Airport expansion based on Toryspeak

A phony war between London Mayor Boris Johnson’s proposed Thames Estuary island airport and the Heathrow third runway has been made the focus of debate over airport expansion.

In other words, the discussion has been diverted to be about where it will be rather than whether it is wanted at all.

We know in advance the answer that will come from the commission on airport capacity chaired by former Financial Services Authority chair Sir Howard Davis. They will vote for Heathrow – that is what they are there for.

The commission has been warned not to report until 2015 so the government can claim to be sticking to the Coalition deal ruling out airport expansion. It will also avoid a by-election in Zac Goldsmith’s Richmond seat. The Tory MP had said he’ll resign and stand as an independent if the government commits to the third runway.

Chancellor George Osborne is Heathrow’s big supporter because it’s an apparently simple way of trying to get growth back in the economy and the banks, airport industry and construction companies want it.

Osborne made clear at the weekend that he thinks Heathrow is the only option and showed his contempt for the hundreds of thousands of Londoners whose lives are already blighted by noise and pollution: "I understand all about the local pressures but you have got, as a nation, to be able to overcome those and make a sensible decision about where that extra runway capacity in the south-east should be."

A "sensible decision" is, in Toryspeak, one that favours business.

The argument that there is an urgent need for new airport capacity simply does not hold water when the figures are examined.

The total number of commercial flights (cargo and passenger combined) in the UK in the first quarter of this year was down 1.8% compared to the same quarter in 2011. London airports saw a smaller decrease (1.4%) than regional airports (2.2%). This is a steady trend, though there will of course be a blip in passenger numbers for the Olympic quarter.

In the first quarter of this year there was a small increase in the number of passengers handled at all UK airports and a small decline in all commercial flights and cargo tonnage. Cargo tonnage on international flights to and from the UK has remained broadly the same since 2000, in contrast with the 1990s when it was rising at 7% per annum.

A smaller number of cargo flights from Europe is being offset by a larger number from the so-called BRIC countries, Brazil, Russia India and, in particular, China.

The truth is that the system is desperately trying to generate growth by increasing airport capacity, rather than meeting an existing need.

The main result of airport expansion would be to facilitate imports of goods from China whilst sending a few British suits to sell financial services on the return flight. Trying to slow China’s slide into slump is crucial for profits everywhere.

Over half of China's exports are a result of foreign (including British) business locating part of their global manufacturing chain in China. This rises to 90% in high-tech sectors. So when Osborne talks about the economy he doesn’t mean the British economy, he means the world capitalist economy.

To try and get the system back on track they will go for growth – any kind of growth, at any price and anywhere in the world. The environmental impact of new airport capacity, and whether the mass of the people agree to it or not, simply does not feature in their thinking.

So will Ed Miliband and Labour refuse to take part in this fraudulent commission? Not likely! New Labour supported Heathrow expansion when in government for the same business reasons as Osborne and Cameron support it now. As on all major issues, there is a cigarette paper between the major parties.

Penny Cole

Environment editor

Watchdog needs a new home

This is the story of the watchdog who barked in the night to warn its owner of impending danger – to no avail. Its master had gone deaf, the result of a long-term illness. As a consequence, disaster overtook one and all. The watchdog in this case was the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) and its master – you must have guessed by now – was the terminally-ill New Labour government.

In January 2006, the SDC was officially made the government’s “independent watchdog” and reports to the Prime Minister. Its role includes “scrutinising and reporting on government’s performance on sustainable development”. The SDC’s board of commissioners is chaired by the eminent environmentalist Jonathon Porritt.

This week, the SDC barked furiously about the government’s plans for expanding UK airports, especially at Heathrow – where there are fiercely opposed plans for a new runway – and at Stansted. A report by the SDC and the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) said that the real costs and implications of the proposed growth were not properly understood. They concluded that so much fundamental data is disputed that an independent inquiry is needed to sort it out.

For example, Treasury analysis estimates future increases in economic activity through expanded aviation – but excludes any calculation of losses to the UK tourist industry through cheap flights abroad. The impact of aviation's greenhouse gas emissions is not fully understood either. Many experts also warn that improvements in technology cannot keep up with the increase in demand for flying.

Hugh Raven, SDC commissioner, said: "The SDC and IPPR held meetings with the government, the aviation industry, academics, NGOs and citizens' groups over a period of a year. While we expected to find areas of conflict, we were unprepared for the level of fundamental disagreement over the data underpinning the government's whole aviation strategy. Until some basic questions are answered, the UK cannot be in a position to make major decisions about the future of air travel. The government must live up to its commitment to listening to voters' concerns, and ensure we make the best possible decisions for everyone involved."

Seems sound advice to me, whichever way you look at. Here was a chance for the government to get off the hook via that traditional British method of holding another inquiry. John Stewart, who chairs the anti-Heathrow expansion campaign group Hacan Clear Skies, urged ministers to listen and to commission an independent study into the real impact of expansion on noise, air pollution and emissions. “Until that is done, it makes no sense at all to go ahead with this programme of aggressive expansion of aviation,” he insisted.

Hacan is planning a protest march and rally around Heathrow at the end of this month and, judging by the government’s official response, the mood will be justifiably angrier than ever. The government said it had “serious objections” to the report's findings. A statement from the Department for Transport (DfT) said it was "simply wrong to claim that there is a consensus that the evidence base is flawed". The government had conducted a “widespread debate over the last six years” and “deferring a decision in favour of a further three-year debate as this report suggests is not a serious option”.

So there you have it. The watchdog sounded the alarm but no one was listening. Clearly, its bark is worse than its bite. New Labour is adamant that the rules of the global market economy have to be obeyed. Airports must be expanded in order for the British economy to stay “competitive”, whatever the cost in environmental terms. The immediate response to that is to get down to Heathrow on May 31 to join the demonstration against a government that ought to be bought a one-way ticket to somewhere very far away.

Paul Feldman
AWTW communications editor