The proposed expansion of Heathrow is difficult to understand at a time when the world is suffering in disaster climate (skepticism in Whitehall that Heathrow’s plan can reconcile climate targets, 29th January). I have defended the work to this day with families and friends who have felt Rachel Reeves’ failure to risk the rich in a fair way to help the funds of the important services that Tories has eliminated.
Expanding Heathrow is clearly not in the step we should do, and such a treason to the Labor election campaign to become an environmental conserver, which I think the party will significantly break.
Flying is one of the most stressful forms of pollution, and we should increase taxes on flights and discourage it as a mode of transportation, especially private jets, which should not only be an option.
Sadiq Khan has made difficult decisions to reduce pollution in London and faces a lot of criticism of the process. That is what the moral leadership should do, but everything will be lost by this over -decision.
Cass Witcombe
London
Having worked on the same third path in Heathrow and HS2, I also understand all the obstacles that Rachel Reeves will face in an effort to translate the intent of her speech into reality. Three things are required: clarity about the purpose and outcome of each project, not only for itself but for the country as a whole; a comprehensive, whole-government plan to express, realize and change the benefits over time; and a willingness to continue doing this with all the inevitable delivery of delivery.
In Heathrow in the past and in HS2, together we have failed those trials, but my experience with the other “project” I worked with — the Northern Ireland Peace process — is showing that the government is capable of the necessary Focus, drive and thin bloody thinking. But that is only possible with a clear, decisive, almost obsessional leadership from above, sun in, day. That is the real test to come.
Tom Kelly
Aghadowey, Coleraine
What part of the economy does the Chancellor try to grow, and for whom (Reeves plans to create ‘Silicon Valley’ between Oxford and Cambridge, 28th January)? When it comes to growing up, “this is the little things, stupid”.
Instead of distant, perennial and strictly expensive projects that may prove that the economy is ineffective, but certainly destructive environment, people need to see and experience changes that make a positive difference in their daily that is alive.
Many more (paid) workers clean garbage from the streets. Funding local libraries and museums. Reopening community and youth centers. Restoration of park guardians. Revitalizing the proud tradition of adult education for all. There are more police to beat. All of this is creating work and paid jobs bring tax income. What doesn’t like? To the ministers who shout about bats and new ones, most of the time seems to be the one who cares for the public’s goodness are those who end up being the demon of this government as “developmental” obstacles.
Karin Hessenberg and Robin Parrish
Sheffield
In 1948, despite the postwar’s austerity, a Labor government successfully passed the National Assistance Act and created the National Health Service. David Kynaston, in his massive chronicle of this period, Austerity Britain 1945-51, quoted from a Clement Atlee Broadcast of time: “All of our social services are due, in one way or another”, so ‘ t “only higher output can give us more than the things we all need”. Rachel Reeves inherited this strong argument from Atlee days, and nothing could be more from the accusation That a Greenpeace spokesman revealed against him in your article, that he was simply “chasing growth for the sake of growth”.
Dr Nick Mcadoo
London
Rachel Reeves needs to define “growing up”. We are not the US, with land swathes to dost servers. Tourists visit Oxford and Cambridge for their historic cities and beautiful surrounding landscapes, not to see small nuclear reactors that generate power for AI. People go to East Anglia for vast beaches and birdlife, ancient trees and farms, not to see a high -changing Wembley size or two nuclear reactors surrounded by concrete.
What we have as the people is elastic, inventive and creativity -and these qualities we must use to be ahead of green technology and work with nature to slow down climate change, not against it. We have air, we have waves, we have a flood, we have sea. Now all we need is political will. Think again, Chancellor.
Vanessa Raison
London
I read with the interest report of infrastructure projects including expanding Heathrow that can be made to drive “growth” (legal challenges to infrastructure plans to be blocked by starmer growth push, January 23). I also noticed that all of these projects appear to be southeast of England. Can I remind Rachel Reeves that other parts of the country exist and are in desperate investment demand?
My own place has been promised by a new hospital to replace North Tees’ Crumbling University Hospital at the end of the new labor reign – and we’re still waiting. A new road crossing river tees near Middlesbrough has also been mowed, not to remember the plans now that A1 (in Edinburgh) has now been upgraded to a two-two-two
Andrew Lonsdale
Stockton-on-Tees, County Durham
In the January edition of 29 with your title on the front page “Reeves’ pledges that created ‘Europe’s Silicon Valley’ in pushing for growing”, on page 19 is another: “Only Scotland is set to hinder the Children’s poverty in the UK, the Charity report was found ”. We need equality, not growing.
Jenny Moir
Chelmsford
