/2 hours ...

Krystal n chips
22nd Nov 2014, 08:13
Good old BR, eh? So BA used to operate an intensive (and no doubt very profitable) shuttle service often with 757 sized aeroplanes, with a standby aeroplane in case the main service filled up.

Erm, I believe the service started with Tridents, and with a 1-11 as a standby and then progressed to the 757's with no back up. At weekends, a 737 would sometimes appear instead.

Ostensibly, the shuttle never made a profit, despite the at times high load factors and the cabin service quietly reduced over time as economics dictated....which makes sense given the short duration planned flight time....going around in circles over Potters Bar not usually being what pax wanted.

Now the only folk who fly to Heathrow from Manchester are those connecting with a flight. The Man - Lon service is an A319 shadow of what it used to be.

Interlining was always part of the shuttles promotional usage, so nothing new there. And the Airbus fleet has been used on the shuttle for many years.

With a 2 hour, 3 times an hour, reliable Virgin train service, centre to centre, walk-up service with no security hassle (arrive at the station a few minutes before travel) that's no surprise.


Just one minor detail you forgot to mention....the walk up on the day cost of fares.

When we get HS2 (fully implemented to Scotland), domestic air travel bar the remote routes will be history (as it mostly is in mainland Europe).

As your beloved HS2 is still on the drawing board, as such, what century were you thinking of regarding implementation to Scotland ?.

And there are still a few old dinosaurs who would like to see rail re-nationalised! Back to the future or what?

Correct, because unlike yourself, who seems to have encountered every possible form of delay whilst travelling on BR, and whilst there was the odd glitch at times, most of us did not have the same experience and managed to travel all over the UK quite effortlessly and, in the main, enjoyably.....and without being ripped off in terms of prices.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
22nd Nov 2014, 10:49
Actually aviation fuel for international flights is exempt from VAT for the same reason as products exported from a country are exempt from VAT. Fuel is being exported and consumed in a different jurisdiction. Yes some fuel is consumed on the domestic portions of these flights, but for most flights that would be a small fraction of the total.


I wasn't talking about VAT, I was talking about fuel duty! Every other transport system pays very hefty duties on fuel over and above VAT. Except airliner travel. As I said, perhaps the gov see APD as way of redressing that to a small extent.

Gertrude the Wombat
22nd Nov 2014, 11:39
trains to Glasgow might have some good fares available.
Or might not, but my problem was: how could I tell?

I could book the flight months in advance, but they don't even tell you the train timetable, let alone sell you the tickets, until a few weeks beforehand, by which time who knows how much the plane fares might have gone up?

So I booked with easyJet because they were offering a decent price and I didn't know how much the air fare would have gone up by the time was I was able to find out what the train fare was. My only recent experience of Scotland by train was something like 140 one way, and easyJet were charging lots less than that for a booking made six months in advance.

The railway wasn't even trying to compete.

Flying Lawyer
22nd Nov 2014, 11:50
Gertrude
there shouldn't be any domestic flights in the UK


Do you mean there should not be a need for domestic flights
or that they should be prohibited?

ExXB
22nd Nov 2014, 12:51
I wasn't talking about VAT, I was talking about fuel duty! Every other transport system pays very hefty duties on fuel over and above VAT. Except airliner travel. As I said, perhaps the gov see APD as way of redressing that to a small extent.

My apologies, when the Chicago Convention was adopted there was no such thing as VAT. I should have said taxes on fuel and other consumables was exempted. Why should aviation pay 'fuel duty' when aviation's entire infrastructure, at least in the EU, is already covered by the users. Should aviation pay for roads, bridges, rail (subsidies), ferry links, etc? The trucks, cars, trains, etc. certainly don't contribute to the costs of airports and ATC.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
22nd Nov 2014, 15:03
Exxb, we none of us pay selective taxes which cover just the stuff we use. Tax is the money the gov takes off us all though all sorts of ways to fund UK plc. There's lots of stuff the gov funds that I don't use, but my taxes still pay for them.

