Rachel Gives A Thumbs Up To The Third Runway

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’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.

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

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?

I'm "Switzerland" on this because of the pros and cons as regards us as a trading nation and Heathrow is at bursting point versus environment and related issues. I think debates within Labour eg Khan is healthy not a "minus".

A very “courageous” move bearing in mind that it’s not going to be operational for 10 yrs when it’s quite likely that we won’t have a Labour government. If the Tech industry is going to be developed in the Oxford/Cambridge area expansion of Stansted would seem useful.

If climate targets are to be met expanding air travel does not seem a good choice, sustainable it is not and never will be, however much they try to justify it. Even if Hydrogen transport does become economic, green hydrogen is very expensive to manufacture

We live near the proposed East West Rail from Oxford to Cambridge and house prices have already plummeted.

I feel really sorry for the people living in yet another flight path.

Reeves’s response to one reporter after her speech, when they spoke about the numbers of jobs being shed due to the Budget, was to point to the thousands of new jobs today’s revelations would create. She just doesn’t get it, does she? The possibility of a job sometime after 2030 isn’t much use to someone getting their P45 today.

So a third runway. More planes. More circling planes. And so it goes on

I live close to Heathrow but am not on the flight path. If we do get another runway, that may change, but I doubt if I will be on this planet then.

I lived in West London for nearly 40 years, when the children were growing up, they were asthmatic, one had permanent glue ear. Our GP told us that was a common problem with children in the area, combined fumes from M25 and Heathrow. It's going to be a lot worse then.

Good take on her speech by Matthew Lynn in the Telegraph just now:

“The real problem, however, is this. These announcements are not going to fix the damage done by Reeves’s Budget. The huge rise in employers’ NI, the tax on jobs, is still in place. The nom-doms are still being driven out, along with the investment they bring into the UK, and family businesses are still going to be wiped out by inheritance tax charges, while beefed-up employment law will make it punishingly expensive to hire people. Those are now the real barriers to growth.

Reeves’s personal tragedy is that she got this the wrong way around. She should have delivered today’s speech on growth in August, immediately after taking office, and then followed it up, if necessary, with tax rises on businesses in October. She might just have made it work. Instead, she shattered confidence in the British economy, and brought growth to a sudden stop. It is too late to turn that around now – no matter how many ‘growth’ speeches she delivers.”

The number of aeroplanes circling above Heathrow every day because there’s insufficient room for them to land must be dropping so many tons of pollution into the air is the reason that I actually approve this.
However I’m obviously in a minority on GN.
I feel very sorry for people who may lose their homes if this goes ahead though.
I hope we don’t waste millions starting the project and then abandoning it though, at least let’s hope it either gets done or not, and not do half the job and then abandon it with all the attendant waste.

My area was promised a hospital rebuild in 2010 - now rescheduled yet again for 2032. Obviously announcing Heathrow Airport expansion is no guarantee that it will happen in any reasonable timeframe. Personally I think it’s more important to keep people alive than airborne!

Another crazy idea. Money being thrown away again a bit like HS2.
I hope it doesn't go ahead not least for all the people who will have to move out if it's way

Milliband.

I wish Starmer had the guts to sack him - it would boost his hopeless popularity as PM.

Resign Ed. You said you would in 2009!
This morning when asked this by a reporter he replied “Don’t be silly”.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Milliband says ‘no’.
Sadiq Khan says ‘no’.

It was voted ‘yes’ in the HoC in 2018.
But Labour opposed it.

The M25 will have to be shut for months at weekends.

It will take more than 10 years to be up and operational if it happens.
Clue: it won’t.

That’s my opinion also FGT2 just word salad to appease someone or some business or other

Milliband says ‘no’.
Sadiq Khan says ‘no’.

It was voted ‘yes’ in the HoC in 2018.
But Labour opposed it.

The M25 will have to be shut for months at weekends.

It will take more than 10 years to be up and operational if it happens.
Clue: it won’t.

Indeed. I lived near (but, thankfully, sufficiently far away from) Stansted airport during the years of fighting a second runway there. I remember the houses compulsorily purchased by BAA, many of which were then demolished. The proposal blighted a significant area, and was eventually dropped but by then huge damage had been done. Here we go again.

I am interested to see what GN members who are pro Ed Millibands green agenda think of the Heathrow third runway.

It goes against being told to fly less, then again the WEF in Davos last week the local airport was standing room only with planes (commercial and private)

I imagine the people in the vicinity must be in turmoil, they will not be able to sell their homes, waiting for compulsory purchase etc.

If this wasn't such a stupid idea, it would be funny.

keepingquiet

Maybe it will help our new trade deals we have to be looking for after Brexit?

Oh dear me, not again. If she hadn't made such a b---- up of the economy, not just my take, business as well, she wouldn't have agreed to it, more homes and businesses to hit the dust.
Still Labour will have run its course by the time this insane idea even gets to the planning stage.
What hypocrites they are,bet williband isn't happy, puts his net zero well onto the back burner .

Crossed posts tanith.