The furious Green Blob will try to destroy these Heathrow plans
Somewhere in Prime Minister Keir Starmer's 2026 diary an entry has been written marked 'bottle Heathrow decision'. At least that is a reasonable assumption based the current administration's record with hard choices, and a history of similar cave-ins by governments of all stripes since the 2003 Air Transport White Paper first proposed Heathrow expansion.
I will not remake the case for encouraging people to visit the UK. It should be self-evident to anyone professing to care about growth that making it easier to move people and things is as essential as having secure abundant energy. To do that we need more planes, and planes need more runways and airports. I will not remake the case for this scheme.
There are other proposals, including a second Heathrow option, other airports, and a filing cabinet full of wilder ideas like Boris Island. A serious country would be thinking about doing most or all of them.
But Britain is not a serious country, it's a climate cult living in a heritage theme park governed by anxiety-riddled children nannied by lawyers. Gaze if you will for example on the specimens running the capital. Top beetle on the dung-heap of wilfully managed decline is the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan. He helped successfully delay expansion back in 2020, using a legal challenge on the grounds of non-compliance with the Paris Agreement on climate change.
He was aided by his predecessor and then-prime minister Boris Johnson who, in the midst of his Glasgow COP-inspired climate mania, bottled the government response. It was left to the airport, who had the mad decision overturned by the Supreme Court at vast cost. Khan however was backed by most of the MPs and councils in London, all of whom were responding to the political incentives provided by British planning rules and net zero.
Not that airport expansion is unpopular – more are in favour than against, according to polling. But where there is opposition, it is concentrated and vocal. When you throw in climate laws and environmental permitting, infrastructure decisions can be cynically delayed by activists for years. This is getting worse since international courts like the ECJ and ICJ ruled, some would say reasonably, that governments foolish enough to sign these treaties should abide by them. Khan can now argue that any activity that increases emissions, which more flying certainly will (if we ignore fantasy plans for negative emissions technology), is illegal.
We have then a cynical stand-off between the Cabinet, including a disingenuously neutral Ed Miliband, who know the country desperately needs growth, versus local politicians, Nimbys and activists who like growth in theory, just not near them. Unless something radically changes, this proposal will spend years in dismal process and courtrooms before vanishing back into the 'too difficult' box, as those responsible wring their hands and cry 'what could we do?'.
It is, however, relatively simple. The Climate Change Act and related targets need to be scrapped, or at the very least reduced from a legally binding commitment to a statement of ambition. The UK either needs to withdraw from the Paris Agreement or make it clear that its contribution to saving the planet from eternal summer will be a dividend of growth through innovation, not a curtailment by banning activities. This approach has the side benefit of encouraging investment in quieter, lower-carbon flight, rather than driving such animal spirits and wealth offshore, where they have airports and fewer taxes. The planning Acts and related nature laws need to be reined in, reduced, and be subject to an absolute veto for the building of major infrastructure.
