MPs, mayor and residents object to Heathrow plans
Residents and MPs have criticised a government announcement that it would be backing plans for a third runway at Heathrow Airport.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves said on Wednesday that expanding Heathrow was "badly needed" and could create up to 100,000 jobs.
But The Lib Dem MP for Esher and Walton, Monica Harding, said the runway would have "a profound impact" on residents, while Brighton Pavilion' Green MP, Sian Berry, called the plans "reckless".
The government said it would issue a full assessment of any expansion plans through the Airports National Policy Statement.
A third runway would bring in hundreds of thousands of extra flights to the west London airport each year, the Local Democracy Reporting Service reports.
The government said the runway would nearly double the amount of freight coming through the airport each year and help UK businesses to reach new destinations, which would help to grow the economy.
But opponents, including the London Mayor's office, MPs and campaign groups, argue it raises "serious environmental and health concerns".
The Liberal Democrats said in a statement that research from University College London showed people living near Heathrow were at greater risk of heart disease, strokes and mental health issues, and the third runway would only make this worse.
"The impact on human health can not be underestimated," the statement read.
More locally, campaigners from Stanwell Moor, a village at the end of Heathrow's southern runway, said they would be preparing a list of demands "that put residents first".
The Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport UK, meanwhile, has praised the Chancellor's announcement, though stressed the importance of prioritising environmental concerns.
The government has been contacted for a comment.
Follow BBC Surrey on Facebook and X. Send your story ideas to southeasttoday@bbc.co.uk or WhatsApp us on 08081 002250.
Reeves backs third Heathrow runway in growth push
At a glance: What was in Rachel Reeves's speech?
Local woman's plea over Heathrow runway plans
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 hours ago
- Yahoo
Starmer Faces Brewing Rebellion Over £5 Billion Benefit Cut
(Bloomberg) -- UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is less than 10 days away from the biggest parliamentary challenge to his authority in his not-yet year-long tenure. Security Concerns Hit Some of the World's 'Most Livable Cities' One Architect's Quest to Save Mumbai's Heritage From Disappearing JFK AirTrain Cuts Fares 50% This Summer to Lure Riders Off Roads NYC Congestion Toll Cuts Manhattan Gridlock by 25%, RPA Reports Taser-Maker Axon Triggers a NIMBY Backlash in its Hometown Unpopular cuts to disability benefits unveiled earlier this year as part of Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves' efforts to balance the country's books are due before the House of Commons for their first vote on July 1, with a large-scale rebellion brewing on the Labour back benches. So far, at least 150 of the governing party's Members of Parliament have indicated concerns about the cuts in two letters to the government. Other non-signatories have told Bloomberg they also intend to vote against the bill. While Starmer's attention this week was centered on the escalating tensions in the Middle East, the domestic threat was laid bare on Thursday when Vicky Foxcroft, a government whip who would have been tasked with helping quell the revolt, quit, citing her own objections. The rebellion threatens to bruise Starmer's and Reeves' credibility and further damage their stock with the left of their party. In order to avoid falling to what would be an unprecedented defeat for a government enjoying such a large majority so early in its tenure, ministers could at worst be forced into major concessions that reduce the bill's expected cost savings, forcing the Treasury to conjure up money from other cuts or tax rises at the budget in the fall. 'It's a test of Starmer's authority and the way he and Rachel Reeves are running the economy,' Tim Bale, professor of politics at Queen Mary University London, said in a phone interview. 'If the rebellion is too big, you start to run into questions about the loyalty of your backbenchers and even perhaps the future of your leadership.' The welfare reforms allowed Reeves to save about £5 billion ($6.5 billion) a year by 2030 by making it harder for disabled people to claim a benefit called the personal independence payment, or PIP. The chancellor factored them into a spring statement as part of spending cuts designed to help meet her self-imposed fiscal rules. Reeves says the changes are necessary because an extra thousand people a day have been signing on for PIP, creating an 'unsustainable' impact on the public finances. PIP payments had been projected to almost double to £41 billion by the end of the decade, within overall spending on disability and incapacity benefits that the Office for Budget Responsibility — the government's fiscal watchdog — sees rising to £100 billion from £65 billion last year. The government has also says there is a moral case for supporting people back into work. But Labour lawmakers are concerned the government announced changes in a rush to deliver savings, without thinking through the impact on vulnerable people. 