The FT noted this morning that:
Heathrow's plan for a third runway is facing growing political uncertainty as the chances rise of chancellor Rachel Reeves leaving office this year, people close to the airport and the government have said.
The airport faces a race to secure formal planning approval for the runway — needed before it can begin building — before 2029. Many in the industry consider the timeline extremely ambitious.
Reeves resurrected the third runway plan in January 2025 and has been seen as a champion of the project. Losing her as chancellor would “risk” the entire project, a person close to Heathrow said.
Why note this? Three reasons.
First, we can do without Reeves, a Chancellor as poor and small-minded as Starmer has been as Prime Minister; a near-fatal combination for the prospects of a government.
Second, we can do without an extension to Heathrow. No government that takes climate change seriously should be planning such a folly now.
Third, rumour has it that Starmer is planning a reshuffle of his government just after the disastrous Scottish, Welsh parliament, and English local council election results are announced in a little over a week's time, as if reshuffling his useless team will save his own skin when no one thinks that achievable.
I am sure Reeves will survive that reshuffle, but what Starmer will create by reshuffling his team is more enemies willing to bring him down, and no one will put Reeves back in the Treasury after Starmer falls, as he surely will.
So, let's hope Starmer does indeed head the way of most recent British prime ministers, by departing mid-way through his term. The triple benefit will be that he will have gone, Reeves will go, and Heathrow will not get a disastrous new runway, with the effort required to build it instead going into making the UK a more energy-efficient, sustainable, and resilient economy.
For once, I can live in hope.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Who benefits most from Heathrow: the better off going on foreign hols . Who benefits from a 3rd runway: construction companies. How many meetings have construction companies had with Reeves & Starmer? How does all this help ordinary people (who struggle to afford an in-UK hol, let alone a foriegn one)? It doesn’t.
Nappies like politicos need to be changed often. This political nappy is leaking badly & has been in place for far too long.
Apart from anything else the current prospects for the aviation industry dont look encouraging and the situation in teh Gulf may mark the beginning of the end for it.
Dr Tim Morgan who gets an occasional mention pointed out a while ago that back in the 1930’s Goering was looking to build a 20000 plane Luftwaffe, something that the US only just managed to achieve by 1945. What Goerings dreams never adressed was fuel and the fact that Germany simply didnt have access to sufficient aviation fuel to supply such an air force.
More recently there have been forecasts of sustained growth in aviation but again these would require more Jet Fuel than the worlds oil supplies are capable of producing.
I suggest that even if we were to ignore both the situation in the Gulf and climate change there is a very real resource constraint that means a third runway at Heathrow is a non starter and a waste of resources.
Agreed
What Goerings dreams never adressed was fuel and the fact that Germany simply didn’t have access to sufficient aviation fuel to supply such an air force.
True, but Hitler planned to get it by his invasion of the Caucasus in Russia to take control of 90% of Russia’s oil. All part of the wider lebensraum Nazi “living space” fantasy from 1933 onwards when they got power. Along the way they would take fossil fuel resources from Ukraine and Rumania. It ended up with the siege of Stalingrad and over two million dead on both sides in that city alone.
And we all know that fascism is on the march again and that fossil fuels, and control of energy resources, have always been important to them.
Can’t help feeling that what goes around,comes around — if we are not careful.
I wonder how history will judge Starmer. For all his faults, Gordon Brown has been given more credit by posterity than he had at the time.
It seems likely that Starmer will be seen as managerial and over cautious, with little political conviction or vision, and so failing to achieve his promise in his short two years in power.
But who can replace Starmer, and will they be any better? Just three years to challenge Reform and prevent a meltdown in the next general election. Else we might be looking at Prime Minister Farage and a Reform-led coalition. And god help us all.
“But who can replace Starmer, and will they be any better?” I think the more obvious question is “Can anyone be any worse?” and I include Streeting in that.
Depends who is doing the judging.
He should be remembered for who he is – a strawman for the Tony Blair Institute, the tech lords, following orders with aplomb.
I can only agree – there is not much choice at the moment, but I would love to see a proper coup of some sort and an emergent willingness to work with the Greens and other nationalist parties to keep out the vultures circling our weak, over centralised democracy.
I live just under the landing path of the Doncaster airport, which closed in 2022. Yesterday a huge roaring noise over my head interrupted me, and rushing out to the garden I saw a jet with wheels down. It was the first test landing of a large jet in preparation for reopening the airport.
The council has taken out a £57m loan to partly fund reopening this airport. However the Reform and Conservative councillors have pushed for an extraordinary council meeting on the 11th May to discuss withdrawing the funding package as they think the sums will never add up. For once, I agree with them!
There are estimates of the impact of Heathrow that suggest it would do more to export economic activity than import it – encouraging more foreign holidays from Brits than tourism TO the UK.
As such, aside from construction work, it could have a negative effect on the UK, making it a terrible infrastructure project for the government to support, let alone help fund.
Instead, there are abandoned transport projects that are more worthy of funding. Electrification of lines to improve connection times to area and reduce fossil fuel usage. Bypasses to stop the key A303 connection to the South-West forcing endless cars racing through multiple towns at 40-50mph, improving journey times and safety. Making more stations fully accessible for wheelchair users. Or adding EV chargers to more lamp posts to help people transition to greener vehicles.
There’s plenty of options with better environmental, social and financial credentials than a new runway at Heathrow. Even a new runway anywhere other than London could claim a benefit of lower cost and better support for the areas beyond the South-East which might do more for domestic tourism.
Much to agree with
There is potentially over 3 years before we have a general election so plenty of time for things to change (could be for the better, for the worse). So, not a fait accompli that Fartrage and Ref**k will get into power either on their own or in coalition.
I just hope that the next general election does result in some sort of a progressive alliance forming the next government. I could live with a Labour party with a very small majority because that could lead to the changes needed. This is due to the fact that they could be brought down very easily. As long as Ref**k and the Tories are nowhere near power.
Craig