Those are all things this or any future UK government could do if it wished to be serious again. In the interim you would be unwise to book a flight. The UK's ongoing capacity problems are increasing, airport congestion is growing, and as an aside so are global emissions. Our friends and rivals are simply far better at saying no to the climate children and their legal guardians. Change the laws, ignore the moaners, expand the airport.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
6 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Small boat migrants who lodge human rights claims will DODGE removal to France under Labour's new scheme
Small boat migrants who lodge human rights claims in Britain will evade being returned to France under a massive loophole in Labour's new deal. They will be ruled out of new deportation measures if legal claims are outstanding or if they claim to be under 18, it emerged. Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said the human rights loophole would be 'ruthlessly exploited' by lawyers. A new treaty with President Emmanuel Macron 's government, published today, also disclosed the British taxpayer will foot the bill for both sides of the deal, which will see migrants who came here illegally across the Channel exchanged 'one for one' with others still in France. Migrants in France will be flown to Britain by the Home Office and handed a visa to live here for up to three months after successfully applying, while their final application is considered. Officials insisted there will be 'rigorous' security checks even though the French will not hand over any personal details on migrants coming here – including any criminal records they may hold on them. The first small boat arrivals could be detained as early as tomorrow for possible removal to France. However, the details of the treaty open up the prospect of human rights lawyers encouraging migrants to lodge spurious claims simply to avoid being earmarked for removal. Under the terms of the agreement the Home Office will confirm after selecting a migrant that 'at the time of their transfer that person will not have an outstanding human rights claim'. It also sets out how removals will be blocked if a migrant has outstanding legal challenges or has obtained an injunction from a court which bars their removal. There was confusion over a further clause referring to human rights claims which have been ruled by Home Office caseworkers to be 'clearly unfounded'. Mr Philp said the drafting of the clause showed even 'clearly unfounded' claims would successfully block deportation – but the Home Office disputed his reading of the text. A migrant attempts to board a dinghy off Gravelines beach, near Dunkirk, last week As it was unveiled for the first time less than a month ago, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer hailed the deal as 'groundbreaking' and promised small boats migrants would be 'detained and returned to France in short order'. Mr Philp said: 'This deal is likely to be completely unworkable and will be ruthlessly exploited by human rights lawyers to prevent people being returned to France. 'Even a 'clearly unfounded' human rights claim will stop a return to France while it goes through a lengthy court process.' He added: 'This deal has no numbers in it - presumably because they are so small. 'And the deal says that France will not provide any information at all about those they are sending to the UK - so they could be criminals or terrorists and we wouldn't know. 'This is a bad deal, which won't work.' The treaty confirmed any migrant who claims to be an 'unaccompanied minor' will not be deported. There has been a series of cases in recent years which have seen asylum seekers falsely claim to be under 18. The UK will fund flights from France for migrants selected to come here under the scheme, the treaty went on, as well as paying for migrants to be removed. Home Office officials who accompany migrants on removals flights will not be allowed to use physical force in France, prompting questions about their safety aboard the aircraft. Both France and the UK will be able to suspend the deal with just one week's notice – and fully terminate it with one month's notice. Separate documents revealed migrants brought to the UK as part of the deal will be barred from working or accessing benefits during the initial three month period, while the Home Office considers whether it will grant a longer visa. It is unclear where the migrants will be housed, however, opening the prospect of them being placed in taxpayer-funded hotels. The number of people accepted from France will have a 'cap' equal to the number of small boat migrants who are sent back under the deal, the documents showed. But the Home Office was unable to confirm the level of the cap. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper repeatedly refused to say how many migrants will be returned under the deal because it 'could help the smuggling gangs'. Last month it was suggested the scheme would see 50 migrants a week sent back to France. At that rate, just 2,200 would be returned before the agreement expires on June 11 next year By comparison, a record 25,436 migrants have reached Britain by small boat since the start of the year, up 49 per cent on the same period last year. Meanwhile, pro-migrant groups have already indicated they are prepared to bring legal challenges against the new policy – just as they did against the previous Conservative government's Rwanda asylum deal. Steve Valdez-Symonds of Amnesty International UK said: 'We anticipate that this deal is likely to face legal challenges from people who quite reasonably will resist being swapped around like mere fodder rather than addressing the claim for asylum they have made.'