ExXB
22nd Nov 2014, 15:57
... and ???

My point was that I am already paying to visit the UK and IMHO I am not getting any value for what I'm paying. I'd be happy to pay more, but there is no chance I would get any value from doing so.

Gertrude the Wombat
22nd Nov 2014, 16:11
Do you mean there should not be a need for domestic flights
or that they should be prohibited?
I'm meaning that if many people who flew internally thought about it a bit more they'd choose another mode, given sufficient help (eg a railway that could actually be arsed to try to compete with the airlines).

I was once hanging around Heathrow in bad weather and hearing a stream of announcements that flights to places like Birmingham and Manchester were being cancelled, and that passengers were recommended to take the train because they'd get there quicker than waiting for the next flight. Now this was back in the days when you could turn up at the airport ten minutes before take-off - now that you have to allow a couple of hours in case there's a security queue it's even more bonkers to fly such short distances.

I think my brother did actually fly from Heathrow to Birmingham once, but only because he lived more or less next door to Heathrow and was going to a meeting being held in Birmingham airport and decided to do it the silly way. He couldn't understand why all the other people on the plane were travelling in such a daft way.

If more people were sensible there'd be fewer of these flights on offer, they'd run out of punters!

Shaggy Sheep Driver
22nd Nov 2014, 16:18
Well exactly. Only a loon would fly Man to Heathrow for a visit to central London with such a superb, quick, reliable, frequent, and walk-up with no hassle train service. That wasn't the case back when BR ran a dubious unreliable service and the BA Shuttle was walk-up, as BA's post virgin-West-Coast run-down of their Man - Lon flights testifies.

HS2 will make Scotland - London flights a nonsense. Many inter-city flights in mainland Europe have vanished now high speed rail does it quicker and more conveniently.

Capetonian
22nd Nov 2014, 16:26
I agree entirely about domestic flights (in the UK, of course in larger countries it's a different matter.)

I have never been on a UK domestic flight except once when connecting from Manchester via Heathrow and there was no viable rail connection, and once or twice to the Channel Islands when pressed for time, otherwise I take the much more enjoyable ferry service, which often turns out to be faster and more reliable than the dreaded 'FlyMayBe'.

I am tempted to say domestic flights should be prohibited where there is a viable rail service, but that probably becomes a bit too 'nanny state' and there are times when a flight is a better option, for example Bristol to Aberdeen.

Trossie
22nd Nov 2014, 16:46
To dictate that people should not be allowed to use a particular form of transport of their choosing on any particular route is real 'nanny state' bossiness.

There are lots and lots of routes in the UK that are quite justifiably covered by air that can compete quite satisfactorily with the alternatives. (Try, for example, taking the train between Norwich and Aberdeen; Exeter and Edinburgh; Cardiff and Newcastle; anywhere and Kirkwall; anywhere and Lerwick; anywhere in England, Wales or Scotland and Belfast; etc., etc., etc.) Those who advocate banning domestic flights in the UK are just part of that London champaign socialist elite that just don't understand anything "out there".

Banning or restricting any form of transport in any modern economy is just stupid.

Gertrude the Wombat
22nd Nov 2014, 17:06
There are lots and lots of routes in the UK that are quite justifiably covered by air that can compete quite satisfactorily with the alternatives.
One such would be internal flights around Cornwall, where there is no effective alternative (hardly any railways and appalling roads) - but there aren't any flights either, and you can't fly yourself as there are hardly any airfields!

But then many Cornish regard England as "foreign" rather than "domestic".

wings folded
22nd Nov 2014, 17:18
Those who advocate banning domestic flights in the UK are just part of that London champaign socialist elite that just don't understand anything "out there".

If there is such a category of folk, they may understand how to spell champagne.

Gertrude the Wombat
22nd Nov 2014, 17:24
they may understand how to spell champagne
"Poo", isn't it? Or did that go out with the banking crash?

Krystal n chips
22nd Nov 2014, 18:18
Gertude,

I understand your perceptions of rail travel and the reasons you state.

