Tonight:
5°c
Over lunch with my friend Rebecca, we discussed how she should get herself arrested. She thought there was a lot to be said for climbing into Parliament, but there was a risk (especially for those well-padded in the chest area) of being mistaken for a suicide bomber.
I suggested that draping slogans over tall buildings could make an impact, but it would be embarrassing if a Mother against Climate Change got stuck and had to be helped down by Fathers 4 Justice. We decided that planting trees in Parliament Square would be just the thing: she and her friends could get quite a few trees dug in before the police got to them, and the pictures would be lovely.
Rebecca, a respectable middle-aged mother of three, is not the kind of person you would expect to break the law deliberately and with relish. But she reckons that, because of the danger posed by the expansion of Heathrow, it's the right thing to do. She believes a third runway will be bad for the planet in general and Londoners in particular; and that if she makes her case legally she won't be heard until it is too late.
I'm not about to throw myself at policemen but I tend to agree with her. The businesses and trade unions that argue for the third runway say their case is based on hard-headed cost-benefit analysis. But I don't think the figures stack up.
Of course airports bring benefits. But the scale of the benefits depends on what passengers do once they arrive in a country. More than a third of Heathrow's passengers use it to catch connecting flights. In the course of doing so, they probably buy a cup of coffee and use the loo. This contribution to the British economy is hardly sufficient to justify imposing large costs on its people.
The runway-promoters' riposte is that, even if transit passengers don't contribute much in themselves, they ensure that Heathrow has the world's best route network. But the implication in the newspaper ads they took out yesterday that this was essential to ensuring that Britons can fly to China and India is plain daft.
Not only are the benefits of a third runway overestimated but the costs are also underestimated. They take into account the global environmental impact of a third runway - the carbon emissions - but not local air or noise pollution. They ignore the fact that Heathrow subjects Londoners - not just west Londoners like Rebecca, but also south Londoners like me - to a level of noise higher than that of any major capital city. If the sums included the billions of sleepless dawns that Londoners have suffered, they wouldn't add up any more.
Everybody seems to think that the Government is going to give the runway the go-ahead. I find this incomprehensible. Opinion polls in London constituencies suggest that this would lose Labour many votes in the capital. Which would avert the danger, if it tipped the balance against Labour at the next election, for the Tories have promised to bin the third runway.
If Cameron wins the election, then, Rebecca can give up being an outlaw. Shame, really. I think she is beginning to enjoy it.
Lights, camera, bawl
British talent did brilliantly at the Golden Globes but I have always found it surprising that actresses who hold audiences spellbound for hours in plays or films are unable to make a brief thank-you speech without breaking down and sobbing uncontrollably. Watching yesterday's ceremony, however, I realised that they were being encouraged to bellow. The more the women wept, the harder the audience applauded.
When I make speeches — usually about carbon emissions — people tend to look rather bored. I am therefore thinking of changing my technique. Instead of relying on PowerPoint, data and reasoned argument, I am going to wail about mankind's betrayal of Gaia and collapse, chest heaving, on stage. I think it will be rather moving.
Harry pays the price for being a prince
I'm not inclined to sympathise with the royals but Prince Harry is getting a raw deal. He's criticised for behaving like a prince — hanging around in nightclubs and consorting with blondes.
So he sets about getting a job, and joins the Army, which seems a reasonable thing for a chap not over-endowed with either looks or brains to do. Now he's criticised for behaving like a soldier — making dodgy videos and cracking mildly racist jokes about his fellow officers. It's enough to make you start talking to plants.
* Emma Duncan is deputy editor of The Economist.
Reader views (2)
I am very frustrated. My son has been living in the UK for 4 years and has 1 year left to qualify as an electrician. He is self employed and contracts to Heathrow at 9 pounds sterling per hour. He was assisted by the Government SETA to study. With all the fuss about the new terminal and the high unemployment in the UK, he was told by the main contracters that he will be unable to finish his training, and must be off site by end January. So close yet so far. In South Africa, he cannot find work as he is white, so i am asking you, as you seem to be a reasonable reporter, how do i help my son 15,000 miles from home. Sure we understand Green peaces case, but the impact on the people on the ground is huge.
Sorry to pick on you, i just had to say it to someone.
- Eugene, Kokstad South Africa, 14/01/2009 06:41
Report abuse
I cannot believe that this woman is the deputy editor of The Economist. She'd be better off on the Beano.
- Fred Kite, Surbiton, 13/01/2009 22:16
Report abuse
