Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Heathrow is a major headache for Cameron (and an opportunit
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Heathrow is a major headache for Cameron (and an opportunity for Labour)
Whilst the Conservatives fight over this week’s Airport Commission report, expanding Heathrow is exactly the type of common sense, business friendly policy that Labour should be supporting as it seeks to win again. The party must embrace it argues Keiran Pedley
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Crisis is a much over-used word.
Perhaps? - no, it isn't.
In the scheme of things, not remotely a 'crisis' - but certainly very tricky for the PM....and in particular some of his ministers.
I'd get started on both Heathrow and Gatwick expansion and look for somewhere to put a third runway....
But Labour would then all of a sudden be against it, and on a 3 line whip. Wouldn't they?
On and off and on again.
Except, she said, it was more complex than that: Labour were only against the option for a third runway at Heathrow that has been dismissed, but they were for the one that has been approved.
I've had a look, but could not find any evidence of this anywhere.
Some people yesterday did not seem to understand what hub airports were: there is a good blog that explains it somewhat, and the alternative of point-to-point:
http://blogs.cornell.edu/info2040/2011/09/14/hub-and-spoke-vs-point-to-point-transport-networks/
In crowded airspace such as the southeast of England, a hub airport makes much more sense IMHO. It just shouldn't really be at Heathrow.
The basic problem for them is that Mr Cameron is such a weak, muddled leader. And that they are not a democratic party, when it comes to policy making.
Whenever I looked at the plans the only sane option was to start afresh Boris Island and treat Heathrow as the next area for the expansion of London...
Do the job properly, NIMBYism is holding the UK back in so many ways, from HS2 to LHR expansion to building enough houses for the population.
No-one really likes Heathrow, and wishes it were somewhere else. But, putting head over heart, the case for its expansion is overwhelming. The government know it, and the previous Brown administration knew it. Anyone who looks at the evidence (even if reluctantly) knows it.
JFDI.
We are often told on here that the Tories put country above party. Let's see what happens here. The case for Heathrow could not be clearer. Most international, business flights come into Heathrow, which is also much easier to access than Gatwick for most people because it does not involve going round or through London unless you are based to the south or east of the capital, which most people aren't (my drive from the Midlands to the former is 80 minutes door to door, over two hours to the latter). As for Boris Island, it's a non-starter.
When other countries are building hub airports with five or six runways and associated infrastructure, it is clear that a third runway at the already overloaded Heathrow is just an expensive band-aid.
We should be building something much more future-proof IMHO.
Here's a prediction: before the third runway is completed, there will be need for a fourth; and Davies' recommendation that there not be a fourth (and the night flights ban) will be long forgotten.
"While London remains a well-connected city its airports are showing unambiguous signs
of strain. Heathrow is operating at capacity, and Gatwick is quickly approaching the same
point. There is still spare capacity elsewhere in the South East for point-to-point and
especially low-cost flights, but with no availability at its main hub airport London is
beginning to find that new routes to important long-haul destinations are set up elsewhere
in Europe rather than in the UK. Other UK airports are increasingly squeezed out of
Heathrow, with passengers from the nations and regions obliged to transfer through other
European airports, or Middle Eastern hubs. That costs them time and money, and is offputting
to inward investors. Without action soon the position will continue to deteriorate,
and the entire London system will be full by 2040.
Good aviation connectivity is vital for the UK economy. It promotes trade and inward
investment, and is especially crucial for a global city like London. The service sector,
whether the City, the media industry or universities, depends heavily on prompt face-to face
contact. There is strong evidence that good transport links, and especially aviation
connectivity, make an important contribution to enhancing productivity, which is an
important national challenge."
"We have concluded that the best answer is to expand Heathrow’s runway capacity.
A brand new airport in the Thames Estuary, while appealing in theory, is unfeasibly
expensive, highly problematic in environmental terms and would be hugely disruptive for
many businesses and communities. Gatwick, by contrast, has presented a plausible case
for expansion. It is well placed to cater for growth in intra-European leisure flying, but is
unlikely to provide as much of the type of capacity which is most urgently required:
long-haul destinations in new markets. Heathrow can provide that capacity most easily and
quickly. The benefits are significantly greater, for business passengers, freight operators
and the broader economy. All passengers will benefit from enhanced competition."
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/440316/airports-commission-final-report.pdf
This is a political media frenzy - few people care about airport expansion unless it directly impacts them - very few people travel as regularly as people do on here, for example - and even fewer realise that the Tories are split on the issue. I doubt there are more than 5 seats in it - and given demographics on outskirts of London, there would probably be only a couple of losses.
Personally, my view is if you buy a house near a major airport you leave yourselves open to disruption and compulsory purchase anyway, so shouldn't moan. But I live in Dorset, where we only have one small airport. It is easy for me.
