Labour's direct attack on London

On the day she launches her bid to be London's mayor, Sian Berry rounds on Labour's plans for Heathr

Today, I'm launching my campaign to be Mayor of London. As the Green Party candidate, you'd expect it to be full of plans for better bikes, more recycling and the usual green stuff. And yes, I do plan to have a lot more of all of these.

However, without an equal measure of social justice, environmental policies alone won't work. A Green London also has to be a more affordable London, with cheaper transport fares, free insulation and wide range of other plans that bring cutting emissions together with cutting the cost of living. That's why I was to be found this morning (Friday) outside city hall with a big £20 note to prove it.

Yesterday, Ruth Kelly also launched a big plan for London. Unfortunately, the government’s plans for the expansion of Heathrow airport have a lot less to offer Londoners than my Mayoral policies. In fact, in terms of noise, air quality and climate change, adding a third runway and a sixth terminal to what is already the world's busiest airport, would be catastrophic.

Since they are also based on a seriously flawed economic case, I'd go so far as to say the plans amount to a direct attack on London and everyone who lives here.

Far from creating jobs or improving profits for local businesses in London, the cost of the Government's grand project at Heathrow will be illness due to increased pollution in West London, more intrusive and stress-inducing noise, which already extends as far East as Finsbury Park, and economic damage to the whole city.

The Government's economic case based on assumptions about both the benefits of aviation and the predicted demand. For every pound spent by tourists in the UK, we spend £2.20 overseas. Government's plans to treble air travel are likely to mean that as well as people taking off, money will be flying out of the British economy - with a predictable effect on jobs.

In essence then, a highly dubious economic case is being constructed to justify a catastrophic impact on people's environment, now and in the future. Air pollution kills, persistent noise increases risk of depression, and climate change is already ruining and destroying hundreds of thousands of lives across the globe. That a minister will happily expose ordinary people to all of this just to keep the aviation lobbyists happy shows just how skewed the Government's priorities are.

As much as the words 'government consultation' send most people to sleep, Greenpeace proved this year over nuclear power that, to be legal, a public consultation process has to have teeth. In the face of a massive rejection from Londoners of their plans for Heathrow, they would be on very shaky ground if they did not listen. So, where a sliver of democracy breaks through what appears already to be a stitch-up, we owe to ourselves to use it. 

I'll be backing the Stop Heathrow Expansion campaign and urging all Londoners to stand up for their city by answering the consultation with a big, fat 'No', in opposition to this negligent scheme.

8 comments

soundjat keita1's picture

Are you still principal speaker? According to some pages on Wikipedia you are, according to others you've been replaced by Dr Lucas.

VC's picture

Ms Berry; in light of the MV Explorer incident (incident being NWO speak), will you stand behind your green credentials and state as part of your campaign for Mayor ofLondon, that you we ban all cruise ships from visiting London...should you win?

WorriedEarth's picture

Have you seen that Boris Johnson is calling for an entire new airport for London?

There should be no confusion about his position on climate change since he opposed the Kyoto Treaty!

sennewisaexus888's picture

I am happy to re-assure Carl Jones (3rd posting above) that no brown envelopes changed hands at all. I just say what I think!

sennewisaexus888's picture

I have great respect for Sian Berry and Dr Caroline Lucas both of whom are well-informed, intelligent and skilled professional communicators. They strive to measure their environmental policies not only in saved tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions but by reference to principles of social justice. For example they would seek to ensure that the poor do not contribute to environmental improvement simply by being deprived of resources, such as having electricity priced out of their reach.

I do not live in London but I am intrigued to discover that the Transport Secretary would find that the money to build a third runway at Heathrow is better spent on that and all its ramifications than some other improvement in transport.

At what stretch of time is London Stansted or London Gatwick from Central London? How does that compare with the time distance from Paris to St Pancras now the new Eurostar is open? Indeed how does the travel time between Paris and St Pancras compare with the likely travel time between the planned new runway at Heathrow and central London given the extra passengers who will be landing there?

Dr Lucas can, as one of the most hard-working MEPs in England, advance the case that European transport policy cannot be undermined by trying to play catch-up on airports in the UK. It is too late now for us to justify a third runway at Heathrow because everyone else has a third runway. That's because they understood there was such a thing as society and invested in infrastructure when Margaret Thatcher did not.

High speed rail links and better integration of London's peripheral airports must be the answer in the short term. In the long term, the plan flies in the face of the government's stated intention to reduce air travel to met Kyoto and EU emissions targets.

Given the timescale of the building project, notorious as it will become for cost over-runs, delays and the later inclusion of VAT in the stated expenses, what will be the price of Kerosene when it is finished? How long after that will it run out?

VC's picture

Roland Baker...I assume the brown envelope was thick enough?

adrianwindisch's picture

Quite right Roland, by the time its built fuel prices will be so high we wont be able to afford flying. All this government talk of jobs around Heathrow at risk, when there is capacity at other airports around the country. Improved rail and bus must be a large part of the answer.

VC's picture

adrain; while I`m not in favor of expanding LHR as its in the wrong location, you need to grasp a basic understanding of large airport economics and logistics. If expansion is stopped at LHR, the slack will b e taken up elsewhere. I must point out that you and many others are deluding yourself if you think London can remain the dominant financial centre without LHR, you are wrong....and if you didn`t know it, London keeps UK plc going.

Latest tweets