HEATHROW

[Fairdealfrank]

Corbyn and Heathrow

A couple of points on this:

(1) The outcome of a Parliamentary vote on Heathrow expansion would be determined by one thing: the number of Labour MPs in favour (and willing to vote in favour irrespective of any instructions from the whips) has to be greater than the number of Conservative MPs against, after abstentions and non-attendances are taken into account.

(2) It is unlikely that the SNP group has a homogeneous view on Heathrow expansion, many of them want it badly.

(3) If the mathematics in (1) above work in the government's favour, it doesn't matter how the SNP vote.

(4) If not, there may not be a parliamentary vote at all, and the noise of cans being kicked down the road will be deafening (louder than any aircraft on the flightpath) as another Commission is set up with a remit to look at Heathrow only and told to report after the 2020 election;

(5) Corbyn has been a serial rebel for 32 years, this will make it very difficult for him to be able to enforce his will on the Parliamentary Labour party already split down the middle. Most Labour MPs realise that it's very unlikely that they can win in 2020, so many may think nothing of the rebelling. Some may do it in the hope of bringing down the Corbyn leadership. In many ways it could be reminiscent of Iain Duncan-Smith's ill-fated Conservative opposition: the serial rebel turned leader or, if you prefer, poacher turned gamekeeper.


Either way, it is far too early to tell how things will pan out, it could go any number of ways. For the Labour leadership to do a U-turn on this would upset many of their MPs. What would be the effect of Labour voting with the Greens, the SNP and the Libdems (remember them?). On this issue, it wouldn't look good.

One thing is for sure, the 50 year saga looks like not being resolved any time soon.



Hope this helps.

[chrisy08]

I don't know where to write this, so I'll give it a go in here.....

I'm picking up some family from Heathrow late this afternoon... I was going to go an hour or two before they land to watch the planes go out and in... I need somewhere to park (free preferably) and the best place to watch.....

Thanks in advance

[Bagso]

Agitating again Skip

Labour abandons support for new Heathrow runway | The Times

As predicted Labour have now also done an about turn on Heathrow support.

It now depends on your individual view as to whether Labour MPs will tow the party line or rebel.

Politics being what they are however it seems unlikely that there would be such a damaging split so early in the tenure.

[CabinCrewe]

I see QR are to scrap the business only rotation between LHR and DOH. Not sure if im surprised or not...

[canberra97]

Already been announced by Qatar a while back,it was more of a slot filler in my opinion although the flight and timings we remain but operated with larger aircraft but not as a business class flight.

[Heathrow Harry]

Opponents are saying the VW scandal means the pollutiion study will have to be re-done with the correct figures this time.... this will run and run -

[Trash 'n' Navs]

Good grief!!

They'll clutch any straw that floats past.

Those complaining seem happy to take the benefits of LHR (jobs, travel, trade) but want someone else to pay for it. Seems rather selfish to me.

[Heathrow Harry]

the people complaining are the ones who DON't Benifit from LHR but get the noise and pollution

Actually the pollution case is serious as the European Courts have already put the UK Govt on warning about general pollution levels - so it's a major issue

It's not the aircraft so much - it's all the car traffic generated around LHR that causes the problem - and if the numbers in the study are way too optomistic (as they must be given what we know now) then the protesters have a damn solid case on this issue

Again it means the case will be stuck in the courts for years

[Trash 'n' Navs]

Oh Harry, how wrong can one be?

the people complaining are the ones who DON't Benifit from LHR but get the noise and pollution

Everyone benefits. UK plc benefits. It's the inconvenient truth that anti-expansion campaigners don't want to acknowledge.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Everyone benefits. UK plc benefits.

T&N - Your recent postings on this topic present you as a cheerleader rather than somebody prepared to engage in serious debate.

Everyone benefits? You cannot be serious! I don't see any value in typing up an extremely lengthy list of those who do not benefit - it would be too time-consuming. The whole LHR R3 issue is deeply contentious precisely because so many do NOT benefit. If it were otherwise, R3 would have been a done deal long ago.

UK plc benefits? Well, London and the SE will see some benefits but as for UK plc in its entirety ... that is another area of contentious debate. The regions would certainly benefit far more if the public portion of funding earmarked for LHR R3 and associated works were spent on infrastructure projects directly in the regions instead. There is a substantial 'opportunity cost' associated with any decision to publicly fund LHR development as opposed to investing directly in regional projects of merit. And regional projects are decades overdue their turn for public infrastructure investment. Currently, planned public infrastructure spending per head by region shows London at £5305 per annum and the NE at £414. This is before Crossrail 2 and LHR R3 come into play. Source: Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute.

The LHR 'good for Britain' argument relies on the concept of trickledown working its magic. Well, trickledown produces very little magic for the regions. It produces a trickle! And as for £147Bn payback from LHR R3 (as forecast in the Davies Report), reputable commentators have ridiculed that figure as vastly over-optimistic. Based upon standard government accountancy principles the true number is projected to be a fraction of this. The article containing the exact details and numbers was published on August 28th - I would like to link it here as is good practice, but the link now leads to a blank page save for onward links to football reports and lots of side-adverts promoting LHR expansion! Funny that, although it could of course be remotely targeted advertising generated by Google. If I am able to locate the original article I will come back with the figures quoted.

Let's just say there is a debate to be had here. This is not cut and dried. They who you dismiss lightly as "those complaining" actually have genuine and substantial grievances backing them up.

[True Blue]

I wonder if the Government will see expansion at Lhr as too hot to handle and go for Lgw, as additional capacity is needed somewhere?

I have just been reading yesterday's Times on the car emissions scandal. On page 8 there is a report that the Government knew about this problem a year ago. In the report, it mentions a recent court case taken against the Government by ClientEarth to reduce air pollution. In evidence to the court, the Government said"The main reason for this is that the real world emission performance of a vehicle has turned out to be quite different to how the vehicle performs on the regulatory test cycle". Quote taken from The Times.

What impact could the current scandal have on Lhr expansion as some have questioned the reports findings on pollution around Lhr and as I have already asked, could this make the Government think deciding for Lhr now is too risky and go for Lgw instead?

Any views?

TB

[Skipness One Echo]

I think Shed nailed it, whenever certain posters deny the wider benefits of LHR to the UK, the word "grievance" was used.

That sums up the mentality, it's prevelant back home in Scotland where people are constanatly angry at not being served their "fair share" on a plate in their own locality. MAN is doing rather well without trying to constrain LHR, as is LGW. We need to see LHR the same way Changi is seen in Singapore, KUL in Malaysia etc, a proper staregic national asset. Too much to ask where all politics is local of course.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

MAN is doing rather well without trying to constrain LHR

Whilst MAG has its own views on LHR, especially in view of group ownership of STN, I am not aware of any active campaign by them to 'constrain LHR'. MAN has actually been remarkably reticent about expressing views on this topic until the latter stages of the process. Some PPRuNe regulars suggested they could have spoken out more forcefully. Certainly, it seems inappropriate to imply that MAN is involved in 'trying to constrain LHR'.

certain posters deny the wider benefits of LHR to the UK

Consider me one of them. The problem with these 'wider benefits' to the regions is that they are pitifully small to not there at all. And definitely outweighed by the 'potential benefits' of regional projects of merit which are denied funding in favour of yet more public investment in London and SE infrastructure.

people are constanatly angry at not being served their "fair share"

Just look again at those numbers I posted comparing infrastructure spending in London versus the example of the North-East region. £5305 v £414. This isn't afew percentage points of differential. London is getting almost THIRTEEN TIMES (!!!!) per head what a NE resident is receiving. And this imbalance is three decades old with every sign of the gap widening further. This is not a case of small-minded provincials failing to understand the big picture. This is a massive and very real scandal. Those who speak out are absolutely right not to be rolled over on this (yet again). They get a hearty pat on the back from me, not a condescending shake of the head. They are the ones who do "get it".

[Trash 'n' Navs]

You cannot be serious

I can.
I am.

I could levy a similar charge against you Shed, from your posts you don't appear able to "engage in serious debate"!!

Everyone benefits - either directly or indirectly.

From the length of your diatribes, you seem to labour under the mistaken belief that mere volume of words wins debates.

We can trade stats all day but there's little point because apparently yours are above reproach whilst everyone else's are suspect or fanciful.

To me it's simple. Don't expand Heathrow. No skin off my nose. Just watch the UK slide down the worlds economic ranks through lack of connectivity & trade. I've seen enough credible evidence to convince me LHR needs it. I'd laugh if it wasn't so sad to see you (Poms) get your knickers in a twist over this.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

We can trade stats all day

Stats? Where are your stats? From you I see only one-liners ridiculing those who disagree with you.

Everyone benefits

No they don't. That's why this topic is contentious.

[Itchin McCrevis]

Don't expand Heathrow = Just watch the UK slide down the worlds economic ranks through lack of connectivity & trade.

Sums it up nicely - don't the most succesful businesses put the bulk of their resources behind their most succesful products to get the max out of them? - it works for economies too, investment in the south east can return a multiple on investment in the regions. The south east could survive without the regions but not vice versa (the Scots demonstrated their understanding of this a year ago) - the truth may hurt and we may not like it but it is still the truth.

[Trash 'n' Navs]

According to Prof Henry G. Overman of Spatial Economics Research Centre in 2014,

"IPPR North's numbers which suggest we are set to spend £5,000 per person on infrastructure in London but only £250 per person in the North East. These figures are certainly striking, but they should be interpreted with considerable caution because they are far out of line with actual expenditure. Actual expenditure is reported in the Treasury's Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis Tables. According to those tables, in 2010-11 London received £800 per head (compared to an English average - including London - of around £400)"

and

The £5,000 per head figure for London includes both private and public investment. If you look only at projects that involve the public sector as a funder the London figure is £2,500 per head. If you look only at projects where the public sector is the sole funder the figure is £770 per head.
http://spatial-economics.********.co.uk/2014/03/how-unbalanced-is-infrastructure.html?m=1

So Shed as I said, we can quote stats all day but you still continue to disparage those who have a different opinion to you.

I'm forming an opinion that you don't understand macro-economics. I thought the Davies Commission provided ample credible evidence that the benefits were substantial and UK-wide. I also note the South-West are in favour of Heathrow expansion because of the benefits their region will receive.

[Trash 'n' Navs]

Hey TB,

What impact could the current scandal have on Lhr expansion as some have questioned the reports findings on pollution around LHR

IIRC, only 14% of traffic is generated by LHR itself so it shouldn't impact expansion.

I think Boris is in trouble because London generates & attracts the most traffic so his emission numbers will be more affected.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

T&N - Well done. Some stats this time. And whilst the figures vary from the source I quoted, note that the disparity still remains inordinately large even based on Spatial Economics' interpretations. Even if the London figure for public infrastructure funding is £2500 per head, that is still multiple times the NE equivalent. Or that of any other region. So the regional objection remains valid.

As for the personal remarks, hold whatever opinion you want. I'm not debating you on that level.

[Fairdealfrank]

the people complaining are the ones who DON't Benifit from LHR but get the noise and pollution

Actually no. Most of the complaints are from a rich vocal minority who live far from Heathrow and who certainly benefit from it (longhaul overseas holidays anyone? business trips?). The complaints don't come from the residents of towns and villages right on top of the airport rwy thresholds like Cranford and Colnbrook.

Actually the pollution case is serious as the European Courts have already put the UK Govt on warning about general pollution levels - so it's a major issue

It's not the aircraft so much - it's all the car traffic generated around LHR that causes the problem - and if the numbers in the study are way too optomistic (as they must be given what we know now) then the protesters have a damn solid case on this issue

Indeed it's not the aircraft. Any one who has lived under the flightpath for many years will tell you that today's aircraft are increasingly cleaner and quieter.

The climate change brigade are so obsessed with carbon dioxide they completely took their eyes off the ball as far as NOx is concerned. As we know, this pollution from diesel engines is far worse, and the chickens are coming home to roost with another scandal, allegedly known about by the EU for at least 4 years (what a surprise!).

Again it means the case will be stuck in the courts for years

Regretably this may be the case, one thing the rich NIMBYs are not short of is money.