.png)
4 hours ago
1
The proposed Heathrow expansion is hard to fathom at a time when the world is suffering catastrophic climate events (Scepticism in Whitehall that Heathrow plan can be reconciled with climate targets, 29 January). I have defended Labour up to now among family and friends who feel let down by the failure of Rachel Reeves to tax the super-wealthy in a fairer way to help fund vital services that were so eroded by the Tories.
The Heathrow expansion is so clearly out of step with what we should be doing, and such a betrayal of Labour’s election campaign to be a conserver of the environment, that I feel the party will be significantly damaged by it.
Flying is one of the most egregious forms of pollution, and we should be increasing tax on flights and discouraging it as a mode of transport, especially private jets, which simply should not be an option.
Sadiq Khan has made difficult decisions to reduce London’s pollution and faced much criticism in the process. That is what moral leadership should do, but all that will be wiped out by this craven decision.
Cass Witcombe
London
Having worked on both the third runway at Heathrow and HS2, I understand all too well the obstacles that Rachel Reeves will face in trying to translate the intent of her speech into reality. Three things are necessary: clarity about the purpose and outcome of each project, not just for itself but for the country as a whole; a comprehensive, whole-of-government plan to articulate, realise and evolve those benefits over time; and a willingness to persist in doing so through all the inevitable ups and downs of delivery.
At Heathrow in the past and on HS2, collectively we failed those tests, but my experience on the other “project” I worked on – the Northern Ireland peace process – shows that government is capable of the necessary focus, drive and sheer bloody-mindedness. But that is only possible with clear, decisive, almost obsessional leadership from the top, day in, day out. That’s the real test to come.
Tom Kelly
Aghadowey, Coleraine
What part of the economy is the chancellor trying to grow, and for whom (Reeves plans to create ‘Silicon Valley’ between Oxford and Cambridge, 28 January)? When it comes to growth, “it’s the little things, stupid”.
Instead of remote, long-term and hugely expensive projects that may well prove economically ineffective, but are certainly environmentally destructive, people need to see and experience changes that make a positive difference to their everyday lives.
More (paid) workers cleaning up rubbish from the streets. Funding local libraries and museums. Reopening community and youth centres. Restoring park keepers. Revitalising the proud tradition of adult education for all. More police on the beat. It’s all job creation and paid jobs bring in tax revenue. What’s not to like? With ministers sneering about bats and newts, much of the time it seems that the only guardians of the public good are those who end up being demonised by this government as barriers to “progress”.
Karin Hessenberg and Robin Parrish
Sheffield
In 1948, despite postwar austerity, a Labour government successfully passed the National Assistance Act and created the National Health Service. David Kynaston, in his monumental chronicle of this epoch, Austerity Britain 1945-51, quotes from a Clement Attlee broadcast of the time: “All our social services have to be paid for, in one way or another”, so that only “higher output can give us more of the things we all need”. Rachel Reeves has inherited this powerful argument from the Attlee days, and nothing could be further from the accusation voiced against her by a Greenpeace spokesman in your article, that she is simply “chasing growth for growth’s sake”.
Dr Nick McAdoo
London
Rachel Reeves needs to redefine “growth”. We are not the US, with swathes of land to host servers. Tourists visit Oxford and Cambridge for their historic cities and beautiful surrounding landscapes, not to see small nuclear reactors generating power for AI. People come to East Anglia for its vast beaches and birdlife, ancient trees and farmland, not to see a high-rise substation the size of Wembley or two nuclear reactors surrounded by concrete.
What we have as islanders is resilience, inventiveness and creativity – and these qualities we should harness to be at the forefront of green technology and work with nature to slow down climate change, not against it. We have wind, we have wave, we have floods, we have sea. Now all we need is the political will. Think again, chancellor.
Vanessa Raison
London
I read with interest the report of infrastructure projects including Heathrow expansion to be enacted by Labour in order to drive “growth” (Legal challenges to infrastructure plans to be blocked in Starmer growth push, 23 January). I also happened to notice that all of these projects appear to be in the south-east of England. Can I just remind Rachel Reeves that other parts of the nation exist and are in desperate need of investment?
My own area was promised a new hospital to replace the crumbling University Hospital of North Tees at the end of the New Labour reign – and we are still waiting. A new road crossing of the River Tees near Middlesbrough was also mooted, never mind the now-shelved plans to upgrade the A1 (to Edinburgh) to a dual carriageway.
Andrew Lonsdale
Stockton-on-Tees, County Durham
In the 29 January edition that includes your front-page headline “Reeves pledges to create ‘Europe’s Silicon Valley’ in push for growth”, on page 19 is another: “Only Scotland is set to curb child poverty in UK, charity report finds”. We need equality, not growth.
Jenny Moir
Chelmsford
