Platy, just to pick up on each of your points:
Actually, no, mate, not in this case. Lord Turner is no idiot and has a notable resume...
I don't disagree that Lord Turner is generally of sound mind, and has a highly impressive background. HOWEVER, even someone of such good pedigree and education has (reportedly) come up with a proposal that is so massively unworkable (and the reason that I believe that it is unworkable is below) that the thought of it is enough make you roll your eyes, think "WHAT???", and wonder if he was still at home to Mr & Mrs Sanity.
Hence "crackpot", and I see no reason to change that description.
The press will pick up on any solution element under review and sensationalise it to the max.
As I mentioned in my original post, I was MORE than open to the idea that News Limited have reported badly, including making reference to citizens of a country that is not a sovereign territory. There is no such thing as an "English" citizen only a British citizen
. Devolution may have gone a long way in the British Isles, but not as far as being able to bestow English, Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish citizenship on it's residents. This shows crass ignorance on the part of the reporter.
IMHO passing ideas off as "crackpot" without any supporting rationale is a cheap shot based on a blank round.
You either missed part of my post, or misunderstood. I thought I had put some rationale in there, in particular about limiting this policy to "English" citizens. Presuming this was misreported, and was intended to be British citizens, how could it work? Britain is part of the EU, and EU citizens have the ability to move around the member states at will. Would the policy still apply when they are resident in another EU country? How can you apply the laws of one country on one resident in another country? How would the European Court of Human Rights view it (and yes, people are daft enough to think that the ability to move about freely in a manner that suits
is one of their human rights)?
Looking at it another way, that the policy was intended to apply to residents within the borders of England, other countries are so close (France and Ireland a short ride away on a ferry, Scotland and Wales a short drive away, at least in Australian terms) that again, it would have somewhere between a minor positive to a big negative effect, as people either decided that couldn't be bothered to travel, or travelled the extra journey.
If it is to be policy, then it cannot be implemented unilaterally.
Similarly, a person of his commercial experience and broad political exposure cannot be readily denigrated as a "tree hugger" (by which I presume you mean somebody with entrenched, illogical and impractical pro-environmental views).
I am guilty on this one. I was using the phrase "treehugger" to describe one of a "pro-environment" bent. I withdraw this part.
But look at it this way - if it's true, then a lot of English airports will close.
Anyone want to buy Gatwick airport? Richard B? Anyone?