Norway's deadliest tragedy

Death toll rises to 91 as police discover more victims of Norwegian gunman.

The horrific attacks in Norway were initially thought to have claimed around 20 lives. But it's now clear that that figure was a dramatic underestimate. The latest reports put the death toll at 91, with seven killed in the car bomb attack in Oslo and 84 killed on the island of Utoya, where a man dressed as a police officer opened fire on a youth meeting of the country's Labour Party.

Many rushed to the assumption that the attacks were the work of an Islamist terrorist group. The New York Times reported that a group called Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami (the Helpers of the Global Jihad) had claimed responsibility, allegedly describing the attack as "a response to Norwegian forces' presence in Afghanistan and to unspecified insults to the Prophet Muhammad". However, the paper later reported American officials as saying that "the group was previously unknown and might not even exist".

It now appears that the atrocities were committed by a lone right-wing extremist, leading Norwegian officials to conclude that the attack is "probably more Norway's Oklahoma City than it is Norway's World Trade Center." Anders Behring Breivik, the 32-year-old Norwegian arrested in connection with both attacks, described himself on his Facebook page (now unavailable) as a conservative and a Christian. A Twitter account apparently belonging to him, featured this post from last Sunday: "One person with a belief is equal to the force of 100,000 who have only interests." The decision to target the centre of Oslo, which houses the offices of Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, as well as a Labour meeting, suggests that the motive was political.

Significantly, Stoltenberg, who was due to address the youth meeting today, has responded by calling for "more democracy, more openness to show that we will not be stopped by this kind of violence". No calls for revenge, no overblown rhetoric, just a quiet determination that this proud, egalitarian nation will go on as before.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Show Hide image

Boris Johnson isn't risking his political life over Heathrow

The anti-Heathrow campaigner was never a committed environmentalist. 

A government announcement on expanding London’s airports is expected today, and while opposition forces have been rallying against the expected outcome - a third runway at Heathrow - the decision could also be a divisive one for the ruling Conservative party. A long consultation period will allow these divisions to fester. 

Reports suggest that up to 60 Conservative MPs are against expansion at the Heathrow site. The Prime Minister’s own constituents are threatening legal action, and the former London mayoral candidate, Zac Goldsmith, has promised to step down as MP for Richmond rather than let the airport develop.

But what of Boris Johnson? The politician long synonymous with Heathrow opposition - including a threat to lie down “in front of those bulldozers” - is expected to call the decision a mistake. But for a man unafraid to dangle from a zipwire, he has become unusually reticent on the subject.

The reticence has partly been imposed upon him. In a letter to her cabinet ministers, Theresa May has granted them freedom from the usual rules of collective responsibility (under which cabinet ministers are required to support government positions). But she has also requested that they refrain from speaking out in the Commons, from “actively” campaigning against her position, and from calling “into question the decision making process itself”.  

Johnson is not about to start cheering for Heathrow. But unlike Goldsmith, he is no committed environmentalist - and he's certainly a committed politician.  

Boris’s objections to the expansion at Heathrow have all too often only extended as far as the lives of his London constituents. These local impacts are not to be belittled – in his role of mayor of London, he rightly pointed to the extreme health risks of increased noise and air pollution. And his charisma and profile have also boosted community campaigns around these issues. 

But when it comes to reducing emissions, Johnson is complacent. He may have come a long way since a 2013 Telegraph article in which he questioned whether global warming was real. Yet his plan to build an alternative “hub” airport in the Thames Estuary would have left the question of cutting UK aviation emissions worryingly un-resolved. This lack of curiosity is alarming considering his current job as foreign secretary. 

And there are reasons to be concerned. According to Cait Hewitt at the Aviation Environment Federation, the UK fails to meet its targets for CO2 reduction. And the recent UN deal on aviation emission mitigation doesn’t even meet the commitments of the UK’s own Climate Change Act, let alone the more stringent demands of the Paris Agreement. “Deciding that we’re going to do something that we know is going to make a problem worse, before we’ve got an answer, is the wrong move”, said Hewitt.

There is a local environmental argument too. Donnachadh McCarthy, a spokesperson from the activist group “Rising Up”, says the pollution could affect Londoners' health: "With 70 per cent of flights taken just by 15 per cent of the UK's population... this is just not acceptable in a civilised democracy.”

The way Johnson tells it, his reason for staying in government is a pragmatic one. “I think I'd be better off staying in parliament to fight the case, frankly," he told LBC Radio in 2015. And he's right that, whatever the government’s position, the new “national policy statement” to authorise the project will likely face a year-long public consultation before a parliamentary vote in late 2017 or early 2018. Even then the application will still face a lengthy planning policy stage and possible judicial review. 

But if the foreign secretary does fight this quietly, in the back rooms of power, it is not just a loss to his constituents. It means the wider inconsistencies of his position can be brushed aside - rather than exposed and explored, and safely brought down to ground. 

India Bourke is an environment writer and editorial assistant at the New Statesman.