With The Davies Commission Report launched at 7am yesterday morning, Heathrow’s PR team swung in to action and barely an hour later had letters going through the doors (Pictured, with address details removed) of local residents in Harmondsworth whose homes have been earmarked for compulsory purchase to make way for the proposed runway.
At least one resident, already worried by the news, has been reported as collapsing with shock at receiving the communication so close to the announcement.
In my opinion, this shows a remarkable lack of sensitivity on behalf of the Airport and it’s owners when dealing with people who are facing losing their homes. It is also somewhat premature, with the Government stating they will consider the report but are not going to make any final decision for some months yet and there being no guarantee that they will come down in favour of Heathrow Expansion.
Is this just another part of the Heathrow PR blitz, with the Airport thinking they can present the Third Runway as a done deal and browbeat local residents in to accepting it as a fait accompli ? If so, such behaviour will just make opposition to the project even more determined than it is now
UKIP Hillingdon Press Release – 1st July 2015
For immediate release
Davies Commission recommends Heathrow Expansion
The long awaited Davies Commission report in to aviation in the South East has been released this morning and recommends expansion at Heathrow.
UKIP Hillingdon reject the need to build an additional runway at Heathrow based on a flawed business case which is all about the profits of big overseas investors and not the needs of the UK economy and local people.
Commenting on the news, Hillingdon Chairman and spokesman for Hayes & Harlington Cliff Dixon said, “The figures show that both business and ‘hub’ flight numbers are in decline as new aircraft enable longer distance point to point flights with the trend moving from business to leisure travel.
The case for one ‘super airport’ when we already have excess capacity in the South East at Stansted, Southend and Luton and a runway that can be re-activated at Manston for larger aircraft is unproven. Indeed, the old BAA was broken up to stop one company having a monopoly on air travel around the capital yet expanding Heathrow will effectively reinforce the dominance of one site.
New York is a similar city to London and operates with multiple airports yet the Davies Commission was instructed to look at a single airport expansion only rather than consider upgrades across the South East that would put less strain on surface infrastructure and the communities that have to live around an expanded Heathrow”
UKIP Heathrow Villages spokesman Bryan Tomlinson stated, “Our community in the Villages has suffered blight, noise and pollution from Heathrow with the two runways, adding a third will make our environment impossible to live in.
Air pollution is already double the maximum safe limits – On a bad day it can be up to nine times that limit with many people suffering adverse health conditions because of the aircraft emissions and the increased traffic levels that the airport brings.
To add a third runway to benefit the pockets of rich overseas investors at the expense of our historic local area is unacceptable”
Press release ends….
with thanks to Roger Helmer MEP
There really is nothing in the Brussels cupboard
I recently wrote a piece for my newsletter (not yet published) noting that most people involved in the EU debate, including our Prime Minister, seem to make the implicit assumption that if only we could reform the EU, if only we could renegotiate our terms, there is some remaining bed-rock of benefit, some crumb of comfort, some kernel of competitiveness, that will make our EU membership worthwhile, and justify an “IN” vote. I have argued to the contrary that I see no benefit at all beyond what could be achieved by a free trade deal, and that therefore we should be Better Off Out.
So I was struck by a remarkable essay by Roger Bootle in The Telegraph of Monday June 29th (the 160th anniversary edition, as it happens), in which he argues the case that far from offering benefits, the EU has exercised a damaging and malign influence on the economiesof member-states. Admittedly, he too uses the phrase “without reform, the EU will go on being a poor economic performer”. But it is clear from his analysis that little or nothing would be left of the EU if the problems he points to were corrected. It’s a superb piece, and I strongly recommend it – especially to anyone who will be campaigning on the “OUT” side in the referendum. Indeed, I also commend it to those who plan to support the “IN” side – it may well change their minds.
He points out that “after an initial burst of success, the EU has done relatively badly economically”. Not only against emerging markets, but also compared with mature economies like the USA, Canada and Australia, and with non-EU European countries like Norway and Switzerland.
He adduces three reasons for this. First, a “general European malaise” – cultural senility, perhaps – not necessarily attributable to the EU as such. Second, EU decisions which tend to inhibit economic performance. And third, the €uro.
Rightly, he leaves the first issue as not directly caused by Brussels. But the second and third certainly are.
In terms of bad economic decisions, he points first to the CAP, which is hugely wasteful and pushes up the costs of the family shopping basket, as well as (historically) generating huge surpluses, butter mountains and wine lakes. And he cites over-regulation, which has had a dramatic and malign impact on labour markets, and a host of other areas. I would add the disaster of the Common Fisheries Policy, and the EU’s energy policies which are (as former Commissioner Antonio Tajani has put it) “creating an industrial massacre in Europe”.
“The €uro is a deliberate exercise in economic self-harm”.
Then of course, his third point is the €uro. With Greece in meltdown, I need hardly say more – except for one point. We are inclined in the UK to congratulate ourselves (or to congratulate Gordon Brown) for staying out of the €uro. Nothing to do with us, Guv. But of course it affects us enormously. It simply isn’t true (as the Europhiles love to tell us) that 50% of UK exports go to the EU, less still to the Eurozone. But it is still (for the moment) our biggest single export market, and the single currency, this deliberate policy of economic self-harm, has certainly had a depressing effect on our economy too.
So the message is clear: it simply isn’t the case that the EU would be a good thing if only we could achieve a few reforms. It simply isn’t true (as the government used to say) that “The benefits of EU membership are self-evident”. It is a bad thing all the way through. There’d be no residue of benefit when we reformed it – even if that were possible. It is becoming clearer by the day – we shall be Better Off Out.
Our local Conservative council have campaigned against it, yet in the The Queen’s Speech a green light was given on construction of the first phase. Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin MP recently stated that the return of a Conservative Government at the General Election was ‘A vote of confidence in HS2’.
Voting Conservative in Hillingdon has brought HS2 a step closer to devastating our area.
UKIP policy at both national and local level is to scrap it.
The rest of Europe knows that David Cameron is bluffing.
Whatever new deal they offer him, they know that Mr Cameron wants to lead the referendum campaign in Britain to persuade the rest of us to accept it. Not really a great negotiating position to be in, is it?