[Tahooper]

I can't vote (as I'm not old enough nor do I live in London) but I would vote for Lawrence Webb and have Boris as my second preference vote.

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by Tahooper)
I can't vote (as I'm not old enough nor do I live in London) but I would vote for Lawrence Webb and have Boris as my second preference vote.

Why not just vote for Boris then, this Lawrence Webb chap isn't going to win.

[Tahooper]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
Why not just vote for Boris then, this Lawrence Webb chap isn't going to win.

Under the supplementary vote system used in the election, voters are invited to express a first and a second preference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_...e_endorsements

[MirandaPanda]

(Original post by meenu89)
If only I could vote....
If Boris would support the 3rd runway at Heathrow he would be the perfect candidate for me.

What?!

I live underneath the flight path and its already worse enough with flights starting at 7am and lasting well into the evening/night bordering after 10pm. An extra runway would just make things worse for the people who actually live here

Glad Borris is opposed to it.

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by Tahooper)
Under the supplementary vote system used in the election, voters are invited to express a first and a second preference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_...e_endorsements

Well, yes, I'm aware of that - but what is the point in voting for someone you know won't win?

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by MirandaPanda)
What?!

I live underneath the flight path and its already worse enough with flights starting at 7am and lasting well into the evening/night bordering after 10pm. An extra runway would just make things worse for the people who actually live here

Glad Borris is opposed to it.

What about the 99%+ of people who don't live right next to the airport?

[meenu89]

(Original post by MirandaPanda)
What?!

I live underneath the flight path and its already worse enough with flights starting at 7am and lasting well into the evening/night bordering after 10pm. An extra runway would just make things worse for the people who actually live here

Glad Borris is opposed to it.

I'm afraid that London does need another runway. I really hope the Tories do commit to building it next time should they get a majority. It was the one policy I agreed with Labour on at the last election.....

[goape]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
Well, yes, I'm aware of that - but what is the point in voting for someone you know won't win?

Self-fulfilling prophecy

[MirandaPanda]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
What about the 99%+ of people who don't live right next to the airport?

Oh please; policy should be dictated on whatever helps the most amount of people, regardless of the effects on the minority? Heck, we should get rid of our entire social safety net in that case

Do you even live in the area? Its horrendous as it is. I'm not saying airport expansion is not needed, but how about exploring other ideas, such as expanding other airports that are not Heathrow?

[MirandaPanda]

(Original post by meenu89)
I'm afraid that London does need another runway. I really hope the Tories do commit to building it next time should they get a majority. It was one policy I agreed with Labour on at the last election.....

So because London needs to expand its airport capacity, we should just continue to ad-hoc expand Heathrow to our hearts content? How about exploring other options? Stansted for one has land to accommodate a second runway, so why can't this option be taken seriously. And why can't Stansted become a hub airport? It is better placed to serve the Midlands and the north, and compared to Heathrow it sits in a relatively unpopulated rural area.

And this doesn't even begin to address whether the UK actually needs to expand airport capacity. Anyways, thankfully the debate about Heathrow expansion is dead and buried, with the environmental case having gained conclusive, cross-party backing. So its a moot point.

[Tahooper]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
Well, yes, I'm aware of that - but what is the point in voting for someone you know won't win?

To show your support for the candidate and their policies of course, and because there are no consequences if they don't win because then your second preference (which is usually one of the top two) can be used to vote for the one that you don't dislike as much as the other.

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by MirandaPanda)
Oh please; policy should be dictated on whatever helps the most amount of people, regardless of the effects on the minority? Heck, we should get rid of our entire social safety net in that case

Do you even live in the area? Its horrendous as it is. I'm not saying airport expansion is not needed, but how about exploring other ideas, such as expanding other airports that are not Heathrow?

Policy should do what is best for the country, not what is best for a few people that live near an airport.

[MirandaPanda]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
Policy should do what is best for the country, not what is best for a few people that live near an airport.

So, we should get rid of our welfare system then? As it only benefits a minority whilst taking tax revenue which could otherwise be spent on other things.