However, it is more than possible to plan a journey months in advance.
The fares are published 12 weeks in advance on the National Rail site, ostensibly the cheapest, but, quelle surprise, offer the most profit generating routes. The site is also prone to computer "hiccups".

I accept it depends on personal choice / circumstances but, if you are willing to have some inconvenience as in times and duration of your trip....then if so, you plan, and use some basic geography to avoid paying the thieving profiteering TOC's what they would like you to pay, by being gullible.

Being a champagne swilling pinko left wing liberal, it's a point of principal to me and thus, as I travel a lot by rail, First and cattle...First can actually work out cheaper at times...I can speak from experience here.

Our Travel and Economics Editor writes :

Well exactly. Only a loon would fly Man to Heathrow for a visit to central London with such a superb, quick, reliable, frequent, and walk-up with no hassle train service. That wasn't the case back when BR ran a dubious unreliable service and the BA Shuttle was walk-up, as BA's post virgin-West-Coast run-down of their Man - Lon flights testifies.

HS2 will make Scotland - London flights a nonsense. Many inter-city flights in mainland Europe have vanished now high speed rail does it quicker and more conveniently.

A superb piece of PR for Virgin Rail !....alas, you forgot to include a rather trivial detail.....erm, the cost.

Walk on cattle, from Man-Eus-Man peak times is around 300. It reduces I grant you later off-peak.....there's but one tiny hiccup here however....astute readers will gather from this link what this is.

http://www.virgintrains.co.uk/assets/pdf/announcements/off-peak-time-change-january-2012.pdf

For your benefit however, allow me to explain it has to do with times of travel and that, unless you want to spend a very short time in London..which is always a good idea I grant you, if you are travelling there and back on the day, you still get screwed over...such is privatisation.

And, after 20.00 you may well have to change at either Crewe or Stafford. I don't recall doing either on those terrible BR days .

The world foremost mathematician writes :

I agree entirely about domestic flights (in the UK, of course in larger countries it's a different matter.)

I have never been on a UK domestic flight except once when connecting from Manchester via Heathrow and there was no viable rail connection, and once or twice to the Channel Islands when pressed for time, otherwise I take the much more enjoyable ferry service, which often turns out to be faster and more reliable than the dreaded 'FlyMayBe'.

Without recourse to my slate and chalk, or abacus, I would estimate that's at least three domestic flights you have made....and then there were the trips to Belfast you have mentioned. We won't mention the unfortunate contradiction in your opening line though...

"No viable rail link"....this is amusing in that I have no recollection of Manchester being severed from the rest of the UK by the removal of a rail link and, surely, as a travel expert, you would have sourced alternative rail routes if this had been the case.

.

Trossie
23rd Nov 2014, 07:52
champaign= the mix of a French alcoholic drink and a socialist campaigner.

radeng
23rd Nov 2014, 13:41
If HS2 happens...


HS2 'slowly dying? as Euston terminus plan grinds to halt - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/11248208/HS2-slowly-dying-as-Euston-terminus-plan-grinds-to-halt.html)

crewmeal
23rd Nov 2014, 15:34
My guess is HS2 will be like the new runway plan at LHR. All talk talk talk and no action. Willy Walsh has already voiced his concerns at the lack of progress at LHR.

If there is ever a new runway at LHR then Labour can look forward to taxing even more customers.

ExXB
23rd Nov 2014, 16:41
... And in less than 10 years the Chinese have built over 12,000km of high speed rail. Will we see the 200km HS2 between London and Birmingham in less than 20?

Edited to add, there are no domestic flights between London and Birmingham to be replaced by HS2. It would be another 20 years or so, before HS2 could replace any domestic flights.

Krystal n chips
23rd Nov 2014, 16:59
My guess is HS2 will be like the new runway plan at LHR. All talk talk talk and no action. Willy Walsh has already voiced his concerns at the lack of progress at LHR.

If there is ever a new runway at LHR then Labour can look forward to taxing even more customers.

