A Stop Heathrow sign goes up in Sipton. Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Will the government go to war over Heathrow?

The Davies Report into airport expansion has opted for a third runway at Heathrow - triggering a split at the top of the Tory party.

The Davies Commission into airport expansion has reccomended a third runway at Heathrow, putting the government on a collision course with some of its most senior members. George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is a strong supporter of the third runway, but Theresa May, the Home Secretary, Justine Greening, the Development Secretary,  Greg Hands, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond all have seats that are affected by expansion and are likely to strongly oppose expansion.

Greening, who was moved from the Transport brief in 2012 due to her opposition in Heathrow, is thought to be implacably opposed to a third runway, as is Boris Johnson, the Conservative Mayor and newly-installed MP for Ruislip & Uxbridge, and Zac Goldsmith, MP for Richmond and Johnson's likely successor as the Tory standard-bearer in London. Sadiq Khan, one of the Labour candidates for Mayor, is also opposed to Heathrow expansion, although his rivals, Gareth Thomas, David Lammy and Tessa Jowell all back the Davies report. 

Although superficially, the Liberal Democrat wipe-out clears the path for Heathrow expansion - that party is opposed to airport expansion at Heathrow and Gatwick - Conservative insiders believe that the problem has simply taken on a new form. "With them, it was 30 per cent environmentalism, 70 per cent opportunism," says one Conservative, suggesting that constituency pressure may have had more to do with Liberal opposition to Heathrow than green concerns. "Now it's our people who have [these seats]."

The second runway at Gatwick - which the commission has also not ruled out - may prove a more politically palatable option, despite the championing of Heathrow by Sir Howard Davies, the Commission chair. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

What Jeremy Corbyn gets right about the single market

Technically, you can be outside the EU but inside the single market. Philosophically, you're still in the EU. 

I’ve been trying to work out what bothers me about the response to Jeremy Corbyn’s interview on the Andrew Marr programme.

What bothers me about Corbyn’s interview is obvious: the use of the phrase “wholesale importation” to describe people coming from Eastern Europe to the United Kingdom makes them sound like boxes of sugar rather than people. Adding to that, by suggesting that this “importation” had “destroy[ed] conditions”, rather than laying the blame on Britain’s under-enforced and under-regulated labour market, his words were more appropriate to a politician who believes that immigrants are objects to be scapegoated, not people to be served. (Though perhaps that is appropriate for the leader of the Labour Party if recent history is any guide.)

But I’m bothered, too, by the reaction to another part of his interview, in which the Labour leader said that Britain must leave the single market as it leaves the European Union. The response to this, which is technically correct, has been to attack Corbyn as Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland are members of the single market but not the European Union.

In my view, leaving the single market will make Britain poorer in the short and long term, will immediately render much of Labour’s 2017 manifesto moot and will, in the long run, be a far bigger victory for right-wing politics than any mere election. Corbyn’s view, that the benefits of freeing a British government from the rules of the single market will outweigh the costs, doesn’t seem very likely to me. So why do I feel so uneasy about the claim that you can be a member of the single market and not the European Union?

I think it’s because the difficult truth is that these countries are, de facto, in the European Union in any meaningful sense. By any estimation, the three pillars of Britain’s “Out” vote were, firstly, control over Britain’s borders, aka the end of the free movement of people, secondly, more money for the public realm aka £350m a week for the NHS, and thirdly control over Britain’s own laws. It’s hard to see how, if the United Kingdom continues to be subject to the free movement of people, continues to pay large sums towards the European Union, and continues to have its laws set elsewhere, we have “honoured the referendum result”.

None of which changes my view that leaving the single market would be a catastrophe for the United Kingdom. But retaining Britain’s single market membership starts with making the argument for single market membership, not hiding behind rhetorical tricks about whether or not single market membership was on the ballot last June, when it quite clearly was. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.