As for the rest of your post, I refer you to an earlier post of mine;

So because the UK needs to expand its airport capacity, we should just continue to ad-hoc expand Heathrow to our hearts content? How about exploring other options? Stansted for one has land to accommodate a second runway, so why can't this option be taken seriously. And why can't Stansted become a hub airport? It is better placed to serve the Midlands and the north, and compared to Heathrow it sits in a relatively unpopulated rural area.

And this doesn't even begin to address whether the UK actually needs to expand airport capacity. Anyways, thankfully the debate about Heathrow expansion is dead and buried, with the environmental case having gained conclusive, cross-party backing. So its a moot point.

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by MirandaPanda)
So, we should get rid of our welfare system then? As it only benefits a minority whilst taking tax revenue which could otherwise be spent on other things.

As for the rest of your post, I refer you to an earlier post of mine;

So because the UK needs to expand its airport capacity, we should just continue to ad-hoc expand Heathrow to our hearts content? How about exploring other options? Stansted for one has land to accommodate a second runway, so why can't this option be taken seriously. And why can't Stansted become a hub airport? It is better placed to serve the Midlands and the north, and compared to Heathrow it sits in a relatively unpopulated rural area.

And this doesn't even begin to address whether the UK actually needs to expand airport capacity. Anyways, thankfully the debate about Heathrow expansion is dead and buried, with the environmental case having gained conclusive, cross-party backing. So its a moot point.

I have argued many times that the benefits system ought to be abolished, so I don't see why you think I would disagree with that. I also don't believe in the NHS.

[Silkysam]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
Policy should do what is best for the country, not what is best for a few people that live near an airport.

This is a selfish, stupid and (most importantly) a dangerous statement. This statement has led to many people suffering in the past. Nazi's exterminating the Jews, and any other genecide that have taken place have used this exact excuse.

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by Silkysam)
This is a selfish, stupid and (most importantly) a dangerous statement. This statement has led to many people suffering in the past. Nazi's exterminating the Jews, and any other genecide that have taken place have used this exact excuse.

You equate the entire idea of utilitarianism with nazisim?

I don't quite think you understand politics or history.

[Deep456]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
You equate the entire idea of utilitarianism with nazisim?

I don't quite think you understand politics or history.

He's very right actually. Tyranny of the majority is a very dangerous thing for minorities.

[MirandaPanda]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
I have argued many times that the benefits system ought to be abolished, so I don't see why you think I would disagree with that. I also don't believe in the NHS.

That's your prerogative - one that I don't agree with of course, for obvious reasons. Also, you 'conveniently forgot' to adress the rest of my post, specifically the parts about airport expansion, which is what this conversation is about anyways.

To refresh your memory;

So because the UK needs to expand its airport capacity, we should just continue to ad-hoc expand Heathrow to our hearts content? How about exploring other options? Stansted for one has land to accommodate a second runway, so why can't this option be taken seriously. And why can't Stansted become a hub airport? It is better placed to serve the Midlands and the north, and compared to Heathrow it sits in a relatively unpopulated rural area.

And this doesn't even begin to address whether the UK actually needs to expand airport capacity. Anyways, thankfully the debate about Heathrow expansion is dead and buried, with the environmental case having gained conclusive, cross-party backing. So its a moot point.

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by MirandaPanda)
That's your prerogative - one that I don't agree with of course, for obvious reasons. Also, you 'conveniently forgot' to adress the rest of my post, specifically the parts about airport expansion, which is what this conversation is about anyways.

To refresh your memory;

So because the UK needs to expand its airport capacity, we should just continue to ad-hoc expand Heathrow to our hearts content? How about exploring other options? Stansted for one has land to accommodate a second runway, so why can't this option be taken seriously. And why can't Stansted become a hub airport? It is better placed to serve the Midlands and the north, and compared to Heathrow it sits in a relatively unpopulated rural area.

And this doesn't even begin to address whether the UK actually needs to expand airport capacity. Anyways, thankfully the debate about Heathrow expansion is dead and buried, with the environmental case having gained conclusive, cross-party backing. So its a moot point.

Stansted is too out of the way.
We need more capacity in London, not miles away.

I see no problem with expanding Heathrow. If you don't like living there, why do you love there?

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by Deep456)
He's very right actually. Tyranny of the majority is a very dangerous thing for minorities.

If the majority would benefit, I do not see why it is important that a minority suffers. It is of no consequence to me.