Dear Mother Shipton,

We can only hope you are being remarkably prescient with your first paragraph about both projects and HS2 in particular.

And with regard to the second, that Labour will indeed be in power again soon, although I get the impression you would not be in favour of this happening due to some sort of misconception about taxes.

Trossie
23rd Nov 2014, 17:39
... that Labour will indeed be in power again soonNah! It'll never happen. Labour are going to be trashed by UKIP and the 'white van man'!

The airlines have no reason to be concerned about Labour's tax plans. The champaigns stand no chance. Opposition party's plans just remain hot air. (Could be good for the ballooning side of aviation though!)

Krystal n chips
23rd Nov 2014, 17:46
(Could be good for the ballooning side of aviation though!)

Indeed, Bristol would become the new LHR !

Shaggy Sheep Driver
23rd Nov 2014, 18:06
radeng, the Telegraph has been rabidly anti-HS2 from the off, peddling such drivel as reinstating the old Great Central instead among many other loony ideas more expensive and hundreds of times less effective than just getting on and building our first high speed line*, decades behind everyone else. Ignore them. They are a bunch of Chiltern NIBYs, Colonel Blimps, and dedicated petrol heads, and their sort trumpeted loudly similar nonsense about HS1 before that was built, none of which has come to pass.

*HS1 isn't our first HS line. It's a branch off the French system.

Labour in power again? Thankfully, that seems highly unlikely. Just as well unless we want all the repairs required following the last Labour administration to be undone (and for those old enough to remember, the one before that), and all those sins against good housekeeping and common sense to be repeated YET AGAIN!

Gertrude the Wombat
23rd Nov 2014, 19:04
Labour in power again? Thankfully, that seems highly unlikely.
A tweet today from one of our local Labour people, terrible proud that they're showing first in some recent poll ... at 34%.

Nick Riviera
24th Nov 2014, 09:13
I have never been on a UK domestic flight except once when connecting from Manchester via Heathrow and there was no viable rail connection, and once or twice to the Channel Islands when pressed for time, otherwise I take the much more enjoyable ferry service, which often turns out to be faster and more reliable than the dreaded 'FlyMayBe'.

Without recourse to my slate and chalk, or abacus, I would estimate that's at least three domestic flights you have made....and then there were the trips to Belfast you have mentioned. We won't mention the unfortunate contradiction in your opening line though...

Oh dear, oh dear. Yet again our pseudo-intellectual places foot firmly in mouth. The Channel Islands are not part of the UK. Therefore Cape's statement is entirely correct and yours is, as always, completely wrong. Made even funnier by your usual condescending attitude in reply. It would be sad if it weren't so hilarious.

radeng
24th Nov 2014, 11:01
SSD

Whether or not the Torygraph has been against HS2 from the start, (which is actually immaterial as far as facts are concerned) there are three possibilities:

1. The report is correct.
2. Someone deliberately fed the Telegraph the mis-information out of malice.
3. The Telegraph invented the report out of malice.

Of these, #3 seems the most unlikely........In the absence of a formal denial by HS2, logic suggests that #1 is at least partially correct.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
24th Nov 2014, 11:06
Yes of course radeng. If it's in the paper then it must be true!

Since it was you who based you argument on a Torygraph story (note:STORY), then the fact that that paper is rabidly anti-HS2 is highly material.

And why would 'malice' come into it? The Torygraph is only interested in one thing - selling papers. It has to express opinions its ignorant readers like to read. That is why they do it. You could make that 'option 4' if you like.

radeng
24th Nov 2014, 11:08
>If it's in the paper then it must be true! <

Not at all! If it is in the paper, there must have been a vague glimmering of something bearing a vague relationship to the report once happening somewhere.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
24th Nov 2014, 11:12
radeng, as I said it's in the paper 'cause it helps sell the paper!

Capetonian
24th Nov 2014, 11:32
I don't see KnC's drivel other than occasionally if I glance at the morning updates. I missed this particular gem of wit, wisdom, and observational powers on his/her part.

