You would think Miliband would be able to sort this out himself, I’ve got to say at this moment in time Miliband does not look like a very strong leader, he says very little except attack the Tories, which is very easy, but he says very little about what he would do.

I’m not sure of him and I suspect Darling will soon be moving on, retirement

Retirement or not, Darling could have been talking sense.

The consequences of not having a third runway at Heathrow could easily be that the airport looses its present status as an international hub as that would move to Schiphol in the Netherlands or to the Charles De Gaulle airport in France. We need to consider the resulting implications for employment and business in Britain as well as the environmental impact and party politics.

1. The government is making no effort to grow the economy which is stagnating and there are an increasing volume of voices saying that expanding airport capacity would help. In truth, Ed had the wrong policy in the first place. We either build a new airport (which would take longer and be prohibitively expensive) or expand Heathrow. A u-turn on this ought to be easy. I don’t know whether it’s easier to let the Tories take the blame followed by us changing policy, or for us to take the lead in making the case for growth. I’d prefer we did the latter.

2. Does it make sense to wait for hard evidence that we’re losing investment for lack of airport capacity before we take steps to mitigate that risk? It will take a few years to build a new runway or runways anyway. This is exactly the short-sighted behaviour which has left us where we are today.

3. Darling is a former Chancellor and one of the handful of people in the PLP who are very well qualified to talk about economic issues. Decisions about national infrastructure projects should not be made by those who have a political interest in them not happening, or in leading campaigns against them.

4. I agree a third runway is not the ultimate solution to this, but we shouldn’t let the best be the enemy of the good. Heathrow or another hub airport probably will need at least a fourth runway, yes – Amsterdam Schiphol has 6 runways and handles 50% fewer passengers – but how long do you propose we wait to make some progress?

Er, 40%, I meant to say.

Sunny, this pretty much reads as “I’m all for backbenchers criticising Shadow Cabinet members, unless I disagree with them”. No issue with your criticisms of Darling’s views, but you should separate them from the “who does he think he is?” rhetoric of the article.

So backbenchers should toe the line and never speak out? Were you as critical about the rebels who voted against the Iraq War, or is voicing a contrary opinion only acceptable if it is one that you agree with?

I disagree with Darling’s opinion on this issue, but I’d rather see more backbencher’s willing to criticise the leadership of their own parties.

Was this not government policy when Ed was in cabinet?

Phil: are an increasing volume of voices saying that expanding airport capacity would help.

And they’re wrong, because the economy isn’t growing because there isn’t enough demand in the economy. Adding another runway to Heathrow will mean squat.

2. Does it make sense to wait for hard evidence that we’re losing investment for lack of airport capacity before we take steps to mitigate that risk?

you mean to say – ‘why look for evidence when we can just carry on spending money on silly projects that yield no benefit, only to find out later that cursory research would have said it would be a waste of money’ – That’s what you mean, right?

Decisions about national infrastructure projects should not be made by those who have a political interest in them not happening, or in leading campaigns against them.

I think you misunderstand politics then. It is ALWAYS about lives being affected by decisions.

but how long do you propose we wait to make some progress?

This isn’t a solution – this is a call to do something, without knowing what would be a useful and sensible solution.

Jimmy: Was this not government policy when Ed was in cabinet?

Yes, but he was bound by collective responsibility. As environment minister he was against it, albeit privately.

PS – I’m all for backbenchers speaking out, providing they say something sensible. This, for four reasons I’ve laid out, isn’t very sensible.

‘Mr Darling’s constituency is Edinburgh South West. Maybe if he was a West London MP, who would face huge revolts if the TR went ahead, he wouldn’t be so blasé about the issue.’

I’m not so sure about that. Expanding Heathrow would result in quite a few additional jobs; I think that not a few people in West London would be willing to forgo two small Middlesex villages and tolerate some more planes flying around for that.

@ Sunny

“I’m all for backbenchers speaking out, providing they say something sensible. This, for four reasons I’ve laid out, isn’t very sensible.”

The problem is that you open the article by attacking Darling for daring to voice an opinion as a backbencher, and then openly admit that you’re only doing that because you disagree with said opinion. Which firstly leads me to enquire what position you yourself hold in the Shadow Cabinet, but more importantly is a ridiculous case of bias. Your position seems to be “people I disagree with ought to STFU”.

Sunny, I should add that the impression I’m getting off this article is probably not what you intended, and is out of character for you. But it does come off that way.

Chaise

sometimes you go out of your way to be such a gentleman!

Sunny may well not have intended it – but is it really so uncommon for him on LC to lean towards wanting those he disagrees with to STFU (as you put it).

This article is naive in tbe extreme.
Just because it isn’t party policy doesn’t mean it might not be correct.

The best case against a third runway at Heathrow is the one Justine Greening got herself into trouble over ” What do we do later on when we need to expand Heathrow to have a fourth runway?”

