Heathrow? Or no?

After a month off, I start on some chemotherapy tomorrow. The last lot was a mammoth stretch of six weeks of radiotherapy and chemotherapy, with daily hospital visits. This time it will last just five days, and I don't need to pop into the hospital. That's good; it may make me tired, but I will still have to find ways of amusing myself. So what is going on in the news... ?

The Heathrow expansion seems to be the hornets' next at present. There are, it appears, three schools of thought:-

• There are those, including the Government, who back it. We know where they stand with them.
• There are those oppose it, and oppose every alternative plan. The Greens do this out of conviction, as they want to stop flights. But those who do like progress and the twenty-first century are being disingueous if this is their approach.
• There are those who oppose it, and want to built an alternative. Boris Johnson's idea is that this would be in Kent. It is true that Kent is more conveniently located than Heathrow, but the environmental damage, in terms of wildlife, could be substantial.
  

So what is the political reasoning behind the parties' viewpoints.

• Labour are untroubled by their decision. It is difficult to see how such a decision could cause them to lose Labour seats.
• The Conservatives are desperate to win seats in London, particular south-west London Liberal Democrat seats. But do they realise that the seven Labour seats in Kent that are meant to fall like dominoes to the Tories will be hurt by Boris's plan? The people of Cliffe or Sheppey, two purported sites, would far prefer Heathrow expansion. And so would the RSPB.
• The Liberal Democrats are tussling in south-west London, over the same seats as the Conservatives. I can't see an alternative they have proposed yet - they are sitting on their hands.

At least the Green are clear, although deluded.

Heathrow is far from ideal, but you can't uninvent it. I go with Heathrow.