The Independent
7 minutes ago
- The Independent
Badenoch says Truss ‘carries quite a lot blame' for Tory record of as war of words continues
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has said Liz Truss 'carries quite a lot of' responsibility for the party's record amid a row over the party's direction. Responding after former prime minister Ms Truss accused her of 'repeating spurious narratives', Badenoch said she was 'very focused on what the Conservatives are going to do now'. The Leader of the Opposition faced questions about Ms Truss's claim that under the Conservatives, 'the economy was wrecked with profligate Covid spending by (Rishi) Sunak' and that 'the huge increase in immigration has been a disaster'. Mrs Badenoch told ITV Anglia: 'I know that, as a former prime minister and a former foreign secretary, (Ms Truss) carries quite a lot of that blame. 'The party's now under new leadership. 'I wasn't in charge during those 14 years; she was. 'That's a criticism she's probably levelling at herself.' The Tory leader also said she was 'telling the truth' about her party's record. 'I'm telling the truth that immigration was too high – that's why we have much tougher policies to fix immigration,' she continued. 'I am telling the truth that taxes were too high, that we were putting a lot of regulation on businesses, and what we're seeing is Labour making every single thing worse. 'They're doing that because they haven't learned many of the lessons that we learned. They haven't learned from our mistakes. They're making worse mistakes.' The Labour government's mistakes include making 'no cut in spending at all – the books were not balanced', Mrs Badenoch claimed. 'We're spending more on welfare than we are on defence – that cannot continue,' she said. Mrs Badenoch had previously told The Telegraph that 'for all their mocking of Liz Truss, Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have not learnt the lessons of the mini-budget and are making even bigger mistakes'. Ms Truss, who spent 49 days in Number 10, hit back when she said that 'instead of serious thinking', Mrs Badenoch was 'repeating spurious narratives'. She continued: 'I suspect she is doing this to divert from the real failures of 14 years of Conservative government in which her supporters are particularly implicated. 'It was a fatal mistake not to repeal Labour legislation like the Human Rights Act because the modernisers wanted to be the 'heirs to Blair'. 'Huge damage was done to our liberties through draconian lockdowns and enforcement championed by Michael Gove and Dominic Cummings. 'The economy was wrecked with profligate Covid spending by Sunak. The huge increase in immigration has been a disaster.' Mrs Badenoch also took questions about her identity, after she told the Rosebud podcast: 'I have not renewed my Nigerian passport, I think, not since the early 2000s. 'I don't identify with it any more, most of my life has been in the UK and I've just never felt the need to.' The North West Essex MP told ITV Anglia: 'I am definitely an Essex girl, that is a fact.' A London Assembly member before she took her Commons seat in 2017, Mrs Badenoch said: 'I represent an Essex constituency, these are my people. 'I was a Londoner, but Essex people asked me to be their MP, and I want to make sure that I do them proud. And I love this part of the world. 'It's fantastic being here. It's a rural community, and I've been talking to the farmers here. I talked about how my grandfather was a farmer, it's very hard work. 'The people of Essex and East Anglia – they are grafters. 'They work hard, and I want to make sure that we do right by them.' Mrs Badenoch spent Tuesday morning at a farm in Little Walden, where she tried her hand at harvesting wheat using a Claas Lexion combine harvester. She told farmers: 'A lot of farming just feels like constant interference. 'Everything is interfered from the minute you wake up.' Examples of interference included 'chemicals and insecticide, people you're hiring, how much you've got to pay them', plus changes to 'employers' NI (national insurance), then somebody wants to put pylons on, there's compulsory purchase, it's impacting the cost of the land, if you want to add a new farm building, there's planning applications', she said. 'It's just endless constant Government saying, 'You can't do this, you can't do that, you can't move forwards'. 'And the burden in my view has now crossed the threshold.'
Telegraph
8 minutes ago
- Telegraph
HMRC plans new private school tax grab
The Government is preparing a fresh tax grab on private school parents after Britain's richest families paid hundreds of millions of pounds of fees early to avoid VAT. HMRC will target schools where families paid several years' school fees in advance ahead of the 20 per cent levy coming into force on Jan 1 2025, meaning the payments were not taxed. Officials believe they will be able to claim that flaws in some of the advance schemes will mean tax is due after all. It comes after The Telegraph revealed on Monday that there was a surge in pre-paid fees at the top 50 private schools last year, up to £515 million, up from £121 million in 2023. Government sources said that HMRC would now 'carefully scrutinise' pre-payments amid concerns that some schools may have abused them to avoid VAT. Internal Treasury communications obtained by The Telegraph show the Government expects lengthy legal battles between HMRC and private schools as a result. A briefing note sent by Treasury officials to the Chancellor's team last summer said that 'the more egregious the [prepayment] scheme, the more easily we would expect HMRC to be able to recoup the revenue'. Private schools were deluged with fee pre-payments last year after Labour confirmed in its election manifesto that it would charge VAT on fees for the first time.
