It is hard not to emit a yawn when hearing about the plans for a third runway at Heathrow Airport.
To say we have been here before is an understatement. Yet Rachel Reeves and her colleagues are madly excited about the project, as if it represents dramatic progress and is an economic lifesaver. Already, the eco arguments are rearing up. The number of flights across west London will increase hugely and with them, the accompanying noise and emissions. The Chancellor assures us that aviation has moved on since airport expansion was last on the agenda and that new planes are being developed that are much more environmentally friendly.
Over which there must be doubt. What Ms Reeves says takes no account of how quickly these planes will come on stream and whether airlines will view them as economically viable; if indeed, they will buy them and in sufficient volume as to achieve a genuine difference. Rather overlooked so far have been the more localised issues surrounding the disruption to road traffic on the affected M25 and the rerouting of rivers that criss-cross the area. Unlike other major international airports, Heathrow directly abuts London’s orbital motorway, the busiest in the UK. The motorway was not there, not even as an idea when the airport's first terminal was first built, but it is now and that presents a huge obstacle.
Put all that and more together, and it is difficult to imagine a new runway being operational in the next 15 years, let alone a decade or sooner as Ms Reeves envisions. The government is promising to bulldoze planning laws to accelerate construction but the legal system remains. Whatever is mooted will leave space for challenge and review.
What this highlights yet again is the sheer impossibility of getting anything done in the UK. Ours is an overcrowded island, one that is covered in hills and valleys, none more so than in the south-east. Boris Johnson recognised this, which is why he proposed building a new airport in the Thames Estuary. The popular press, as is its wont, immediately dubbed the notion “Boris Island” and the whole thing became the object of ridicule and TV panel jokes.
For Heathrow see HS2, nuclear power stations, a bridge between Scotland and Northern Ireland (another Johnson proposal), a second Channel Tunnel. These are just the flagships. Lesser schemes, ones that are more vital, such as new NHS hospitals and state schools, are equally hindered by delays, disputes, inquiries and reviews.
Money is an issue but there are ways of structuring funding, so the private sector can participate and achieve a return. It is about something extra and currently insurmountable.
We should face facts and accept it is no one’s fault. We want Britain’s infrastructure to improve, to keep pace with the times, to reflect a nation that is modern, offering the very latest facilities, boosting the lives of its people and visitors, making it appealing to investors, rivalling overseas competitors.
Short-termism
For that, we must move away from the short-termism of our politics, in which everything suggested is instantly countered. The UK head of state is above, but outside, the political arena and is not involved in decision-making. In other places, it is often the president or king or queen who is closely identified with a landmark addition. They make it their own, they can knock heads together and get it over the line. That cannot, and does not, occur in the UK.
Instead, there is a sea of officialdom, reporting to ministers who change frequently – Labour has been in power eight months and already we are on to our second transport secretary. The clock is ticking towards the next general election, when everything might change again. That is allowing, too, for Prime Minister Keir Starmer surviving until then. He could depart and his successor may have an alternative view. Look at what took place under the Tories. They had a rapid-fire movement of premiers and each one brought another perspective and their own priorities. There was Johnson, talking up his "grands projets", only to have them quashed by his successors Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak.
Mr Starmer is sitting on a substantial majority but that does not mean he is unassailable, either before or at the polls. In four years, Heathrow could slip down the list and where will we be? Probably, airport capacity would only then reappear at some later date. On we go, which is the UK pattern to date.
There is a case for a body that is removed from the hurly-burly, the in and out, and is dedicated to developing national transport and public facilities. It should have weight and authority, and as much as possible remain independent of Westminster. That sounds great but is not so attainable in a democracy that conducts itself to daily fire and fury. It feels, too, like a recipe for yet more central expense and bureaucracy, just when we want less not more.
It is true that Elon Musk, for one, might condemn such an organisation, but something must give. You only need to examine what has been constructed or is under construction in Britain recently, and currently, to realise how sclerotic we have become. All there is at present in terms of large-scale works is a truncated fast-rail link between London and Birmingham. Mr Johnson said 20 new hospitals would be added. Clearly, they would have filled a void but they have been scrapped. Energy plants take an age, and Britain’s fuel requirements and security continue to worsen. There is only one motorway across the Pennines. This week, the closure of another, albeit lesser, road, Snake Pass, was recommended because it is vulnerable to landfall. There is no motorway along the eastern side, connecting London with Newcastle and Edinburgh, and points in between. Likewise, entire regions are served by outdated, poor rail and road links. In west London, Hammersmith Bridge has been closed to vehicles for almost six years with no date for its reopening. Children must endure classes in crumbling buildings. Asbestos is an abiding problem.
Ever extending, the roll-call of shame goes on. On as well, does the lack of replacement and improvement. The UK must make a cultural shift and begin enabling not obstructing. It requires coupling with a system, a formalised structure, that is designed to be "can do" as opposed to "cannot".