Having said that I thing nothing should be off limits. If it means building over the grotty village between Heathrow and the Holiday Inn by the M4 so be it. Just get on with it.

But they won’t. Remember the design of Terminal 5 commenced prior to the design of Chep Lap Kok in Hong Kong – yet CLK airport was built on a newly formed island within 7years long before the design of T5 was concluded.

“Yes, but he was bound by collective responsibility.”

So because he flipped to win the leadership election everyone else in that cabinet has to follow suit?

Darling was chancellor in what was, at the time, the worst government we’d had since Major. (I’m being charitable in that estimation, I could have compared him to Tony Barber though that would make him look more interesting than he deserves.)

Sunny is right, this is just attention seeking in anticipation of the conference season. No doubt he’ll be schmoozed by the right business people and get a few lucrative jobs as a consequence.

Now, what’s the right thing for the country…?

Chaise – fair enough. Wasn’t my intention though.

I’m not so sure about that. Expanding Heathrow would result in quite a few additional jobs

You should ask the MPs from West London what they think. One resigned as a minister when Labour in govt tried to push this forward.

“Fourth: A Third Runway is a stop-gap measure. I agree with Justine Greening when she said we have to look more broadly and think longer term, or else we’d have Darling whining about not building Fourth Runway in a few years.”

– this year scientists are recording the lowest ever extent of Arctic sea ice.

– weather models identify that lower temperature gradient between Arctic and temperate areas mean jet stream moving north. Means we don’t get azores high. Means we have shit summer.

So I would correct your last statement:

In calling for a Third Runway, Darling betrays a total lack of foresight and long term planning that will have his grandchildren outraged.

@13. Kojak: “Having said that I thing nothing should be off limits. If it means building over the grotty village between Heathrow and the Holiday Inn by the M4 so be it. Just get on with it.”

When you go to Heathrow by road or rail, you cannot escape noticing that it is surrounded by bland conurbation and industrial estates. The area around it is without charm. When you look at aerial photographs of the area proposed for the third Heathrow runway, the first observation is that it is an island surrounded by bland conurbation and a motorway.

I acknowledge that there are some places of historic and architectural interest in the vicinity. They are not national monuments. Get on with rebuilding Heathrow and record the history.

“Remember the design of Terminal 5 commenced prior to the design of Chep Lap Kok in Hong Kong – yet CLK airport was built on a newly formed island within 7years long before the design of T5 was concluded.”

Err, Kojak, the Hong Kong airport was created on top of a few rocks using boats to transport materials. The developers had a free hand — the adjacent island has a modest population and islanders were given a free metro link to carry tourists as compensation.

T5 was constructed in a densely populated area where businesses have conflicting commercial interests. Construction materials for T5 were carried across the most congested road and rail networks in the UK — a bit of a logistical challenge.

@8 Sunny: And they’re wrong, because the economy isn’t growing because there isn’t enough demand in the economy. Adding another runway to Heathrow will mean squat.

There isn’t enough demand in the economy, but this could be rectified by a programme of infrastructure investment, perhaps including a 3rd runway.

Charlieman re comment 18:

Thanks for your reply,

Do you really consider the logistics of building Terminal 5 at Heathrow (where 4 terminals and transport links already existed) was more problematic than building an entire international airport including runways, terminal, hangers, maintenance buildings, tower, railway and road network including suspension bridges – not forgetting CLK is on a separate island formed in the sea?

Having witnessed it first hand then returned to the UK to find T5 not even started I suggest otherwise.

until labour is elected on no thrid runway it doenst break promises, and as ed was part of a cabinet in 2005 who wanted it, id’ say the oposite is true

So where does this leave Tim Yeo? Aside from in a mousetrap…?

Dr. Paul: “I think that not a few people in West London would be willing to forgo two small Middlesex villages and tolerate some more planes flying around for that.”
Firstly, it’s three villages (Sipson, Harmondsworth, Harlington).

Secondly, they’re not that small. London has a housing shortage already.
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Harlington,+London&hl=en&ll=51.486287,-0.436342&spn=0.010676,0.01929&sll=52.8382,-2.327815&sspn=10.613487,19.753418&t=h&hnear=Harlington,+Greater+London,+United+Kingdom&z=16

Thirdly, it will render a wider area uninhabitable through aircraft noise.

And finally, not a soul on this thread has mentioned climate change yet. I suppose it must have been determined that it cannot possibly exist, because it conflicts with the ever-urgent need of the aviation industry to maximise profits.

There will likely be less pressure on housing in London if Heathrow’s international hub status migrates to Schipol-Amsterdam or to Charles De Gaulle near Paris, along with the employment.

As for the noise, the lastest airliners are quieter than early generations but the quieter airliners would likely be attracted to the new international hub leaving the noisier older airliners to service Heathrow.