'There are alternative and more compassionate ways to balance the books, rather than on the backs of disabled people,' one Labour backbencher, Debbie Abrahams, told the House of Commons. There are particular concerns about a new requirement for claimants to score four or above in one of the daily living components of the PIP assessment, meaning people who can't wash half their body or cook a meal will be denied the payments if they have no other impairments. One Labour MP describing the process as letting the OBR tail wag the government dog. Some 45 Labour MPs signed a public letter objecting to the measures, while another letter — arranged in secrecy so that even signatories couldn't see who they were joining — garnered 105 signatures and was sent to the chief whip. While some of the would-be rebels have indicated they could be swayed by the government whips, one of them told Bloomberg they are confident that more than 80 MPs will commit to voting against the government. Given Starmer's working majority is 165, if all opposition parties vote against the bill, it would take 83 Labour rebels to defeat the government. The main opposition Conservative Party is planning to vote against the changes, Danny Kruger, one of the party's work and pensions spokespeople, told parliament in May. Its reasons are different: the Tories argue the measures don't go far enough. One Labour MP told Bloomberg that concerned lawmakers plan to put forward a procedural challenge to the bill. While they don't expect the speaker to select that amendment for debate, the aim is to force further changes from the government, and organize would-be Labour rebels into a coherent group which could eventually vote down the bill. Many in Labour had been waiting to see the bill before making up their minds. When the text was published on Wednesday, the concessions to their concerns were minimal, largely amounting to a 13-week transition period for those losing their PIP. Foxcroft — the whip who had previously served for four years as Starmer's shadow disability minister in opposition — quit within hours of the publication, saying she didn't believe cutting the disability benefits should be part of the solution to tackling ballooning welfare costs. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said Friday that Foxcroft's resignation wasn't a sign of a major rebellion, while conceding that 'of course' there are dissenting voices on such a big reform. 'Vicky is the only front-bencher that I've had a conversation with about resigning,' she said. Nevertheless, many so-called 'red wall' Labour MPs in northern and central England face a tough decision. Health Equity North, a public health institute, found that all the places most affected financially by the PIP reforms are Labour constituencies in northern England. In several areas, the number of people affected by the welfare changes exceeds the Labour majority, meaning those MPs could see a crucial drop in support. The government is gearing up for a fight, indicating it will make no further concessions. On Wednesday, Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner failed to rule out stripping the whip from Labour rebels, while government enforcers are warning MPs that their political career prospects will be ruined if they oppose the bill. Whips and wannabe rebels alike expect the potential revolt to be whittled down as July 1 approaches. Some opponents are weighing whether to abstain at the second reading and wait until the third reading to take a more decisive vote, as whips are encouraging them to do. 'I'd be amazed if he were defeated here,' Anand Menon, director of the UK in a Changing Europe think-tank, said. 'If the whips got a whiff they were going to get defeated, they'd give some concessions. The worst of all outcomes is to lose this.' Luxury Counterfeiters Keep Outsmarting the Makers of $10,000 Handbags Ken Griffin on Trump, Harvard and Why Novice Investors Won't Beat the Pros Is Mark Cuban the Loudmouth Billionaire that Democrats Need for 2028? The US Has More Copper Than China But No Way to Refine All of It Can 'MAMUWT' Be to Musk What 'TACO' Is to Trump? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Boston Globe
a day ago
- Boston Globe
In US court, due process rulings have been word for word
In orders asserting their Advertisement They pointed to language in a landmark 1982 Supreme Court ruling that upheld the rights of undocumented children to a free public education, which reads: 'even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as 'persons' guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment.' US District Judge Indira Talwani, in an order issued April 28, was the first to stress the constitutional rights of immigrants, when she prevented the government from transferring an immigrant to another jurisdiction. The next day, Judge Leo T. Sorokin wrote a nearly identical order, then a dozen other judges adopted that language in orders barring the out-of-state transfer of immigrants who filed habeas petitions. The rulings have provided critical relief for immigrants in Massachusetts at a time when many are immediately being shipped to detention facilities hundreds of miles away or deported without a hearing, according to advocates. Advertisement 'It's been heartening to see,' said attorney Benjamin Tymann, who represents several immigrants who filed habeas petitions. 'These are completely reasonable orders for judges to put in place because all they are saying is, 'OK, let's hit pause' ... and make the government make some showing on the merits of their arrest.'' Immigration lawyers have accused Immigration and Customs Enforcement of moving immigrants across the country to disrupt or delay efforts to challenge their arrests and removal from the United States, and to place them under the jurisdiction of more conservative federal courts. In one case, US District Judge Denise Casper temporarily barred the government from transferring 25-year-old Luis Fernando Olmos Ramirez while she considered his claim that ICE violated his rights when its agents arrested him in Lynn on May 24. Tymann argued there was 'no lawful basis' to arrest Ramirez, who was granted special immigrant juvenile status after coming to the United States from his native El Salvador as an unaccompanied minor in 2015 and has since lived with his father in Lynn. He has no criminal record and has an application pending for a Green card, according to Tymann. In her order, Casper wrote that relocating Ramirez to a facility outside Massachusetts 'will exponentially increase the risks that he will be further deprived of due process and unlawfully removed from the United States