The planet is the big loser in Brown's economic assault

Labour looks set to let airports expand in the name of fighting recession. And the new climate secretary is silent

Jackie Ashley
The Guardian,
Monday November 3 2008

Can we add the environment to the roll call of casualties of recession? There is a nail-biting tussle going on at the centre of government about the planned expansion of both Heathrow and Stansted airports, and all the signs are that No 10 remains on the wrong side of the argument. Get ready for this: "In these difficult times it is - hrrumph - all the more important to listen to business and - hrrumph - invest for the future."
The prime case against another runway at Heathrow, and a major expansion at Stansted, remains stark. If you take climate change seriously then you can't go along with a philosophy of constant and continuing expansion of air travel. While it's true that carbon emissions from air travel are only around 6.3% of the UK's total, this is likely to soar. Listen to this: "Forecasts suggest that emissions from flying could make up between 10 and 16% of the UK's contribution to climate change by 2020, if no action is taken to lessen the environmental impacts." Alarmist Guardian nonsense? Er, no, actually, it comes from the government's own website.
Yet when it comes to a choice between general principle and the sharp pointed edge of a business lobbying campaign, things don't work out that way. Heathrow has atrocious road links back into London. Most of the year, most times of the day, they seem to be snarled up and crawling. Its jets roar over densely populated areas every 30 seconds at some periods, with a level of noise pollution that is becoming intolerable, particularly for the lower income housing nearest the airport.
When T5 was being lobbied for, everyone was promised this was not a prelude to a third runway, and when the inquiry into the runway took place, we were assured it was a genuinely open one, and that all options were on the table. Now the government faces a backbench revolt, the mask slips. Briefings over the past few days suggest that Gordon Brown and Geoff Hoon, the transport secretary, will ride roughshod over the critics. They want to push through approval of the new runway so that when the Tories come to power, it's too late to cancel. "We have to show that we are on the side of business," says one minister.
The story with Stansted is similar. Here BAA wants to double the number of flights to almost half a million a year, adding 40 million passengers. The expansion plan would destroy numerous listed buildings and two ancient monuments, and gobble up three square miles of countryside. As with Heathrow, the impatience of ministers is palpable. The planning inspector was told his report was wanted by Christmas, which is considerably earlier than it would normally be, and the public inquiry is being accelerated so the go-ahead can be given before the general election.
The Conservatives are for now on the other side of the argument. They have said they would refuse permission for the Stansted expansion and are hostile to the third Heathrow runway, suggesting a new high-speed rail link to the north and Midlands instead. Separately, the London mayor, Boris Johnson, has revived the idea of a new airport to the east of the city, at the Isle of Sheppey in Kent.
There is no doubt that the expansion plans for both airports are hugely unpopular in the areas affected by their flightpaths. A swath of Labour ministers and MPs can expect to lose their seats if Heathrow's third runway is given the go-ahead. Tory opposition doesn't just fit with their proclaimed green agenda, but makes good sense politically. Which raises the obvious question: what in the world is No 10 up to?
The most cynical explanation, which I have heard buzzing around in the past few days, is simply that ministers who know they have lost the next election are cosying up to the business interests that may help them out in the private sector afterwards. New Labour has close links with BAA, and the big-business lobby for Heathrow may still be in a position to offer cushy jobs, recession or not. Loth as I am to admit there might be a shred of truth in that, it wouldn't be the first time favours done in government have been repaid afterwards.
Gordon Brown is not that kind of character. More likely, but just as dangerous, is that he believes this is clever politics. He thinks that in a recession, the party which seems most pro-business will gain. As deep fear grips the electorate over unemployment and bankruptcy, green arguments about the way we live, about pollution and climate change, will seem merely namby-pamby and irrelevant. If Labour commits itself to job-creating grand projects, and the Tories are forced to promise to try to halt them, then it is David Cameron who will suddenly look silly and old-fashioned.
But how does that fit with rushing through the decisions before the election? Surely, if Brown thinks expanding Heathrow and Stansted will be popular, and opposing it will lose Cameron votes in bleak times, he should want the choice left as clear and open as possible when the election comes. Why the rush? Why the first signs of a dirty tricks campaign aimed at John Grogan, the Labour backbencher leading the revolt? Why not let the inquiries play out in their own good time? After all, with airlines going bust all over the place, and the pound weak, we hardly need much busier skies tomorrow.
I fear what has happened is this. Brown, as a classic Labour man, was never keen on the environmental arguments. Hearing Cameron chirrup on about voting blue and going green merely stoked his contempt. He doesn't much care about a clutch of ministers and MPs whose seats will be lost if Heathrow expands; he's more interested in a national argument about priorities. Heathrow and Stansted have become willing conscripts for his assault on the recession. And if it all goes wrong, the Tories will be left to pick up the pieces.
Is this not the politics of despair? To write off seats as lost before the election happens; to ditch the single most important long-term argument about the way we live? And to plan to attack the Tories for the only distinctively progressive policy they have had is hardly the strategy of a self-confident administration. The cabinet itself, like the parliamentary Labour party, is still divided. But the minister from whom we haven't yet heard a cheep is the new energy and climate change secretary Ed Miliband.
He's been spoken of as a future leader. He is often at the PM's side. Yet he is said not yet to be "fully briefed" about the arguments and is therefore not ready to comment. Well, if your grand new cabinet title means a thing, and you're really made of the right stuff - now, Ed, is the time for an ear-splitting cheep.jackie.ashley@guardian.co.uk