S/he obviously doesn't understand punctuation but aside from that seems to have little to do apart from analytically dissecting and denigrating everything that others state and even more worryingly, 'stalking' people, and remembering that I did indeed fly to BFS which is, as he rightly states, a UK domestic flight. So for the pedant, I should have stated that I have not taken a mainland UK domestic flight other than as stated ......... but any normal person would have understood that. If I recall correctly, and KnC will no doubt be able to find this on his spreadsheet of my travels, it was a flight from JER - BFS, which even he with his encyclopaedic and detailed knowledge of the minutiae of the UK's railways, will understand is a difficult journey by rail.

I no longer even find this person's postings entertaining, as they are so dull and predictable, hence the application of the 'ignore' list.

Krystal n chips
24th Nov 2014, 18:24
Oh dear, oh dear. Yet again our pseudo-intellectual places foot firmly in mouth. The Channel Islands are not part of the UK. Therefore Cape's statement is entirely correct and yours is, as always, completely wrong. Made even funnier by your usual condescending attitude in reply. It would be sad if it weren't so hilarious.

Nick, always a pleasure to be the beneficiary of your complete inability to actually read what is written....the cricket thread set the trend here I recall.

I wasn't aware however, that, the Channel Islands were no longer part of the UK. When did this happen ?

I do, I admit, get terribly confused between domestic routes and international routes, possibly due to my poor education. Indeed, the definition of domestic air travel can confuse even the experts it seems !.

This helpful link may, however, alleviate the confusion you seem to be suffering from. Although you are not alone here.

Domestic flights (http://www.visitbritain.com/en/Transport/Getting-around-Britain/Domestic-flights.htm)

Nick Riviera
24th Nov 2014, 19:28
Dear oh dear, you don't know when to stop, do you? Is it a mental issue? You are unaware of so many things, cricket being just one example. But, to help you out, I'll type the next bit slowly.

The Channel Islands are not part of the UK.

There, is that helpful? Or would you like one of the links you are so fond of?:

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandCrowndependencies/ChannelIslands.aspx

The fact that you are unaware of this does not make it untrue. Now run along, nurse is calling you for your medication.

Capetonian
24th Nov 2014, 19:55
No names, no packdrill, but clearly someone doesn't know that the Channel Islands are not part of the United Kingdom (or the EU for that matter.)

Pretty basic stuff, you'd think that a 10 year old would know, but then, there are those who haven't quite achieved that level of knowledge and wisdom.

I'll type it slowly too :

T H E
C H A N N E L
(I don't want to confuse the feeble minded ...... this has nothing to do with perfume, that has only one 'n')
I S L A N D S
A R E
N O T
P A R T
O F
T H E
U N I T E D
K I N G D O M
'as any fule knoweth', and any 'fule' who didn't know might look it up on one of many official websites, such as that referenced above by Nick Riviera.

Lesson 2 :
The Channel Islands consist of the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey, collectively comprising the islands of Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney, Herm, Sark, Lihou, Jethou, and Brecqhou.
Repeat after me :

THE CHANNEL ISLANDS ARE NOT PART OF THE UNITED KINGDOM

Krystal n chips
24th Nov 2014, 21:03
" I wasn't aware however, that, the Channel Islands were no longer part of the UK. When did this happen "

I have never said they were and I never have.....I merely posed a question....and the response far exceeded my expectations.

You both read into it what you wanted to read into it, not what was written......now you would have thunk such collective intellects would not have made such a basic error, and even more so given the poorly educated source of the question...now wouldn't you ?

And to save you consulting the link, the Channel Islands are classed as domestic air travel.

Nick Riviera
24th Nov 2014, 22:46
Absolutely pathetic. I understand your lack of intellectual prowess but harboured thoughts that you were, perhaps, man enough to admit your mistake. But no, even that is beyond you. Most boys are taught by their dad that it is the proper thing to own up to your mistakes. I got taught that lesson and have passed it on to my sons. Perhaps you were absent that day in your house.

