Corporate lobbyists prepare ground for Heathrow expansion

News that Heathrow is proposing not one, but two new runways in its submission to the Davies Commission on aviation expansion, is the culmination of a crafty lobbying strategy that swung into action as soon as the last election was over.

The Tories and Liberal Democrats won votes in London for their commitment to overturn New Labour's decision to go ahead with a third runway. As soon as David Cameron got his feet under the table, that policy was rolling backwards.

Corporate lobbyists told him he would eventually have to agree and suggested how to do it. Set up an enquiry, they said, shift the debate away from whether new capacity is needed at all, in light of runaway climate change, to be about where in the south-east new capacity will be.

Let everyone put forward their views - even Bonkers Boris and his hair brained island gateway plan.

Get Howard Davies, former head of the Confederation of British Industry – one of the main cheerleaders for airport expansion – to finalise his commission’s report after the next election, so it is not an issue in London. Then whichever party is in power can study it carefully – and then give Heathrow and the airline industry what it wants.

The Financial Times has called the Davies Commission a "battle of ideas", but it is no such thing. It is just underhand chicanery to circumvent popular opposition in London, including in Tory or Lib-Dem strongholds like Richmond and Kingston.

Heathrow made the astonishing claim that by adding a third, and then a fourth, runway they would be able to reduce the noise nuisance. They must think we are plane stupid.

The new runway will increase the number of flights by 54% from 480,000 to 740,000 each year. About 250,000 people are already deemed to be suffering from noise nuisance so how can more than doubling the number of flights make it quieter?

Heathrow runs at 98% capacity, unlike rivals at Paris Charles De Gaulle, Amsterdam Schiphol and Frankfurt which all have spare capacity. They want to use it to add more long-haul flights to the industrial and commercial hubs in India, China, Brazil and Russia. Heathrow does not want to be left behind.

Whilst Heathrow has proposed three possible sites for a third runway - either to the north, northwest or southwest of the existing airport – this may be no more than a trick. The southern route would put wealthy homeowners in Richmond and Twickenham under the flight path. One of the northern routes would require demolition of the village of Harmondsworth.

The second northern route is almost the same as the original proposal and would mean demolition of 2,500 homes in Harlington, Cranford Cross and Sipson and this is the one Heathrow wants.

However,  they were at pains to stress that it is the government that will make the final decision, adding a figleaf of democratic accountability over the whole sordid adventure.

The government's advisory Committee on Climate Change has written to Davies, reminding him that aviation emissions are included in the UK's legally binding emissions reduction targets.

The target, which is to reduce economy-wide emissions by 80% against 1990 levels by 2050, can only be achieved if aviation emissions are reduced to 2005 levels by 2050.

This is totally incompatible with Heathrow's plans for airport expansion. Heathrow Airport Holdings Ltd., which owns Heathrow, Stansted and Aberdeen airports, is itself owned by a holding company called FGP Topco. It is in turn wholly owned by Spanish firm Ferrovial.

This year the Chinese Investment Corporation – aka as the Chinese government – bought a 10% stake in Heathrow and the Qatar government sovereign wealth fund is waiting for European competition regulators to rule on whether it can buy a 20% stake.

These investments are for one purpose only – to get a return on capital that makes it a business proposition. So, in the end, neither the quality of life for Londoners nor the dangers of climate change will be deciding factor. As always, it will be business as usual.

Penny Cole

Environment editor

Developers make war on London's green spaces

John Ruskin believed that “the measure of any great civilisation is in its towns and cities and the measure of a city’s greatness is to be found in the quality of its public spaces, its parks and squares”.

What the Victorian critic would have made about a state which feels so under siege from invisible “enemies” that sites anti-aircraft missiles in places essential for Londoners’ recreation like Blackheath, Shooters Hill and Oxleas Meadow is anyone’s guess.

