A third runway could be a U-turn too far for Cameron

The PM declared in 2010: "No ifs, no buts, no third runway".

It's the ferocity of Conservative MP Tim Yeo's attack on David Cameron, rather than the subject in question (a third runway at Heathrow) , that is most notable. "[T]he Prime Minister must ask himself whether he is man or mouse," the former environment minister writes, before damning Cameron with the faintest of praise "as the leader who made the Tories (nearly) electable again". He goes on to compare him unfavourably  to Harold Macmillan ("presiding over a dignified slide towards insignificance") and finishes with the requisite reference to Thatcher (a Tory leader who won elections).

The reason Yeo's intervention is damaging for Cameron is that the chair of the energy and climate change select committee, who cannot be dismissed as a rent-a-quote maverick, has vocalised the concerns held about his leadership across the Conservative backbenches. Tory MPs increasingly fear that Cameron, to borrow Thatcher's phrase, is not "one of us". The Prime Minister's heart, writes Yeo, is "an organ that still remains impenetrable to most Britons".

For Cameron's MPs, his willingness (or not) to abandon his opposition to a third runway at Heathrow has become a litmus test of whether he is a true Tory. But even for the PM, a man with a penchant for U-turns, this would surely be one policy reversal too many. Both the Conservative manifesto and the Coalition Agreement explicitly opposed a third runway and the presence of Liberal Democrats in Cameron's cabinet (a political reality many Tory MPs conveniently ignore) means that the PM would struggle to change course even if he wanted to. With Ed Miliband opposed to a third runway on principle (he almost resigned as Climate Change Secretary over Gordon Brown's support for the proposal), Cameron will also face no pressure from Labour to change course.

Yet Justine Greening's faltering performance on this morning's Today programme suggests that the Transport Secretary has little confidence in the PM's word. Repeatedly asked whether she could remain in the cabinet if the government backed a third runway, she initially ignored the question (amusingly, she declared: "Yes, I did do a campaign against a third runway. But really this is not a full length runway") before finally conceding: "It would be difficult for me to do that". At no point did she state that she would not be forced to resign because the policy is not changing. When she declared her interest ("my constituency is under the flightpath"), before swiftly adding, "so is Philip Hammond's, as a matter of fact, my predecessor", she sounded like a woman desperate to avoid being reshuffled.

But it's election leaflets such as the one above, issued by Greening, that mean the odds are still against such a flagrant breach of trust. For the aviation minded, "Boris island" or a new hub airport, as proposed by Lib Dem MP Julian Huppert, still looks a better bet. 

A British Airways aircraft taxis past other parked British Airways aircraft at Terminal 5 of Heathrow Airport. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Voters are turning against Brexit but the Lib Dems aren't benefiting

Labour's pro-Brexit stance is not preventing it from winning the support of Remainers. Will that change?

More than a year after the UK voted for Brexit, there has been little sign of buyer's remorse. The public, including around a third of Remainers, are largely of the view that the government should "get on with it".

But as real wages are squeezed (owing to the Brexit-linked inflationary spike) there are tentative signs that the mood is changing. In the event of a second referendum, an Opinium/Observer poll found, 47 per cent would vote Remain, compared to 44 per cent for Leave. Support for a repeat vote is also increasing. Forty one per cent of the public now favour a second referendum (with 48 per cent opposed), compared to 33 per cent last December. 

The Liberal Democrats have made halting Brexit their raison d'être. But as public opinion turns, there is no sign they are benefiting. Since the election, Vince Cable's party has yet to exceed single figures in the polls, scoring a lowly 6 per cent in the Opinium survey (down from 7.4 per cent at the election). 

What accounts for this disparity? After their near-extinction in 2015, the Lib Dems remain either toxic or irrelevant to many voters. Labour, by contrast, despite its pro-Brexit stance, has hoovered up Remainers (55 per cent back Jeremy Corbyn's party). 

In some cases, this reflects voters' other priorities. Remainers are prepared to support Labour on account of the party's stances on austerity, housing and education. Corbyn, meanwhile, is a eurosceptic whose internationalism and pro-migration reputation endear him to EU supporters. Other Remainers rewarded Labour MPs who voted against Article 50, rebelling against the leadership's stance. 

But the trend also partly reflects ignorance. By saying little on the subject of Brexit, Corbyn and Labour allowed Remainers to assume the best. Though there is little evidence that voters will abandon Corbyn over his EU stance, the potential exists.

For this reason, the proposal of a new party will continue to recur. By challenging Labour over Brexit, without the toxicity of Lib Dems, it would sharpen the choice before voters. Though it would not win an election, a new party could force Corbyn to soften his stance on Brexit or to offer a second referendum (mirroring Ukip's effect on the Conservatives).

The greatest problem for the project is that it lacks support where it counts: among MPs. For reasons of tribalism and strategy, there is no emergent "Gang of Four" ready to helm a new party. In the absence of a new convulsion, the UK may turn against Brexit without the anti-Brexiteers benefiting. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.