Rachel Gives A Thumbs Up To The Third Runway

Some positive comments here: (Source: Quoted verbatim in the Guardian).
Business groups have strongly welcomed the measures in Rachel Reeves’ speech this morning.

Rain Newton-Smith, CEO at the CBI, said:
"It’s crunch time for growth and today the chancellor has heeded business’ call to go further and faster. This is most evident in ministers grasping decisions that have sat on the desk of government for too long. This positive leadership and a clear vision to kickstart the economy and boost productivity is welcome …
The chancellor’s announcements are smart, looking to leverage the UK’s strengths including our world class universities, innovation and openness to global talent.

Shevaun Haviland, director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, said:
The chancellor has laid down a clear marker on her intent to push for growth and these proposals can light the blue touchpaper to fire up the UK economy.
Expanding our international airport capacity, investing in modern roads and railways, and rebalancing the planning system all send signals that the UK is building for a better future.
And Tina McKenzie, policy chair of the Federation of Small Businesses, said:
Today’s rallying cry for government to choose growth is exactly what the economy needs. It sends a strong, confident message that from now on growth comes first, and any barriers to that will be erased."

I do know from friends in the construction industry that there are major projects with planning in place that have only been waiting for funding to be released to get spades in the ground.
Maybe a broader view is helpful?

It is. Reeves wouldn't have gone ahead without the backing of the CBI and other business leaders.

I’ve long been in favour of additional runways at both Heathrow and Gatwick, rather than the ‘one or the other’ scenario.

Air travel isn’t going away, and those two are, I believe, the busiest airports in the country so expansion is long overdue.

Scarily though I have heard talk about electric planes in the future.

Nothing this government does makes sense. How does a third runway at Heathrow sit with their obsession with Net Zero? Also, as a previous poster said I thought us plebs were being urged to fly less or even give up flying.

I suppose because it's always a balance between business/growth and environment? I don't feel qualified to judge, but I do understand that's the task ahead.

Apparently scientists say the Doomsday clock has moved one second closer to midnight. It started in 1947, 77 years ago, at 7 minutes to midnight. Now there are 89 seconds to go.
We should be discouraging flying not wanting more planes in.the air.
We can see what is happening with flooding, fires and more severe weather than ever before.
No point having growth if the earth is dying.

Reeves could help business today by reversing some of her Budget decisions and getting some of the proposed new employment rights stopped. Businesses and her fabled working people need help today, not a promise of some big schemes years ahead. The only proposals that I am supportive of are the Oxford-Cambridge rail link, which the cost of covid put on ice, and proposed improvements to rail links between other towns. Those are realistic targets bringing tangible benefits. A third runway at Heathrow will cause misery for thousands if not millions of people.

Can anyone explain why Heathrow is the preferred option for expansion and not Stansted? The new Oxford Cambridge world beating? What was it again? Well surely an airport nearer this world busting enterprise will be more useful than expanding Heathrow? Or will just the Oxford end require air transport?

Is Rachel no longer a thief? Is Rachel from accounts going to be more accountable.

There are supposed to be improvements to Luton airport. Given the climate damage caused by flying, why is any expansion under consideration?

I think we probably need it, but it's going to cause all sorts of trouble.
Hey-ho!

ronib

Can anyone explain why Heathrow is the preferred option for expansion and not Stansted? The new Oxford Cambridge world beating? What was it again? Well surely an airport nearer this world busting enterprise will be more useful than expanding Heathrow? Or will just the Oxford end require air transport?

There have been rumblings regards a second runway at Stanstead ever since I can remember.

It is currently inline for a £1.1 billion upgrade, this was confirmed in October 2024. Construction is due to start this year.

On completion it will be the UK’s second biggest airport (behind Heathrow but in front of Gatwick)

I am intrigued by the idea of our very own Silicon Valley. In theory, it sounds amazing and there are quite a few startups already here so if it works that is the future ….. and air travel connectivity will be important I guess for people like Elon Musk etc. Bring it on??

ronib

I am intrigued by the idea of our very own Silicon Valley. In theory, it sounds amazing and there are quite a few startups already here so if it works that is the future ….. and air travel connectivity will be important I guess for people like Elon Musk etc. Bring it on??

The M4 corridor is currently the UK’s technical hub

I too am on the fence.

In terms of costs? Won’t the bulk of it be met by Heathrow themselves?

www.heathrow.com/company/about-heathrow

Cossy

I too am on the fence.

In terms of costs? Won’t the bulk of it be met by Heathrow themselves?

www.heathrow.com/company/about-heathrow

What about the human cost?

ronib

I am intrigued by the idea of our very own Silicon Valley. In theory, it sounds amazing and there are quite a few startups already here so if it works that is the future ….. and air travel connectivity will be important I guess for people like Elon Musk etc. Bring it on??

This isn’t anything new.

We can’t have the penny and the bun, it’s as simple as that. If we want economic growth we have to provide the infrastructure to enable growth to happen. Every new piece of the infrastructure jigsaw comes with downsides. I don’t like there being a need to build more runways, but I do understand it.

Barleyfields

There are supposed to be improvements to Luton airport. Given the climate damage caused by flying, why is any expansion under consideration?

Because changing technology means aircraft will not always be polluting. Look at what Brittany Ferries have done to reduce the pollution from their fleet.

Barleyfields I agree, I was referring only to the financial cost.

For me, I like to see some innovative ways to mitigate ie trees, cleaner fuels, something magical invention I’ve never heard of??!

Human cost and the cost to our planet should always be a consideration.

Barleyfields yes you are correct. The Oxford Cambridge Silicon Valley is not anything new ….. I was a bit misled by Rachel yet again today. She was presenting this as the next great economic opportunity….. funny lady.

Yes, I lived and worked in the area for many years and she seems to be presenting as new something which has been developing for years. It’s something in which Oxford and Cambridge universities and their spin-offs excel and I find it distasteful that Reeves is presenting it as a Labour initiative. It’s anything but, and the rail link would be in place now were it not for the huge expense of coping with covid. Meanwhile, the universities and the R&D companies, some of which have been going for decades, have been very successfully getting on with things.

Third runways will take decades to be built given activism, Court cases, etc. Maybe those being born this year will benefit from such infrastructure projects adding to growth but I doubt I shall see any benefit and will probably experience some disruption from the works.

Heathrow won’t take years before it starts I don’t think, it’s already been to the Supreme Court.

You are very optimistic Casdon. Homes and businesses will have to be compulsorily purchased and the complexities are such that it will be years before a start is made. See above re effect on the M25 for starters.