From an economic point of view, a decision should be made, and sensibly it should probably be new runway at Gatwick and a Midland airport. If we're just having one (which would be really short sighted) it should be at Heathrow. There we are Dave, job done. Now, remind me again why we wasted so much money on a NIMBY PR exercise that hasn't really closed down the debate?
Anecdote alert, my reasonably well informed but not nerdish mates always seem to think the 'Tory backbencher' speaking against the Govt on newsnight/QT/any similar talking head programme is Labour.
Off to read the outraged comments about the BBC's Islamic State *fairness*
But here's an idea: let's go for a point-to-point airport scheme, with Birmingham and Manchester as significant points, and link them all together with the city centres and London via a high-speed rail link!
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/382000/HS2_Phase_Two_Manchester_Airport_High_Speed_station_factsheet.pdf
So residents have made an explicit trade off: a bigger, nicer house in return for accepting noise disruption.
So residents have made an explicit trade off: a bigger, nicer house in return for accepting noise disruption.
I always used to drive past houses that sat RIGHT next to major highways and wondered how they coped with the din and smell.
And they are within their rights to try to use political power in their own selfish interests. Just as I am within my rights to point out that is precisely what they are doing.
They are behaving like the Greeks: they've had the benefits up front and now want the country to pay for it (in the form of foregone economic growth)
Boris' comments were well over the top. I think it's valid to be for or against a new runway at Heathrow, but to effectively accuse anyone of wanting it of being like a 1950s communist dictator is ridiculous and not the kind of thing to which politicians should stoop.
I thought Harriet was funny and 47% effective highlighting the potential internecine Cons split and her point about Boris being a bully were well made.
The more I think about it the more I think Boris is and will continue to be a hugely divisive Cons figure. He is a clown and that is laughing at him, not with him. HWNBLOTC because people are more sensible than that, even bonkers Cons backbenchers, and HWcertainlyNBPM.
I wish he would just go away and find something less harmful to do; perhaps retire to spend more time with his ego.
https://www.london.gov.uk/media/assembly-press-releases/2013/05/airport-capacity-in-london-is-currently-underused-says-new
Plenty of capacity at Luton and Stansted that better serve north London, the East and the Midlands. Freight should have been relocated from Heathrow a long time ago.
Only in the interest of the foreign owners of Heathrow to expand it, the people vs special interests.
As for pollution: we never opened the windows that faced the road, even in summer. That was no fun.
An airport runway?
PB and its contributors have gone mad.
90% of the country want them to JFDI when it comes to these infrastructure projects, it's only the NIMBYs and a few Greens who are against. I am sure half a dozen Tory and Labour rebels could arrange to be 'paired' when the vote comes up, if it were deemed necessary.
I find it tragic that people rush to make short term political points on this matter when it requires long term thinking to produce an economic and flexible solution for our small island. The authors of this report have not thought widely or long term enough.
1) Infrastructure projects appear to have escalated in price. We need to see why we pay so much for our infrastructure. It may be reasonable; it may not.
2) Infrastructure needs to be connected. Instead, we get separate plans (at a national level) for road, rail and other projects. It should be treated holistically where possible.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/440316/airports-commission-final-report.pdf
I really feel nimbys, in addition to causing myriad other direct problems by stalling necessary or beneficial developments, have causes harm to genuinely well considered and reasoned objectors by making several arguments harder to make as they are classic nimby delaying tactics, a lack of adequate consultation, and want counts as adequate consultation, and analysis being a prime example - you see it so many times where no matter how exhaustive both are they are attacked for not being enough.
In this instance I don't know whether the report authors have thought widely or long term enough, I'll have to read it myself yet, or at least skim it, but knowing that would be said by nimbys no matter if true or not will probably colour my interpretations, and that could be a mistake on my part.
I have no preferred option here, and I've no idea if you do either, but it's a shame nimby culture is such it becomes like politics - where as a result I'm leaning one way because I've come to equate a lot of objections with that tendency.
It seems fairly thorough, although I've only skimmed it.
I do hope that BBC guests don't feel so constrained.
The Greek whip round is at just over a million Euro now.
Spare capacity.
Regional flyers can transfer through ME or other European hubs rather than London which many prefer as it is quicker and cheaper, not sure why they assert the opposite.
Unsubstantiated claims about the importance of direct flight connections.
Heathrow can neither be expanded quickly or efficiently.
Not sure that the first part follows onto the next and the claims they make are highly questionable.
[Also, that's a valid comparison given the aspirations of genocide and torture that Daesh hold].
HS2 needs to link to the airport though, as will Crossrail. It's next to the M25 and M4 - for most people the transport links are good. Useful improvements would be a better rail link from the Wateroo-Woking line and more parking options.
I also agree with the premise of Keiran's article by the way - greatly increased airport capacity in the south would be of great economic benefit to the whole country (even Scotland). But it comes up against Tory voting shire nimbyism. A clear chance for Labour to push for something business/economy friendly and where Tory voters' self interest is the problem. Win/win for the red team I'd have thought.