Krystal n chips
25th Nov 2014, 06:34
Absolutely pathetic. I understand your lack of intellectual prowess but harboured thoughts that you were, perhaps, man enough to admit your mistake. But no, even that is beyond you. Most boys are taught by their dad that it is the proper thing to own up to your mistakes. I got taught that lesson and have passed it on to my sons. Perhaps you were absent that day in your house

Nick,

This time you have surpassed yourself.

Your views about myself, and any aspect of my life or views I express about topics on this site are open to comment, positive or negative, as the poster chooses. All are welcome and, unlike some, I see no need for an "ignore list"...invariably a sign of insecurity.

Many who post on here are vain enough to display to the world character traits which would be regarded as repellent in daily life and offer insights as to their personality overall.

Your response in denigrating my late father, and referring to my parents and family values, offers just such an insight.

As with politicians, the individual and collective views are regarded as being open to anybody who may agree, or disagree.

One area that is left alone however, concerns their children and family.

It's an unwritten and socially accepted code, understood by all. Those who breach it do so because they lack the level of personal, cultural, social and intellectual development that enables them to interact with other mature adults.

I do not see any of the above forms of development being prominent with yourself.

Nick Riviera
25th Nov 2014, 07:34
And whoosh, there it goes, straight over our pseudo-intellectual's head straight again. Like all playground bullies he likes to dish it out but can't take it back. Bye bye Komrade.

Trossie
25th Nov 2014, 07:41
Another tax suggested by the Labour party to charge tourists for visiting the UK. You name it they'll tax it.
But no need to worry. The airlines will be safe on this one: UKIP and the "White-van Man" will see Labour off; no chance of them being able to impose any taxes (and hopefully, never, ever again...).

(KnC really needs to keep taking that medication!)

Bronx
25th Nov 2014, 07:58
Many who post on here are vain enough to display to the world character traits which would be regarded as repellent in daily life and offer insights as to their personality overall.


It's supposed to be Americans who don't understand irony. http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/rolling.gif

Capetonian
25th Nov 2014, 09:37
KnC, I wasted a few seconds reading your pathetic ripostes on the morning update.

In your haste to attempt to denigrate others, you have yet again displayed your profound ignorance, but do you admit to an error? No, you come out with some ridiculous rambling nonsensical attempt to defend your error and deflect it on to others by accusing them of 'falling into your trap'. In fact, you fell into your own trap.

Flights to the Channel Islands are technically domestic flights, but somewhat of an anomaly as passengers are subject to passage through HM Customs on arrival in the UK since the CI are not part of the UK (do you understand that now?) or the EU.

Before you try to argue with people who know, you might like to do some research. Alternatively keep quiet and appear stupid rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt.

You are always quick to make snide, sarcastic and denigrating remarks about others, casting aspersions on various aspects of their life style and mental state, but when someone does the same to you, you can't take it. Quite the playground bully, aren't you?

Krystal n chips
25th Nov 2014, 18:29
" KnC, I wasted a few seconds reading your pathetic ripostes on the morning update.

May I suggest taking a few minutes to read and absorb what I wrote....understanding what I wrote may require a considerably longer time. Had you done so, you would have noted I did not, and never have, resorted to the moral cowardice of attacking family and relatives, in this case my deceased father.

In your haste to attempt to denigrate others, you have yet again displayed your profound ignorance, but do you admit to an error? No, you come out with some ridiculous rambling nonsensical attempt to defend your error and deflect it on to others by accusing them of 'falling into your trap'. In fact, you fell into your own trap.

If you had read my posts, you would have noted that, when I make an error I admit to it or retract the comment. I did so recently on the Mil.thread when the faux outrage bus was travelling at full throttle regarding the cadet who was attacked. I made my comments on the basis of the media reports which proved to be partially correct.

There was not one retraction from the gung ho military cabbages who had decided, without a scrap of evidence, the attack was by a radical Islamist.


Flights to the Channel Islands are technically domestic flights, but somewhat of an anomaly as passengers are subject to passage through HM Customs on arrival in the UK since the CI are not part of the UK (do you understand that now?) or the EU.

