Once again Councillor Chamber's feels it is appropriate to send letters in response to DRINK and not seek the cross-party consensus that is needed.
The fact is Labour has led and will continue to lead on the anti-airport campaign. We called it three years ago and have placed relentless pressure ever since on the stonewall Two-Faced Tory attitude to the airport; which was until January effectively a denial of the problem behind the infamous letters to Tracey Crouch and Mark Reckless.
Belatedly we have seen Tories get a grip but they have had to be forced every single inch. Labour forced the change in pace on the failing 'Pie-in-the-Sky' campaign by highlighting the failure to get a grip and despite controversy with some anti-airport campaigners. Labour is keeping up the pressure on the Council and Conservatives to get their proverbial lazy backsides in gear.
Labour has also led on calling for a public vote and whilst Tory Minister's have shunned Hoo Peninsula it is Medway Labour that has engaged with people at the height of influence to ensure that the Hoo Airport never takes off. We are setting the agenda locally and for a party of opposition this shows the new strategy and leadership in the Labour Group is beginning to pay significant dividends, and credibility. The referendum idea is something the public will warm too over time; the Tories and Lib Dems rejected it out of spite...
As it is I suspect that Cameron and Osborne may now be warming to the idea of Heathrow and Gatwick expansion and this is a good thing. Not only for Medway but also the supply chains and jobs that surround the airport site. Put simply expansion at Heathrow in the short term and re-engineering of flight roots and Stansted and Gatwick is the only sensible option on the table. Birmingham is a good option but too far away from mainland Europe; this counts against it.
The pro-Heathrow lobby is also increasingly wealthy; they do have strong funding links with the Tory party but also with groups within the Labour Party including Progress. Contrast this with DRINK - Demand Regeneration in North Kent has zero political connections with the decision makers and is effectively a make-shift band of business owners and past politicians. I can only say that they are lobbying the wrong people at the wrong time. Local politicians cant make a decision on this issue; so moaning at the local Council is utterly pointless... I suspect this group is far too parochial to mount a serious campaign.
Let us look at the core campaign argument for DRINK and dismiss them (some rather easily)
- More opportunities for local businesses
The simple truth is that there is no survey or actual empirical evidence to support this position. None of the submissions to the DfT have undertaken a survey of current local business and there is no evidence to say that with current contract arrangements with BAA (or whoever) that any contracts would go to Medway companies. Indeed; it would be illegal under EU law for it to occur. Medway has a diverse economy but its skills base is primarily in business services, health and education; the services industry may benefit but it is very likely that current supply chains would be supplanted by other larger chains elsewhere.
- More jobs for local people
Again there is no statistical or empirical evidence to support this claim. Employment contracts are likely to be awarded with sector-specific multinationals who will look for particular skill-sets. As Medway does not have an airport currently it is expected that individuals with the right skills would move into the area rather then be based here. Over the medium-term this could cause issues around house-prices and community cohesion as the area would gain a more transient community feel
Whilst Medway does have a major problem with unemployment currently the major build and jobs from this would not be until 2015 onwards. It is worth highlighting that Medway did not have an employment problem prior to 2008 with Medway around the national average for employment and claimant count.
In short, we already have enough capacity in the local economy and with access to London for jobs if the market turns. DRINK wll try and piggy-back of current unemployment statistics and concerns around employment and this is disengenous and crude.
In addition the Hoo Peninsula already has a number of small employers. The short term will see many businesses close in the height of a downturn. Therefore the airport plan will make worse our current situation whilst only giving employment rates from 2015 onwards when we could already expect a normal economic upturn.
Of course I have no empirical evidence to support this other then looking at previous employment and claimant counts and the stated obvious immediate flight of capital and business should an airport be designated for destruction.
- A better environment for the community
This is probably the most swinging eyed of the statements and it is quite simply gut-wrenching stupidity to include this in the aims under this title.
This airport will destroy and uproot countless historic communities and thousands of residents, make Medway an effective building site for a decade and it will undermine our quality of life with noise and higher pollution. A rural idyll with significant natural interest will be concreted over. Houseprices will plummet in surrounding areas and the thousands of pounds of taxpayers money spent on plans for regneration on the Peninsula will be undermined.
There is absolutely no argument for saying a mega-airport will improve the quality of our wellbeing and environment at all. It will blight us for twenty years and once completed we will get the noise and fumes.
Why do you think no one wants an airport or expansion in their area? It is because these things destroy communities and everyone knows it.
- A better environment for wildlife
This is also a simply rediculous statement. The airport would concrete over an RSPB reserve and not one nature charity, lobby group or organisation has ever stated that this mega-airport is good for the environment over all. There may be marginal benefits to marine life to an island airport only.
There may be some marginal benefits to 'sponsored' land reserves for nature or somesuch but this is nothing more then a mask for development.
- Improved transport, housing and education
We already have HS1 which gives us good access to London; the improvements to Essex are already happening with a further bridge across the Thames. We already have widened motorways M2 and M20. The benefits to transport on road and rail will therefore be negligible to that which we have an are to expect without an airport.
It is likely that high-speed trains will pass straight through Medway into London stations (as does Gatwick and Heathrow Express).
There are benefits to having an airport with access to the world; but for an extra 30 minutes you already have Gatwick and Stansted. Heathrow is an 45-60 minutes away. This is not a justifiable position when people have cars and access to a twenty first century transport network.
- The elimination of poverty
Medway does have significant pockets of poverty but this is related to a number of issues which are utterly unrelated to whether an airport is close by or not. I can point to many airports which have areas of poverty next door including City Airport which is situated in the poorest borough of London.
The simple truth is that poverty is related to upbringing and education; an airport will not magically transform schools, teachers or change whether parents are bad and good. Medway unemployment rates on average over the last 10-15 years have been or just below UK median levels so the likelihood is an individual will change from a low-paid job in one area in Medway to another in the airport. Pay may actually be depressed because of increased connectivity and a mobile workforce competing with our local talent. Education is the key to reducing poverty and the airport has no impact on this whatsoever.
DRINK are effectively using an economic argument justifier for this position but as I have just stated this is a flawed assumption. Quality of life however is not just an economic metric; it is about having a peaceful nights sleep, having access to clean air and the countryside and about living in communities with friends and relatives. General Well Being can not be calculated as an economic statistic but it makes our lives immesurably fuller.
It is very likely that a mega-airport will break up communities, reduce green spaces, increase air and noise pollution and for marginal economic benefit, if any to the majority of Medway residents whether employed or unemployed currently or in the future.
There is a reason why Heathrow residents dont want expansion. A reason why residents secured a Gatwick cut-off until 2019 and why Stansted residents are up-in-arms.
This is blight on our quality of life for marginal economic benefit which is why if Medway did have a referendum they would make the same choice that all the other communities have made where any propsoal has occured; they would reject it.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar