Afternoon:
10°c
PM faked the case for third runway claims Cameron
Joe Murphy, Political Editor16 Jun 2008
David Cameron today accused the Government of faking the case for Heathrow's third runway for the sake of political point-scoring.
In his most powerful assault on the planned expansion of Britain's premier airport, the Conservative leader charged Gordon Brown with exaggerating economic benefits and betraying the environment.
The Prime Minister's "fetish" for a third runway was driven "by political calculation, not conviction", claimed Mr Cameron in an exclusive article for the Evening Standard.
"With Brown it's always about the politics, not the policy," he claimed. "The Prime Minister has noticed that since I became leader of the Conservative Party, I have pushed the environment higher up the political agenda.
"He sees this as a political threat. So he tries to define the issue of a third runway as a 'tough choice' between the economy and the environment. If you back a third runway you're on the side of jobs, business and prosperity. If you don't, you're somehow not serious, putting lightweight environmental concerns ahead of the economy."
The Conservative leader backed former BA chief Bob Ayling who has dismissed the key economic argument for the expansion plans, which revolve around using Heathrow as a giant hub to attract transfer flights.
Mr Ayling argues the value to the economy from passengers stopping to catch flights to other destinations is minimal - little more than the price of a cup of coffee each in many cases.
Mr Cameron said the chaos when Terminal 5 was opened showed Heathrow's management could not handle an even greater expansion to 700,000 flights by 2030. "I think the whole country can agree that the most important priority for Heathrow is making it better, not bigger," he said.
"That means looking seriously at competition issues surrounding BAA and how our airports are managed."
Mr Cameron's attack on Heathrow's growth may be popular with residents, especially in west London, fearing more noisy flights. But Labour believes the wider public will choose expansion if they think it will mean the era of cheap holiday flights carries on.
The Tory leader's article coincides with a speech to environmentalists in which he will try to reassure hardpressed families that going green need not make them poorer.
Reader views (12)
I completely agree with George.
An airport west of the capital, with all the misery it inflicts on 4m inhabitants, should never have been allowed to spawn.
There is now no room to expand safely and if other countries wish to inflicts 'hubs' on themselves, let them; it will be their loss and our gain.
Heathrow would be eminently suitable for building all the new housing we apparently need - it has all the infrastructure and T5 would be a wonderful sports complex ...
A Thames estuary airport would disturb no-one's sleep and be on the right side of London; with 21st century high speed links to the city, Eurostar etc. it really would be Europe's star airport.
- Brigid, London, 01/07/2008 22:48
Report abuse
I suggest that those individuals responding with comments in favour of airport expansion (whoever's back yard) should make an effort to inform themselves of some basic facts on climate change, and the consequences for peoples all over the world.
I don't expect you will though - it is not an enjoyable thing to do.
However, if you do, you will discover how foolish and empty your pro-airport expansion comments sound.
- Angela K, Harlow, UK, 17/06/2008 14:06
Report abuse
The last time that Heathrow was worth going to was sometime round about 1973 when jet travel was 'exotic' and there weren't the security fears we have today.
These days it's the most miserable place on Earth to end up.
It's a 1950s/1960s airport struggling with 2008 issues. It should be relocated to Kent or Essex and provided with a cheap and lightening-fast rail connection to a number of ground transport hubs.
I'd much sooner catch an international flight from Gatwick or Stanstead.
- George, London, 17/06/2008 11:43
Report abuse
We know what Cameron is against, but what is he for?
- Billy Blighty, Sydney Australia, 17/06/2008 10:57
Report abuse
Heathrow is running at over 98% of its capacity which means that there is little room for error in its operation. If it does not expand airlines will simply relocate their operations via Amsterdam, Paris or Frankfurt leaving passengers from the UK a longer air journey to get to their destinations.
Over 170 thousand jobs rely on Heathrow. If the airlines move away their connecting short and long haul flights it will mean another major opportunity for the UK economy to grow will be lost in favour of other European nations.
Heathrow alone contributes to the creation of around 10% of the UK GDP. Without its hub status this will fall considerably.
The growth in Heathrow is subject environmental targets being reached. No other airport in Europe has such a restriction on growth. Should we simply stand by and see British jobs disappear or should it not be the case that we find ways of expanding capacity without increasing emissions.
The move from segregation mode to mixed mode operations will succeed in doing this without the need to build a new runway or demolish a single house. In the consultation it called for mixed mode to be introduced in two phases. The first of these is to open up both runways within existing limits. This would result in less stacking, less queuing for the runway and therefore lessen the environmental impact whilst at the same time enhancing the experience for passengers using Heathrow.
- Colin, London, 17/06/2008 10:25
Report abuse
I write on behalf of the Board of Airline Representatives in the UK, representing 97 scheduled airlines in this country.
We are an apolitical organisation, and fully support the application for a third runway.
Heathrow is simply bursting at the seams, with the effect that delays are an everyday occurrence.
Ayling is so wrong in his contention that transfer passengers are not worth more than a cup of coffee, and David Cameron is misguided to accept Ayling's trite comments at face value.
We will welcome the chance to debate and discuss this directly with David Cameron.
Failure to develop Heathrow, and break its chain of inefficiencies, is a recipe for failure for the UK's economy, and world standing.
- Mike Carrivick, London, 17/06/2008 10:06
Report abuse
The Heathrow plans are barbaric. The removal of alternation will make life unbearable for people, and outside activity will not be possible, walks in the park, gardening, playing with your kids. The government and BAA response is that they provide sound proofing to schools and homes near the airport - how do you sound proof a field or a playground? This government is prepared to sacrifice the quality of life and literally the lives of west Londoners (2 million)in this game of political point scoring - it is utterly reprehensible!
- Christian Ball, London, UK, 17/06/2008 09:15
Report abuse
I don't think the wider public believe that cheap flights leave from Heathrow though. If you want cheap flights to continue then you need to be better utilising the regional airports not Heathrow. Who flies from Heathrow for their two weeks in the Canaries?
How many more people are going to have to come out against Heathrow expansion before Brown realises he's flogging a dead horse? This really is making him look out of touch.
- Rick, Dorset, 17/06/2008 03:08
Report abuse
"But Labour believes the wider public will choose expansion if they think it will mean the era of cheap holiday flights carries on" - surely this is down to the fuel price etc., not a third runway. Why spend billions on a runway when oil hits $250+ a barrel?
- Matt, London, 16/06/2008 22:41
Report abuse
Funny isn't it; how David Cameron just seems to get better and better, setting the agenda whilst the New Labour Nasty Party can only play 'catch-up'.
So Gordon has been caught fiddling the figures...again; tell us something we don't know.
- Silent Hunter, Scotland, 16/06/2008 22:16
Report abuse
Why can they not develop Manston in Kent. The runway is long enough without any additional development all it needs is a proper terminal and train link. They currently fly jumbos full of fruit into this airport and used to fly Concord for training purposes. This is a run down area that would welcome the jobs.
- Den, London, 16/06/2008 13:19
Report abuse
I last used Heathrow in 2006 and it resembled a souk more than an airport - nowhere to sit and elbow to elbow with people. I wouldn't use Heathrow again if I was paid to.
- Liz Brown, London, 16/06/2008 12:46
Report abuse