I have always been interested in geography so this came as a complete shock to me....I am indebted for the rest of my life !

Before you try to argue with people who know, you might like to do some research. Alternatively keep quiet and appear stupid rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt.

You are always quick to make snide, sarcastic and denigrating remarks about others, casting aspersions on various aspects of their life style and mental state, but when someone does the same to you, you can't take it. Quite the playground bully, aren't you

Intriguing that the analogy of the playground and the bully was used by Nick....a meeting of minds clearly transpired here....however, lacking as I do your sophistication, charm, intellect and modesty....possibly I have misconstrued this offering from you in some way regarding your comments in the last paragraph.

" ]A few weeks ago I was on a train in France and took a very brief call from a friend, obviously in English. The sourfaced old hag sitting in front of me turned round and glared at me, and then started screeching : "Nous sommes en France, on parle Francais ........." and so on for about five minutes. When she'd finished I asked her if she spoke English ..... "non je suis Francaise, je parle Francais ....... on est en France".

So I said : "Madame here's your first English lesson. Repeat slowly : Shut the f... up you old cow[/I]"

Nick Riviera
25th Nov 2014, 20:22
in this case my deceased father

If you had the wit to understand then you would realise that I did not denigrate your father. The object of my derision is your condescending, patronising, bullying self.

Seldomfitforpurpose
25th Nov 2014, 21:43
If you had the wit to understand then you would realise that I did not denigrate your father. The object of my derision is your condescending, patronising, bullying self.


Years of observing tell me that he knew EXACTLY what you meant :ok:

Trossie
26th Nov 2014, 07:38
A few weeks ago I was on a train in France and took a very brief call from a friend, obviously in English. The sourfaced old hag sitting in front of me turned round and glared at me, and then started screeching : "Nous sommes en France, on parle Francais ........." and so on for about five minutes. When she'd finished I asked her if she spoke English ..... "non je suis Francaise, je parle Francais ....... on est en France".

Now just imagine if that had been the exact reverse (i.e. in the UK, call in French, " We are in the UK, one speaks English", etc.). Imagine the anti-UKIP howls that there would be from the 'left' aimed at that 'sourfaced old hag'!! However, elsewhere in the EU, as always, they do things differently!!

Now after that KnC induced 'thread drift' (he really should take his medication regularly), there is no threat to the airlines of this tax (they'll be suggesting taxing glasses of water next!) by Labour, as UKIP and the 'White Van Man' will successfully see Labour off at the next election.

Doors to Automatic
26th Nov 2014, 08:19
It is unlikely that Labour will win a majority (although I admit not impossible). The current average is virtually neck and neck and there is almost always an 8-10 point swing towards the party in power on the day.

The only time in recent history this didn't happen was in 2001 but I can't see Labour polling more than they did in 2010 under Miliband, especially if he continues to drop more clangers.

I would expect 28-29 from Labour and 36-37 from Tories on the day.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
26th Nov 2014, 09:39
I too am hopeful that the recent swings to 'the loud-mouthed bloke in the pub who thinks he knows how to run the country' party will not be so evident when a government is being elected. It's just the electorate's way of saying to Labour and Conservatives 'do summat about immigration and the EU'!

Doors to Automatic
26th Nov 2014, 13:28
I think you are right - I wouldn't be surprised if UKIP lose a few points and the Lib Dems gain a few, to stand neck and neck at, say 10 points each.
UKIP are currently polling at around 17/18 and Lib Dems at 7/8 whilst in 2010 they were 3 and 22 respectively


With 10 points going to other parties (Greens, SNP, Plaid etc) this would give Tories and Labour 70 points to share.

For Labour to win a majority they would need a result of 36:34:10:10:10. If UKIP and Lib Dems stay the same they would need 34:32:17:7:10

This would mean at the very least a 5 point gain for Labour and a 5 point loss for Tories since 2010.

I just can't see that happening given where the polls are today.