Labour

Environment Secretary to resign over third runway?

Hilary Benn

The Heathrow decision hasn't been formally announced and still the rumour mill is working on overdrive. Our Westminster mole has just revealed that the fallout could include at least one member of the Cabinet. We're hearing that the Environment Secretary, Hilary Benn, might have handed in his resignation.

If this is true it's heartening to think that at least one member of the Brownite inner circle has the cojones to stand up to their party's determination to screw over the planet so their leader can look Churchillian. After all, anything but a resignation would make a mockery of his job description.

Hilary: how you handle the next twenty-four hours will directly impact on whether we hit our climate change targets. You know, as I do, that we can't build runways and reduce emissions by 80%. Millions of people around the world will suffer from climate change, and hundreds in the UK will lose their homes for this runway. Do you really want to stand by and let that happen?

Reach for the sky: aviation emissions in Climate Bill

Reach for the sky

The government has backed down on aviation and shipping, agreeing to include both in the Climate Change Bill's 80% emissions reduction targets. They had planned to let the industry grow as much as it liked while cracking down on other sectors, but changed their mind when faced with a major backbench rebellion.

So in theory aviation emissions will have to reduce by 80% - and, as there are no sustainable fuels in the pipeline, that should mean a lot fewer flights. The problem is that like all good Labour projects, there'll be plenty of creative accounting. This time its a cunning plan to let the UK buy other countries' emissions reductions off them, perhaps by taking a bunch of greener lightbulbs and handing them out around the world. This, frankly, is cheating.

Vote Plane Stupid for Transport Secretary

Vote for me

So it’s goodbye to Ruth Kelly, bane of environmentalists and apostle of airport expansion, who has resigned to spend more time with her family. Who will be next? No one seems to know (but everyone has an opinion), so rather than play musical cabinet chairs, I’m going to throw my hat in the ring. Gordon, if you’re listening, I’d be very happy to take over as Secretary of State for Transport.

I know that I’m not a Member of Parliament – although that didn’t stop you opting for Digby – but I have taken transport issues to the very top of the House of Commons. That’s got to count for something, right? After all, from what I’ve seen Transport Ministers are just meant to get in bed with aviation bosses, and how hard can that be?

Government's former scientific adviser: third runway is white elephant

Flash mob

Former scientific adviser Sir David King used to love the third runway. When taking the Government shilling he'd wax lyrical about the need to balance the economy and the environment, bleating about green planes and how hard the industry was working to green itself.

But now that his pension's been secured and with a healthy future on the lecture circuit before him, he's slammed the third runway as a "white elephant". The need to tackle climate change means "we will drive people toward land-based travel rather than air, and investments in new runways will turn out to be white elephants."

Now I'm all in favour of support from people who used to have the Government's ear - climate change is too important for to be partisan - but it infuriates me when former advisors and ministers wait until out of influence before taking sides. What's the point of opposing something when out of office if you supported it while in office - working hard to help the Government advance the very plans you're going to oppose in later life? Does seem a bit silly...

Planning. But not for climate change

Planning Bill

The Planning Bill currently making its way through Parliament is yet another kick in the teeth for British democracy. The Bill has been cooked up to allow central command to force roads, runways and nuclear power stations onto unwilling communities without having to listen to any of their bleating about it in the process.

Brown's lot like to point to wind farms when asked about the reasoning behind this obviously anti-democratic piece of legislation. But this week they demonstrated quite clearly the true motivation behind it – by voting against an amendment that would have meant Ministers had to demonstrate every major infrastructure project's role in the mitigation of climate change before granting it permission.

Since that would have been, hmm - a bit hard for the new generation of coal fired power stations and airport expansions they've got their little hearts set on, they quite sensibly threw out the amendment. In doing so, they have nailed their true colours to the mast – and none of those colours is green. It's time to dust off the D-locks and start gearing up to fight a carbon hungry development near you. Once this Bill has been passed there'll be no other way to stop it.

Minister doesn't let the train take the strain

Choo-choo

A Freedom of Information Act request from the Department for Transport reveals that six domestic flights were taken by DfT Ministers during the twelve months leading up to October 2007. Most of these flights leave from Glasgow International, an airport conveniently located in the constituency of one Tom Harris, Minister for Rail.

Now you or I might think that Mr. Harris would be better off by train, but who knows how a Minister's mind works? Perhaps he should spend less time jetting about on short-haul flights, and more time on the choo-choos he's meant to be in charge of...

On a lighter note, another FOI request shows that the least popular Minister at the DfT is Jim Fitzpatrick, Minister for the Environment and Aviation. He sent 150 Christmas cards this year, while his colleagues all sent 200 or more.

Warning: avoid the top spin

Top spin

In October, Plane Stupid reported how Tom Kelly - the Blairite spin doctor who had to apologise to David Kelly's family after calling him a Walter Mitty character - had gone to join BAA as their director of corporate affairs.

The Guardian writes today that he commutes to work between Northern Ireland and Heathrow and that he denies BAA might just have taken him on for his ministerial phone book.

"The last thing I would want to be seen to do is play on the contacts I have from government."

I can't believe BAA would hire a spin doctor for his contacts. Surely the only spin they'd want from him would be on the tennis courts?

Heathow: not 700 but 4,000 homes destroyed

Map of Sipson

Just when you thought the expansion couldn't get any worse; yesterday's Westminster Hall debate revealed that the third runway could see up to 4,000 houses destroyed, with 10,000 people forced out of their homes.

John McDonnell, MP for Hayes and Harlington, made clear that this was not going to be the last we hear of Heathrow in Parliament: "We shall apply regularly for debates on different aspects of the matter, so I warn the Minister not to plan any lengthy holidays next year, and certainly not to plan any via Heathrow".

Blears gets roasting in Planning Bill debate

Blears protest

Oh to have been in Parliament on Monday - although I'm not sure I'm allowed in anymore, given what happened last time...

The Government's Planning Bill - basically an attempt to prevent another Terminal 5 inquiry (the longest in British legal history) - was up for discussion, and MPs from all sides of the House chimed in to criticise Hazel Blears and her madcapped schemes to steamroller through public opinion.

Predict and it will be provided, part two

Keep us flying!

In an earlier article, I talked about 'predict and provide', a pro-growth transport policy model which has lead to self-fulfilling and exponential growth in surface transport. In this article I'll be looking at the Government's argument that Heathrow must be expanded to meet the growing demand for air travel, and consider if this is a predict and provide approach.

Let's quickly recap on predict and provide. Officials make a prediction based on current growth rates, and extrapolate future data. It is presumed that this demand cannot be checked (because demand is caused by forces over which the Government has no control) and therefore the space for the demand to grow into is provided.