Conservative defector Mark Reckless speaks at a Ukip public meeting in Rochester. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

How Labour plans to counter the Tories' Rochester spin

The party is determined not to allow the Conservatives to make Labour failure the story of Thursday's by-election. 

Having already conceded defeat to Ukip ahead of Thursday's Rochester by-election (the most recent poll put Nigel Farage's party 12 points ahead), the Tories are now focused on damage limitation. They aim to cut Conservative defector Mark Reckless's lead to single digits and to turn attention to the performance of Labour, which is set to finish a distant third. Their hope is that defeat in Rochester is now "priced in" and will fail to trigger the crisis that the opposition wanted. 

In response, Labour is preparing its rebuttal. Expect the party to remind voters just how much David Cameron staked on victory in the seat. The PM vowed to "throw the kitchen sink" at Ukip (kicking Reckless's "fat arse" in the process) with all Conservative MPs ordered to visit at least three times and all cabinet ministers to visit at least five (not all have obliged). The common view among the Tories was that while defeat to the popular Douglas Carswell in the Clacton by-election was inevitable, victory over Reckless was eminently achievable. "Losing is not an option," one government figure declared

With the reverse now the case, the Tories are seeking to present their performance as adequate compared to that of Labour whose vote has fallen from 28.5 per cent in 2010 to 17 per cent. A Conservative source told the Observer: "Our vote is holding up OK. We are at 30 per cent, maybe even 33 per cent. It is not bad. Ukip are in the 40s. But Labour have absolutely capitulated and collapsed in a seat that they held until 2010. There are at least as many questions for Ed Miliband as for us. We are fairly relaxed about the whole thing, as I think it is priced in at this stage."

Labour rejects all of this. As one aide pointed out to me, far from "holding up", the Tories' vote has collapsed from 49 per cent in 2010 to 32 per cent in the most recent poll. "They want to make this about us, it's all about them," he said, deriding "spin to the point of gibberish". Labour sources also point out that it is not true to say the party held the seat until 2010. Had the constituency been fought on its current boundaries in 2005, Bob Marshall-Andrews (who represented the predecessor seat of Medway) would have lost. 

An aide described Rochester as a "landslide victory seat", adding "we know we're not looking at a landslide victory". Despite its well-regarded candidate Naushabah Khan, the party argues that it was inevitable that its vote would be squeezed, with the usual two-horse by-election dynamic magnified by Reckless's high-profile defection. "If we get 10 per cent we'll be doing well", I was told. In response to those who say it should have devoted more resources to the by-election, the party argues that it is focused on the marginal seats it needs to win a majority (and in which it remains ahead). 

But while Labour is determined to define Rochester as a Conservative failure, Cameron's party may not be as unnerved as it hoped. Tory MPs have been reassured by national polls putting them neck-and-neck with the opposition and by a Lord Ashcroft survey showing they would win the seat at a general election. But that the Conservatives are now prepared to tolerate defeat to not one but two Ukip defectors is further evidence of their diminished ambitions. And the fear remains that there could be more to come. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Show Hide image

A third runway at Heathrow will disproportionately benefit the super rich

The mean income of leisure passengers at Heathrow in 2014 was £61,000.

The story goes that expanding Heathrow is a clear-cut policy decision, essential for international trade, jobs and growth. The disruption for those that live around the airport can be mitigated, but ultimately must be suffered for the greater good.

But almost every part of this story is misleading or false. Far from guaranteeing post-Brexit prosperity, a new runway will primarily benefit wealthy frequent flyers taking multiple holidays every year, with local residents and taxpayers picking up the tab.

Expanding Heathrow is not about boosting international trade. The UK is only marginally reliant on air freight to trade with the rest of the world. Total air freight traffic in the UK is actually lower now than it was in 1995, and most UK trade is with Europe, of which only 0.1 per cent goes by air. Internationally, as much as 90 per cent of trade in goods goes by ship because transporting by plane is far too expensive. And in any case our most successful exports are in services, which don’t require transportation. So the idea that UK plc simply cannot trade without an expansion at Heathrow is a gross exaggeration.

Any talk of wider economic benefits is also highly dubious. The Department for Transport’s forecasts show that the great majority of growth in flights will come from leisure passengers. Our tourism deficit is already gaping, with more money pouring out of the country from holidaymakers than comes in from foreign tourists. What’s worse is that this deficit worsens regional disparities since money gets sucked out of all parts of the country but foreign tourists mostly pour money back into London. As for jobs, government estimates suggest that investing in rail would create more employment.

As for the public purse, the aviation sector is undeniably bad for our Treasury. Flights are currently exempt from VAT and fuel duty – a tax subsidy worth as much as £10bn. If these exemptions were removed each return flight would be about £100 more expensive. This is a wasteful and regressive situation that not only forfeits badly needed public funds but also stimulates the demand for flights even further. Heathrow expansion itself will directly lead to significant new public sector costs, including the cost of upgrading Heathrow’s connecting infrastructure, increased pressure on the NHS from pollution-related disease, and the time and money that will have to be ploughed into a decade of legal battles.

So you have to wonder: where is this greater public good that local residents are asked to make such a sacrifice for?

And we must not forget the other sacrifice we’re making: commitment to our fair share of global climate change mitigation. Building more runways creates more flights, just as building more roads has been found to increase traffic. With no clean alternatives to flying, the only way to meet our climate targets is to do less of it.

The real reason for expanding Heathrow is to cater for the huge expected increase in leisure flying, which will come from a small and relatively rich part of the population. At present it’s estimated that 70 per cent of flights are taken by 15 per cent of the population; and 57 per cent of us took no flights abroad at all in 2013. The mean income of leisure passengers at Heathrow in 2014 was £61,000, which is nearly three times the UK median income.

This is in stark contrast to the communities that live directly around airports that are constantly subjected to dirty air and noise pollution. In the case of London City Airport, Newham – already one of London’s most deprived boroughs – suffers air and noise pollution in return for few local jobs, while its benefits are felt almost entirely by wealthy business travellers.

Something needs to change. At the New Economics Foundation we’re arguing for a frequent flyer levy that would give each person one tax-free return flight every year. After that it would introduce a charge that gets bigger with each extra flight, cracking down on those that use their wealth to abuse the system by taking many flights every year. This is based on a simple principle: those who fly more should pay more.

A frequent flyer levy would open up the benefits of air travel, reducing costs for those struggling to afford one family holiday a year, while allowing us to meet our climate targets and eliminate the need for any new runways. It would also generate millions for the public purse in an efficient and progressive way.

We have to take back control over an airports system that is riding roughshod over communities and our environment, with little perceivable benefit except for a small group of frequent flyers.

Stephen Devlin is a senior economist at the New Economics Foundation.