My main beef is that people are assuming that this must be a political issue and not an issue where as much consensus as possible is obtained instead of setting up political camps at the start.
I repeat - we should extend a runway at Heathrow to allow it to work more efficiently as a hub. Its allowed capacity should be increased if at all only minimally - except to clear backlogs. We should then expand other airports to meed the demand for air traffic and for changing technology such as point to point aircraft and for super jumbos.
More 800 seater planes alone will increase capacity (and also congestion) at and around Heathrow. In terms of noise I have lived near a small civilian airport and the nighttime training flights are quite annoying, I now live near a military base and the night time helicopter flights are quite perceptible. This is made up for by the free air display by the red arrows over my house every year plus the odd Spitfire flight.
The Davis report itself is more of a blind man groping in the dark - as The Times says ''Unfortunately it does not go far enough. It is unimaginative and unrealistic. It comes down in favour of a blueprint that for sound political and environmental reasons will prove impossible to realise.'' and ''it is hedged with half a dozen caveats that render it at best impractical and more likely doomed. These include a law banning a fourth runway when the inevitable need for one arises, and a requirement to meet emissions standards that most experts say cannot be met.''
I see little reason for 'getting worked up' over a flawed report.
It's that attitude opposition for oppositions sake that angers people even more than where a runway is located. Now If they worked with the Government, even arguing a good case then that approach, for something of fundamental national importance would win them many more friends.
Ditto for the EU referendum.
(note the recent and insidious use of the word "claim" as in George Osborne claimed (rather than said) clearly designed to make the listener question the truth of what Osborne was saying.. Watch out for it in future BBC utterances.)
(It was an astonishing house; a mansion near to the Thames, to a park and an easy commute into central London. But it was cavernously big. And you would have felt very lonely there.)
If so he is about to walk into the mother of all sh!t storms.
But within the remit, it seems fairly solid work to me. And I did not see too many people complaining about the remit when it was set up.
Edited extra bit: this is probably not necessary, but in case someone new reads this, rest assured this post is dripping with sarcasm.
Labour is making sensible decisions at the moment - 50p, Heathrow. Credit to Harriet Harman and also the underrated Chris Leslie.
I agree. They are clearing the decks now to make things easier for an incoming leader, whoever that might be. That's really professional interim leadership.
But it is a serious misreporting of the Report which says (page 24) "The overall effect COULD be to increase GDP by 0.65-0.75% by 2050, amounting with carbon emissions traded to £131-147 billion in present value terms over the 60 years following expansion. This compares to £89 billion in GDP impacts from expansion at Gatwick."
Note that the increase in GDP is over the 60 years following expansion - say by 2090 not 2050.
If you look at the difference in benefit with Gatwick it is £42b-£58b OVER 60 YEARS! That is less than a £1b a year starting from 2030. And for that Cameron is going to split the cabinet? I don't think so.
Furthermore, the disbenefit to Londoners of the extra noise and pollution is not costed in. Nor, as the independent reviewers point out in their report, is the impact on demand of the recovery of the cost of the scheme from air passengers in increased fares (as it is privately funded). The results are very demand sensitive so this is a serious flaw in the analysis. If it was factored in, it would further reduce the benefits.
Currently I am working in west Wales. We rarely use Cardiff as most of its flights are not direct - but I do use it (summer only) for flights to see family in Spain.
We use Birmingham for direct flights to Middle East and use the direct train to B Intl. We often use Bristol for direct flights to Europe. Only for Long Haul do we use Heathrow/Gatwick, where we use a train or train/bus combination.Incidentally we find that Manchester offers a very poor choice of flights for our purposes.
So if we talk about Heathrow as a hub, do we know what % age of passengers arriving at Heathrow will be transit passengers who want a connecting flight either to Europe (but would they not have flown to Paris/Frankfurt etc direct) or a flight to a UK region.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Leslie_(TV_presenter)
"This is London, this is the news but first, here are some messages for our friends in occupied counties "........"Auntie is gutless and spineless in the morning" etc etc
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3146855/We-fair-ISIS-BBC-refuses-MPs-demand-stop-using-Islamic-State-refer-terrorist-group.html
AND the name is used by news organizations internationally. even frigging fox news calls it ISIS
Really? Because ISIS' opponents are the entire civilised world, in particular those who fund the BBC via the licence fee.
Backing the option that most looks like splitting the government will lead you to looking like incoherent opportunists (c.f. Labour 2001-).
I gather Al-Jaz call them Daesh.
Someone posted yesterday or the day before that there was a more local name, also derogatory, something like Da ash. If the BBC want to insist on using local colour (reminds me of the Not the Nine O'clock News sketches with the absurd pronunciation of names but there we are) perhaps they could use that.
I see no reason to give any weight to these peoples (I use the term loosely) wishes on this matter, quite the reverse.