The government’s go-ahead for a third runway and a sixth terminal at Heathrow will destroy 700 homes, liquidate the village of Sipson, make life unbearable for thousands living under new flight paths, and dramatically increase emissions of greenhouse gases. Is New Labour bothered? You must be joking!
Transport secretary Geoff Hoon will claim that by telling airlines they must use new less-polluting planes and by building a high-speed rail link into London from Heathrow, legally-binding emissions reduction targets can still be met. The truth is that if they are met it will be because from 2015, aviation is brought into the European emissions trading scheme. So the airlines will use phoney off-setting and carbon trading which does not reduce emissions globally at all.
There will be an additional 200,000 flights a year, and the expansion starts now. Because at the same time as giving the go-ahead for the runway, the government will agree that 60,000 more flights per year can use the existing runways. Hundreds of thousands more homes, schools and businesses will be affected by noise and low flying.
Support for anti-social expansion of the airport comes from those who will directly profit from it – the airport operators and the airlines. And there is opportunist backing from the Unite trade union, which hopes jobs will be created. It would be better if the union actually lifted even a tiny finger to fight just one of the thousands of redundancies now sweeping through the economy on a daily basis. Don’t hold your breath on that one, however.
Unite wrote to Labour MPs urging them to support the Heathrow expansion plans. But Unite does not need to worry, because Labour MPs are not going to be allowed a vote. The prime minister made clear yesterday he will rely on a 2006 vote approving aviation policy as his authority to proceed. And new laws forced through last year are specifically designed to stop the public using planning law to challenge the decision. Detailed plans will be railroaded through.
The Conservatives will use one of their debates to try to humiliate the government with a defeat on the question, but that too would have no legal force. All of which makes clear that we live in a non-functioning “democracy”, where the views of the people are entirely ignored and decisions railroaded through.
HACAN Clear Skies, the campaign against expansion, promised that the fight would go on, with a campaign of legal and direct action. John Stewart, of HACAN , made clear that campaigners are looking to Labour losing the next election to prevent the new runway being built. “The decision has been taken by two dinosaurs, Gordon Brown and Geoff Hoon, in collusion with the aviation industry. We are planning for life beyond the dinosaurs.”
But campaigners should not get too excited about a Tory win at the General Election. Remember how the Tories denounced the Maastricht Treaty for populist reasons and then went on to sign it? Once in office it is impossible to imagine a Conservative government going against the interests of big business.
It is not just New Labour but the whole parliamentary political system that is tied to corporate interests. This increasingly authoritarian system is immune to protest and pressure and will use the forces of the state to get what capitalism wants. Fighting Heathrow expansion – for the rights of communities and against corporate power – means seriously considering and then adopting sustainable economic and democratic political alternatives as outlined in our new book, Unmasking the State – a rough guide to real democracy.
Penny Cole
Environment editor
For revolutionary solutions to create a sustainable, not-for-profit economy in place of global capital alongside a real democracy based on People’s Assemblies. Visit our web site at www.aworldtowin.net
Showing posts with label Hacan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hacan. Show all posts
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Monday, July 28, 2008
A Convention for democracy
When communities come up against the New Labour steamroller they don’t back off – they get angry. That’s what brought people together on a hot Saturday afternoon to discuss what to do if, as is likely, the government presses ahead with plans to expand Heathrow in the face of the overwhelming case against a third runway.
While the aviation minister Jim Fitzpatrick has announced a delay in the decision, no one should think that this because the government is necessarily looking for a way out. There is the small matter of the Planning Bill, which is on its way to becoming law. Once on the statute book, local concerns could be safely ignored.
A new unelected, unaccountable planning quango is to be set up – the Infrastructure Planning Commission – which could bypass local opposition and fast-track the proposed expansion. The government's plans will mean hundreds of people will lose their homes and tens of thousands more will have their lives blighted by noise and air pollution.
The frustration was clearly felt at the conference in Hayes organised by Hacan-Clear Skies, the No Third Runway Action Group (NoTrag) and the Climate Camp, who pitched their tents at Heathrow last year to bring attention to these ruinous proposals.
John Stewart from Hacan explained how even the business community was retreating from unconditional support for Heathrow expansion. The rail union RMT has published a new study compiled by John Stewart which found that investment in high-speed rail could be a viable alternativeto the expansion of Heathrow. The report, Who Says There Is No Alternative?, also established that tens of thousands of new jobs would be created if planned investment at Heathrow airport was switched to new high speed rail lines.
If rational argument alone could win the day, then New Labour’s plans would have been consigned to the dustbin a long time ago. But ministers are pressing on regardless. As Christine Taylor of NoTrag told the conference, they simply do not care when they are told that thousands of children would have their lessons ruined by expansion. You could go on adding zeros to the numbers affected and it would still make no difference, she said. The conference discussed various forms of direct action and protest activities to keep the campaign in the media spotlight.
Yet there is a common theme that unites Heathrow campaigners with people opposed to new nuclear power stations, privatised polyclinics, hospital closures, so-called “eco-towns”, persecution of migrants, green belt erosion, rail and Tube fair rises and a host of other issues.
What potentially brings these campaigns together is the fact that the government, which has created an undemocratic business state, just dumps decisions on local communities egardless. “Consultation” is a farce because the ultimate decision is always a foregone conclusion. Meanwhile, official propaganda is designed to confuse and divide opponents. The gap between the state, the government and the mass of the people grows on a daily basis. The overwhelming majority in Britain are disenfranchised, their views ignored and their voices silenced.
That is why going beyond direct action to raise the essential questions about democracy and who rules Britain is critical. Community action groups, while maintaining their own campaigns, could come together in a permanent Convention to work on overriding issues of power and democracy.
How do the aspirations of the powerless majority not only get heard but acted upon? As the present political set-up is undemocratic and authoritarian, shouldn’t ordinary people themselves discuss and propose alternatives? A national initiative along the line of a Convention on democracy would be a tremendous step forward.
On October 18, A World to Win is sponsoring the Stand Up for Your Rights festival. We want to reconnect with historic struggles for rights in Britain towards building a movement that can take control of our lives away from New Labour, the state and the corporations. That’s obviously an ambitious goal but one we should start working towards today.
Paul Feldman
Communications editor
While the aviation minister Jim Fitzpatrick has announced a delay in the decision, no one should think that this because the government is necessarily looking for a way out. There is the small matter of the Planning Bill, which is on its way to becoming law. Once on the statute book, local concerns could be safely ignored.
A new unelected, unaccountable planning quango is to be set up – the Infrastructure Planning Commission – which could bypass local opposition and fast-track the proposed expansion. The government's plans will mean hundreds of people will lose their homes and tens of thousands more will have their lives blighted by noise and air pollution.
The frustration was clearly felt at the conference in Hayes organised by Hacan-Clear Skies, the No Third Runway Action Group (NoTrag) and the Climate Camp, who pitched their tents at Heathrow last year to bring attention to these ruinous proposals.
John Stewart from Hacan explained how even the business community was retreating from unconditional support for Heathrow expansion. The rail union RMT has published a new study compiled by John Stewart which found that investment in high-speed rail could be a viable alternativeto the expansion of Heathrow. The report, Who Says There Is No Alternative?, also established that tens of thousands of new jobs would be created if planned investment at Heathrow airport was switched to new high speed rail lines.
If rational argument alone could win the day, then New Labour’s plans would have been consigned to the dustbin a long time ago. But ministers are pressing on regardless. As Christine Taylor of NoTrag told the conference, they simply do not care when they are told that thousands of children would have their lessons ruined by expansion. You could go on adding zeros to the numbers affected and it would still make no difference, she said. The conference discussed various forms of direct action and protest activities to keep the campaign in the media spotlight.
Yet there is a common theme that unites Heathrow campaigners with people opposed to new nuclear power stations, privatised polyclinics, hospital closures, so-called “eco-towns”, persecution of migrants, green belt erosion, rail and Tube fair rises and a host of other issues.
What potentially brings these campaigns together is the fact that the government, which has created an undemocratic business state, just dumps decisions on local communities egardless. “Consultation” is a farce because the ultimate decision is always a foregone conclusion. Meanwhile, official propaganda is designed to confuse and divide opponents. The gap between the state, the government and the mass of the people grows on a daily basis. The overwhelming majority in Britain are disenfranchised, their views ignored and their voices silenced.
That is why going beyond direct action to raise the essential questions about democracy and who rules Britain is critical. Community action groups, while maintaining their own campaigns, could come together in a permanent Convention to work on overriding issues of power and democracy.
How do the aspirations of the powerless majority not only get heard but acted upon? As the present political set-up is undemocratic and authoritarian, shouldn’t ordinary people themselves discuss and propose alternatives? A national initiative along the line of a Convention on democracy would be a tremendous step forward.
On October 18, A World to Win is sponsoring the Stand Up for Your Rights festival. We want to reconnect with historic struggles for rights in Britain towards building a movement that can take control of our lives away from New Labour, the state and the corporations. That’s obviously an ambitious goal but one we should start working towards today.
Paul Feldman
Communications editor
Thursday, May 22, 2008
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
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
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Heathrow eco-vandalism
The government’s plans to expand Heathrow Airport have succeeded in one respect. They have created a veritable mass movement in opposition to the proposed third runway and new terminals. Local people, campaign groups, environmental organisations, direct action activists, local councils and MPs from all political parties have united against New Labour’s eco-vandalism.
The official “consultation” closes this week but campaigners should not hold their breath, however many people reject the plans. Transport secretary Ruth Kelly has essentially decided the government’s view in advance. She is backing the British Airports Authority’s (BAA) expansion scheme. She has claimed: “If nothing changes, Heathrow’s status as a world-class airport will be gradually eroded, jobs will be lost and the economy will suffer.”
Hers is a typical New Labour argument. The impact on the environment becomes secondary - business comes first. In a globalised capitalist economy, the role of government is to create conditions for inward investment in competition with other countries. So Heathrow must expand and be modernised to make it more attractive for executives and corporate interests.
As for the consultation itself, Hacan (Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise) Clearskies, has already exposed it as a sham. Documents reveal that the Department for Transport (DfT) and BAA, owned by the global corporation Ferrovial, worked together on the wording of the consultation and on “how to handle difficult questions” at public exhibitions. The response form is incomprehensible to any resident without technical knowledge, says Hacan. Neither the form nor the summary, for example, explain what is meant by a “57dBA Leq noise contour”.
Maps of the proposed new flight paths are not included in the response form. Thousands of people across wide swathes of London therefore have no idea that the plans would affect them. Hacan estimates that the consultation should have included up to two million people in South East London and many other places rather than 200,000 response forms that have gone out. Hacan concludes: “The consultation is deeply flawed. It has added to the deep distrust there is of the government (and of the DfT in particular) by the governed. The consultation documents should have been withdrawn.”
The expansion plans will have a major impact on carbon emissions. The World Development Movement has calculated that the annual emissions from the third runway alone would be the same as Kenya’s. New Labour claims that the European Emissions Trading System will take care of this issue. This is the process where the aviation industry buys permits to pollute from other industries. Another market mechanism designed to reinforce the status quo rather than deal with the issue of cutting emissions.
The impact on the local community will be devastating. The government has admitted that a third runway would require at least 700 homes to be demolished. Local experts estimate it would be much more. “We would see destruction of homes and communities, the forced removal of people, on a scale possibly unmatched for 100 years in this country. All to make way for expansion of the airport that would cause serious noise and climate change problems and which is unlikely to contribute much to the economy,” says Hacan which is organising a mass rally in London tonight.
What campaigners have to consider is what to do when the government, inevitably, declines to listen and respond to the just concerns of people who will be affected by a third runway. In fact, it’s a common problem. Not just New Labour but the whole political system is so tied to corporate interests that the parliamentary democratic system has become a dead duck. Fighting the Heathrow expansion plans means seriously considering sustainable and democratic alternatives to both corporate power and what passes for a democratic process.
Paul Feldman
AWTW communications editor
The official “consultation” closes this week but campaigners should not hold their breath, however many people reject the plans. Transport secretary Ruth Kelly has essentially decided the government’s view in advance. She is backing the British Airports Authority’s (BAA) expansion scheme. She has claimed: “If nothing changes, Heathrow’s status as a world-class airport will be gradually eroded, jobs will be lost and the economy will suffer.”
Hers is a typical New Labour argument. The impact on the environment becomes secondary - business comes first. In a globalised capitalist economy, the role of government is to create conditions for inward investment in competition with other countries. So Heathrow must expand and be modernised to make it more attractive for executives and corporate interests.
As for the consultation itself, Hacan (Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise) Clearskies, has already exposed it as a sham. Documents reveal that the Department for Transport (DfT) and BAA, owned by the global corporation Ferrovial, worked together on the wording of the consultation and on “how to handle difficult questions” at public exhibitions. The response form is incomprehensible to any resident without technical knowledge, says Hacan. Neither the form nor the summary, for example, explain what is meant by a “57dBA Leq noise contour”.
Maps of the proposed new flight paths are not included in the response form. Thousands of people across wide swathes of London therefore have no idea that the plans would affect them. Hacan estimates that the consultation should have included up to two million people in South East London and many other places rather than 200,000 response forms that have gone out. Hacan concludes: “The consultation is deeply flawed. It has added to the deep distrust there is of the government (and of the DfT in particular) by the governed. The consultation documents should have been withdrawn.”
The expansion plans will have a major impact on carbon emissions. The World Development Movement has calculated that the annual emissions from the third runway alone would be the same as Kenya’s. New Labour claims that the European Emissions Trading System will take care of this issue. This is the process where the aviation industry buys permits to pollute from other industries. Another market mechanism designed to reinforce the status quo rather than deal with the issue of cutting emissions.
The impact on the local community will be devastating. The government has admitted that a third runway would require at least 700 homes to be demolished. Local experts estimate it would be much more. “We would see destruction of homes and communities, the forced removal of people, on a scale possibly unmatched for 100 years in this country. All to make way for expansion of the airport that would cause serious noise and climate change problems and which is unlikely to contribute much to the economy,” says Hacan which is organising a mass rally in London tonight.
What campaigners have to consider is what to do when the government, inevitably, declines to listen and respond to the just concerns of people who will be affected by a third runway. In fact, it’s a common problem. Not just New Labour but the whole political system is so tied to corporate interests that the parliamentary democratic system has become a dead duck. Fighting the Heathrow expansion plans means seriously considering sustainable and democratic alternatives to both corporate power and what passes for a democratic process.
Paul Feldman
AWTW communications editor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)