Date published: 2008/11/11
The BBC says:
Consultation over the need for a third runway at Heathrow has been a "complete sham", the Conservatives have claimed.
In a Commons debate on Heathrow expansion, shadow spokesman Theresa Villiers said the government had already made up its mind to go ahead.
But Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon said any approval would be subject to "stringent" environmental criteria.
Airport owner BAA and its main customer British Airways say the runway is vital if the airport is to stay competitive.
The Conservatives and Lib Dems oppose the idea of a new runway, as do environmental groups, while some backbench Labour MPs are calling for a rethink.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said a final decision, due next month, would be taken after "full consideration" of the environmental implications highlighted in the recent public consultation.
In the Commons, Mr Hoon said it was right that a decision was taken soon to "bring this period of uncertainty to an end" for those living close to the airport and for the country as a whole.
He denied the decision had already been made, saying ministers backed the need for additional runway capacity in south east England in principle - but would only approve the project if strict guarantees on air quality and noise levels could be satisfied.
He acknowledged the issue "aroused strong feelings" but argued that Heathrow was already operating at full capacity.
If nothing was done to remedy this, he added, flights and jobs would be lost to airports on the continent, damaging the economy.
He accused the Tories of taking "easy, populist decisions" on the issue and challenged those who wanted to "sit on their hands" to explain what the alternatives to more airport capacity were.
For the Tories, Theresa Villiers said the government's "mind has been made up for a long time" on a third runway.
She said the environmental costs outweighed the economic benefits of expansion and claimed the government "was deaf to the concerns of people about the environment".
There was a strong case for new high-speed rail lines as a "realistic and viable" alternative to the "thousands of flights clogging up Heathrow", she added.
If the bogus (and unnecessary and pointless) consultation is the only thing the Tories can argue about over Heathrow then they obviously have no real analysis to offer the country.
The Tories have long been the party of Little Englanders, and are classic NIMBYs to boot. But they also used to be the party of business, so supported Heathrow. Under Cameron they have become anti-business, so have gone completely anti-Heathrow (and anti-Stansted, etc.).
The high-speed rail lines they propose are not a "realistic and viable" alternative. For one thing, they would remove hardly any flights from Heathrow. For another, they are not really "viable" since they would require a huge taxpayer subsidy. For some reason, people who travel by plane and by car are required to pay for their journey, but people who travel by train and by bus are not.
_________________________________________________________
All material not included from other sources is copyright cambridge2000.com.
For further information or questions email: info [at] cambridge2000 [dot] com
(replace "[at]" with "@" and "[dot]" with ".").