to dangerous conditions in El Salvador or elsewhere.' On June 10, Ramirez voluntarily dismissed his petition after an immigration judge released him on bond. But Tymann credits Casper's intervention with paving the way for his release. Advertisement 'Without the no-transfer order, he may have been sent to Texas or somewhere else,' Tymann said. US Attorney Leah Foley, whose office represents the government in habeas petition cases, acknowledged in a statement that the Supreme Court 'has established that all persons in the United States have Constitutional protections, regardless of their immigration status.' She said her office has no authority to tell ICE where to house immigrants in its custody, but immediately forwards the agency the judges' orders barring the out-of-state transfer of immigrants. A spokesperson for ICE did not respond to requests for comment about the habeas petitions and allegations that agents have made unlawful arrests. But the agency has made clear that it has worked to ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons said during a press conference last month that agents were targeting dangerous and violent criminals, but will arrest anyone they encounter who is in the country illegally. And he argued that their rights are not being violated. 'ICE doesn't just scoop people off the street and remove them,' Lyons said. 'Everyone gets due process and that is what the US attorney's office is for. It's what the immigration courts are for.' Some of the petitions before US District Court judges were filed by people who entered the country without permission, then surrendered themselves to immigration officials and had been allowed to remain free as they pursued lawful status. They allege they were arrested without probable cause or due process while driving to work or dropping their children off at school. Advertisement In some cases, petitioners allege they were leaving the Chelmsford immigration court after judges set hearings for a future date, only to be arrested in the hallways by immigration agents and told they were facing expedited removal from the country. 'What we are seeing in this country is just an assault on the rule of law,' said attorney Todd Pomerleau, whose Boston firm, Rubin Pomerleau, filed habeas petitions on behalf of five immigrants in recent weeks. One of Pomerleau's clients, Andre Damasio Ferreira, 40, was born in Brazil, came to the United States nearly 20 years ago, and lives in Everett with his wife, who is battling cancer. Their two children, 13 and 8, are US citizens. Ferreira, who works for a flooring company, was a passenger in a pickup truck being driven by a co-worker on May 30 when they were stopped by armed ICE agents who demanded to see their passports and questioned them about their immigration status, according to Pomerleau. Ferreira was arrested and is being held at the Plymouth County Correctional Facility pending removal proceedings. US District Judge William G. Young issued an order June 5 temporarily blocking Ferreira's transfer out of state, using the same language as his colleagues while stressing Ferreira's constitutional rights. Young wrote that although federal district courts don't generally have jurisdiction to review orders of removal by an immigration court, they do have jurisdiction over violations of the Constitution. The government argued in court filings on June 12 that Ferreira's arrest was lawful and urged Young to dismiss his petition. ICE agents stopped Ferreira because he looked like someone else they were targeting, then discovered he was unlawfully present in the country and had previously been removed in 2005, according to the government. The judge has yet to rule on the case. Advertisement In at least two cases, immigrants were mistakenly transferred — one to Louisiana and the other to Mississippi — in violation of judges' orders, according to court filings. The US attorney's office apologized and the petitioners were brought back to the state. Though judges have issued orders halting transfers by the Trump administration as early as January, they specifically began adopting the language reinforcing immigrants' constitutional rights after the arrest of Tufts PhD student She was arrested by masked ICE agents outside her Somerville apartment in March. By the time her lawyers filed last month, a federal judge in Vermont ordered her released, while he considers her claim that the government violated her free speech and due process rights. 'Now we are seeing a lot more detentions that violate due process rights and that's not an issue that immigration judges are usually able to address,' said Shantanu Chatterjee, a Chelsea attorney who has filed habeas petitions on behalf of several immigrants. He said more immigration lawyers are seeking relief for their clients in federal district courts. The flurry of rulings 'sends a message to everyone that Advertisement Shelley Murphy can be reached at
Bloomberg
a day ago
- Bloomberg
Why Taxing the UK's Rich Less May Make Sense
The Laffer Curve does exist. You may not want it to, but it does. The UK's political class is in the process of learning this lesson. One of the first things Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves did was to make the global assets of those living in the UK but domiciled elsewhere for tax purposes (the 'non-doms') subject to UK inheritance tax. Those people have responded to that incentive exactly as one might expect. They are leaving. Exact numbers aren't available, but many financial advisers will tell you of their fast-vanishing high-net worth clients—heading for the United Arab Emirates, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Malta and maybe even the US (there are some 70,000 applications for information on the new ' gold Trump card ' visa, apparently). Henley and Partners, a global relocation company, backs this up. It reports that inquiries on how to become a resident elsewhere were three times higher in the first three months of 2025 than the same period in 2024.