But the “Dystopian Games” are not the only threat to the capital’s green areas. A hideous blight is creeping in through the back door under the name of “development”.  Corporate, commercial interests are riding roughshod over the clearly expressed desire of residents to preserve the integrity of their green spaces.

The recent decision by a High Court judge to grant permission for a £68 million development in Crystal Palace Park is a case in point. It confirms the worst fears of those who have campaigned hard and long against encroachment on the famous south London park.

Local residents’ long-standing objections to the “regeneration” scheme were overruled when the court backed community secretary Eric Pickles’ decision to grant outline planning permission for the London Development Agency-Bromley Council scheme.    

The fact that the area is designated Grade II* Registered, Metropolitan Open Land offered no protection in practice. The so-called masterplan includes the sale of public parkland for 180 private luxury apartments. No wonder that John Payne, chair of the Crystal Palace Community Association (CPCA), described the decision as “a threat to the future of all parks and open spaces in the UK”.  

The CPCA believes that references to “opportunities for investment” are an “ominous allusion to commercial development or inappropriate usage of a park that has always provided green open space for recreation, relaxation and other public enjoyment”.

In claiming local stakeholder support for its masterplan, Bromley totally ignored the 7,000-plus signature petition against housing in Crystal Palace park raised by the CPCA in just a few weeks

Payne sees the threat to the park as a “collusion between Bromley Council and the London Development Agency” and adds: “Both Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson [past and present mayors] reneged on their promises and made complete U-turns.”

Long established local groups like the CPCA, who have a deep knowledge of their communities, were totally ignored in favour of outside consultants. “We are the community and we are being worked against instead of with. What the public said made no difference at all to the masterplan, which was bitterly disappointing.

“Corporate financial interests have become the overriding drive, as we’ve seen in the banking scandal and the Olympics. It is a complete betrayal of our personal freedoms.

“As chair of the association I must be a-political, but in any case none of the parties at local and national level are to be trusted, as we’ve seen with the threat to close our library. I find it impossible to vote for any party.

“We are at the crossroads of capitalism – the crisis of capitalism and of democracy are interconnected. Capitalism’s dependence on growth is causing huge environmental issues. We live in very worrying times,” Payne believes.

The CPCA has applied for permission to appeal against the High Court decision. If the appeal process fails, they will have to consider their options and possibly take the case to the European Court.  

The citizens of south east London are in the frontline of the battle against the corporatocracy, in this instance spearheaded by Pickles, Johnson and Bromley Council. The formation of new democratic bodies such as people’s assemblies is vital if the ruthless drive to destroy public spaces is to be halted.

Corinna Lotz

A World to Win secretary

Stay-at-home voters reject the old political order

When an average of two-thirds of registered voters boycott an election – in some areas it over three-quarters abstained – it is another sign of a deep disillusionment with mainstream politics and parties.

The widespread hatred of the ConDem coalition for imposing austerity on behalf of the financial markets has, unsurprisingly, produced a backlash in the shape of a swing to Labour.

But with so many people deciding to stay at home, Ed Miliband’s claim that people have “put their trust” in his party is little short of risible. People voted against the government, not for Labour.

Over the last two years, Labour-controlled councils have carried through draconian cuts in spending. Alright, their budgets were cut by the government – but there was absolutely no opposition at town hall level.

Labour councils up and down the country simply passed on the cuts in terms of redundancies alongside eliminated or reduced services. No attempt was made to resist them by mobilising local communities or the workforce against the government.

Councillors who threatened to vote against cuts were suspended or threatened with expulsion!

So having more Labour councils as a result of last night’s election will not protect people one iota. There are years of cuts ahead as the government carries its plan to reduce the deficit (which Labour more or less supports as an objective).

If Bradford is anything to go by, support for Labour is weak when it is challenged in a substantial, populist way. Respect won five seats following George Galloway’s sweeping success in last month’s by-election, deposing the council leader. In London, maverick Tory Boris Johnson seems set to defeat Ken Livingstone in the race for the capital’s mayor.

Which brings us to perhaps the most stunning results of all – the decisive rejection in referendums of plans to introduce directly elected mayors to run town halls over the heads of elected councillors.

Manchester, Nottingham, Coventry and Bradford rejected the mayoral plan, and Birmingham, Bristol and four other cities were expected to do the same if early indications were anything to go by.

The total disinterest in mayors was captured in the Bristol ward of Filwood, where just 9.9% of people voted. In Coventry, on a 28% turnout, there was a two-to-one majority against a mayor. The low turnout did not help Dave Nellist in the council elections. The independent socialist candidat lost his seat to Labour in a ward where nearly eight out of ten voters stayed at home.

For the Tories, the threat from the right is gathering momentum in the shape of the anti-European Union, anti-immigration, xenophobic UKIP. They may not be quite the equivalent to France’s National Front but they are heading in that direction.

UKIP polled an average of 14%, five points higher than a year ago. They took most of their votes from the Tories but undoubtedly some from the ultra-right BNP which fared badly, losing councillors in Derbyshire and Rotherham.

The UKIP results will increase pressure on the Tory leader David Cameron, whose alliance with the Lib Dems is rejected by many traditional Conservative voters as well as papers like the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph. Cameron must know that UKIP could block a Tory general election victory unless he adapts to their policies.

With the global economic crisis deteriorating at a rapid rate, added to growing political uncertainty in countries like Greece and France, the local elections only add to the break-up of the old order.

Paul Feldman

Communications editor

In memory of Brian Haw

A World to Win salutes the uncompromising determination of Brian Haw, who became a symbol, not only for the anti-war movement, but for the basic democratic right to demonstrate and protest. His death from cancer at only 62 robs us of an unbending voice and symbol of resistance to the state.

Haw began his vigil directly outside the House of Commons on June 2, 2001 to protest against the UN-NATO sponsored sanctions on Iraq on June. He said he would stay there “as long as it took”. The carpenter from Essex, also a father of seven, used a megaphone to denounce war-mongering politicians. He survived on donations from supporters.

His campaign against what he termed the genocide of Iraq’s children took on a new meaning after the September 11 twin tower attacks in New York. New Labour joined the United States to invade Afghanistan not long after. In March 2003, Britain and the United States attacked Iraq, a war which ultimately led to hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths, with many more fleeing into exile to avoid the ensuing violence.

Over the years, Haw was joined by supporters and campaigners including the Global Peace Strike, Democracy Village and fellow camper and hunger striker Maria Gallastegui, who was arrested for reading out the names of dead British soldiers outside the Cenotaph. Embarrassed by the vocal protests, Blair’s government sought to change the law to end Haw’s protest.

In 2003, House of Commons procedure committee recommended the law be changed to prohibit “unlicensed” protests in the square. The committee’s proposals were incorporated in the 2005 Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (SOCPA) which, despite its name, gave the police vastly increased powers to remove protesters.

On one occasion Haw was injured by a police officer who shoved Haw’s camera into his face and then forced him to the ground. In 2006, 54% of Channel Four television viewers voted Haw the most politically inspiring figure of the year. Haw used the prize-giving ceremony to demand support for his campaign to put an end to the genocide and the looting. “It’s about oil, it’s about the arms industry,” he said.

In 2007 police removed all of Haw’s placards but one and arrested him under SOCPA. He was acquitted under a technicality a year later, but continued to be harassed by not only the police, but by the Greater London Authority under Mayor Boris Johnson. At the time of his death, Haw was still battling the authorities for the right to stay in Parliament Square.

Haw inspired artist Mark Wallinger who recreated his array of banners and placards and installed them in the Tate Gallery. Wallinger went on to receive the Turner Prize for his “State Britain”, which pointed to the severe restrictions imposed on the right to demonstrate in Westminster.

Haw sought to name and shame the successive Parliaments which approved the decisions made without reference to any democratic procedures to go to war. He hoped that his moral stand would inspire others to put an end to wars for profit, oil and political careers

The truth is that attacks on sovereign states by major capitalist powers are endemic to the economic and political system we live under and are used by desperate leaders of all parties. Yesterday’s admission by NATO that they bombed a residential area in Tripoli killing nine civilians provides more evidence if any is needed.

Haw’s marathon protest and sacrifice should be not only make us to mourn his passing and celebrate his achievement. It must be an incentive to unmask the sham façade that is misnamed democracy and create in its place a real alternative based on the needs of ordinary people.

Corinna Lotz

A World to Win secretary

Transport workers break the mantra

At last – a group of workers have broken through the mantra of There Is No Alternative, pumped out by the government and the mass media.

Around 10,000 trade unionists belonging to the Rail Maritime and Transport Union (RMT) and the Transport and Salaried Staffs Association (TSSA) are defying the Lib-Con coalition’s mantra that civilisation as we know it requires massive cuts in public services, including public transport. They faced down a propaganda barrage by London Mayor Boris Johnson as they walked out yesterday on their 24-hour strike action.

Their action is in protest against Transport for London’s 800 job losses planned amongst station and platform staff to meet the spending cuts sought by the Department of Transport. Both unions say that cutting ticket office staff levels will endanger passenger safety.

Maintenance staff stopped work at 5pm on Monday, followed by drivers, signallers and station staff later in the evening. In a separate dispute maintenance staff employed by Alstom-Metro on the Jubilee and Northern Line held a 24-hour strike from Sunday evening. More stoppages are planned for October and November.

The strikes shut down large sections of London Underground, despite efforts by management to recruit skeleton staff. The RMT pointed to a London Underground circular which appealed for volunteers, including workers without the required Operational Licenses or with lapsed licenses in clear safety breaches.

RMT General Secretary Bob Crow said that London Underground were prepared to cut any and all corners in order “to bulldoze through their lethal cocktail of job and safety cuts. Sending out a few volunteers without the necessary Operational Licences and training to try and run a handful of trains is a disaster waiting to happen.”

The union says that such attempts to undermine the strike action “go to the very heart of the dispute which is all about London Underground hacking back staffing levels and cutting corners on safety in a dash to slash costs, regardless of the implications for the travelling public.”

“Instead of playing fast and loose with safety it is about time that the Mayor and his officials took the issues as the heart of this dispute seriously, removed the threat of these savage cuts from above our members heads and cleared the way for meaningful talks aimed at protecting safety and safe staffing levels,” Crow insisted.

The strike has won considerable public backing. A poll conducted by LBC radio found that 73% of respondents backed the unions with only 26% supporting the employers at Transport for London. A separate poll conducted by YouGov showed that 60% of those surveyed believed that transport workers should have the right to strike, as opposed to 31% who disagreed. Fellow rail workers in the Zimbabwe Amalgamated Railway Workers Union (ZARU) have sent a message of support.

Keen to keep his job as Mayor of London, Johnson claims to oppose the 25% to 40% cuts in transport spending he says are demanded by the Coalition Treasury. Writing in yesterday’s Evening Standard, Johnson said that “cuts of that order would be disastrous for London transport network”. He wants the Crossrail project to continue - but clearly at the expense of London Underground staff.

Hiding behind the clear need to modernise and improve the Underground system the Mayor has accused the RMT of “cynicism” and “Luddism”. The union, Johnson claims, is staging a “trumped up and politically motivated attempt to have a pop at the Coalition government”.

But as TSSA leader Gerry Doherty, whose members voted 72.6 per cent in favour of strike action, says: "These cuts are being driven by the Government as much as by Boris so our battle is with Downing Street as much as TfL.”

Developing a modern and ecologically sound transport system is impossible over the backs of those who work in it. It requires not only the end of the Lib-Con coalition but fundamental economic and social change as outlined in A World to Win’s Manifesto of Revolutionary Solutions.

Corinna Lotz
A World to Win Secretary