Aeroplanes are bad for the environment and Mr Willy Walsh should show more ownership.

Willie Walsh argues (Evening Standard, 22-11-16) that air passenger duty should be abolished because it is having an adverse effect on the British economy that is greater than the value of tax raised. He says 61,000 new jobs will be created by the additional tourism and other jobs created by getting rid of the tax

He acknowledges , explicitly in the case of Ireland but it is implied clearly for the U.K. as a whole, that the tax has reduced the number of passengers and therefore the number of flights in and out of the U.K.  He also acknowledges that the reason that the tax was introduced was to address environmental issues.  That it has done so, by reducing the number of flights, is not disputed; he counters the point merely by saying that the tax collected has not been hypothesized for government expenditure aimed at benefiting the environment.

But even if the tax was supposed to be spent on cleaning up the air, which the government never promised, his argument is entirely specious. The fact is that the number of flights is lower than it would have been otherwise. Job done, even if in a clumsy and inefficient way, as is usually the case when taxation is used to indirectly support government aspirations that it is too cowardly to introduce directly.

And given that aviation is a significant contributor to air pollution however you look at it, Mr Walsh's position is not dissimilar to that of the tobacco industry spokesperson arguing that tobacco duty is wrong because it reduces the number of cigarettes sold.

If Mr Walsh is serious he needs first to acknowledge that aviation is bad for air quality and say what he, and the rest of his industry, will do to tackle the problem, cut the number of people killed every year by his impact on air quality in and around major cities and on the climate change caused by Carbon dioxide from his jet engines. When he comes up with a solution to this problem he can come back and argue against air passenger duty and the depressing effect it has on his profits, which at the end of the day is probably all he is interested in.

"Tens of Thousands" is not a SMART immigration target. What does that make the Government?

Today, Michael Fallon, Secretary of State for Defence, insisted that the target for immigration remained "tens of thousands", even when Martha Kearney suggested that with no deadline this was no more than an aspiration.  Only a politician would try to argue that was a target.  Any business person worth his or her salt would say that a target needs to be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time bound.  That's "SMART" for short. Some people substitute other words, but the overall effect is the same. 

The Tories' so-called target for immigration was certainly specific and measurable; that is why we know it has not been achieved.  It certainly was not achievable, and they knew it when it was set up in the 2010 election, so long as we were in the EU.  We can pass on relevancy, because that presupposes you know what the strategic outcome is supposed to be, although if it was simply to reduce immigration then the target is de facto the objective.  But it was definitely not time-bound.

On that basis Martha Kearney was right; this is not a target worth speaking of, but it could be an aspiration.  You don't need a plan for an aspiration, but you should have one for a target, and one that can be debated and argued over, or agreed upon by politicians and others.

So I conclude that Michael Fallon, and every other politician that sets up targets that are not SMART is a mealy-mouthed wriggling weasel who hopes to persuade the ignorant, and appease the converted while promising to do precisely nothing.

In Michael Fallon's case, as Secretary of State for Defence he should also ask his generals what they think of his definition of a target.  I cannot imagine any responsible soldier setting targets for the troops that are not SMART.  Imagine what would happen if the general staff issued orders stating that the target was to invade such-and-such a country (God help us, but just a hypothetical example), but without saying when, or where, or even why.  That would not be SMART.   

Brexit Means Brexit? Are you having a laugh? We must have another Referendum

Depending on whether you voted to Remain or to Leave the EU you might or might not like the direction I am going in, but you cannot ignore the logic.  We are told by the Vote Leave camp that the vote was an overwhelming vote in favour of leaving.   Now I grant that the turnout was high but a margin of 4% is not what I call overwhelming.  This is particularly so when you take into account the large number of young 18-34 year olds who did not bother to vote, and we know that the vast majority of them are in favour of remaining in.

But the real issue is that, as is becoming increasingly clear, no one knew what they were voting for; no-one seems to know what Brexit actually means, including those who are accountable for delivering Brexit.  Not only is the government trying to keep its options open, which is a perfectly sensible negotiating position, but some pro-brexiteers, including Brexit minister David Davis, are backpeddling from key elements of the argument used in the referendum.  Davis says “You will find in no speech of mine any reference to [the £350mln]” (Times 14/9/16).  So not only was the £350mln misleading not to say a lie), but different members of the Vote Leave campaign were apparently able to offer different outcomes, which confirms that Vote Leave was, well, whatever you wanted it to be.

Now add the fact that the vote Leave campaign retired from the field and left a Remainer to deliver Brexit, the possibilities in terms of outcomes is endless.  So while Prime Minister May says “Brexit means Brexit”, how is it possible to say that people have agreed to whatever is going to come next?  Only Nigel Farage and others opposed to the EU in principle and not on a balance of benefits and costs, can say they would definitely Vote Leave again when they know what the outcome will be. 

Apparently the Prime Minister is allowed to reverse her predecessor’s policy on Grammar Schools without a mandate from the electorate,. So if politicians are allowed to change their minds or be flexible in the face of reality, why are the electorate not able to be?  Who has the right to say that when I know the facts, when the negotiations are finished and I can count the real cost, or benefits, to farmers, to industry, to the NHS, why can’t I also change my mind?  When people say that the EU referendum is final or was binding, it was not.  This decision is absolutely the most important one for more than a generation and the electorate have every right to say, at the end of the day, whether they still want to leave the EU.  If that is the result when the conditions for leaving are known, then so be it.