Gummer-Goldsmith to recommend freeze on airport expansion

The Daily Mail is reporting that the Conservative Party's Quality of Life group under the chairmanship of John Gummer and Zac Goldsmith will recommend:

• "A moratorium on all airport expansion, including Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted;
• The imposition of VAT on fuel for domestic flights;
• A "single flight tax" to shift tax burden from passengers to airlines;
• Domestic flight slots to be handed to long-haul trips instead."

The Mail also suggests that the BAA London airports 'monopoly' will be broken up and 4x4 cars will face higher duties.

The second and potentially very bureaucratic tax on a person's second annual foreign flight has apparently been ditched.

Higher green taxation will be used by George Osborne to fund lower taxes on families and business.

12.30pm update: The story is actually a London Evening Standard exclusive (Standard stories appear on Mail Online).  A Standard leader welcomes the "progressive thinking" in the report but warns that it could undermine the already "shaky" support for the Tories in the business community.

Comments

[Tanuki]

I despair. I really do. What is the point of trying to support the party if we keep on coming up with spectacular own-goals like this! We need to get rid of Zac-boy and Gummer ASAP - they're both liabilities. Forget the greenery - if the truth be told it's a niche market fad. Learn from the likes of Ronald Reagan when he said: Read my lips - NO NEW TAXES!.

[Ken Stevens]

" 'If Amsterdam already has all these runways that aren't near capacity, can't we encourage them to build a high speed rail-link from the Channel Tunnel to it?'

High-speed rail link from Zeebrugge and Hoek van Holland to Schiphol and to Duesseldorf is all those travelling from Hull or Leeds-Bradford would need....."

How would the northerners get to Zeebrugge and Hoek van Holland". Going by ferry seems to nullify any sense of urgency.

As to reviving Schiphol's onetime marketing claim to be Third London Airport (i.e. with direct feeders from UK regional airports to its longhaul services), are we really in the business of outplacing UK jobs?

The highspeed rail link, inc Heathrow etc should be part of a UK spine, to alleviate road traffic (particularly cargo) as well as reducing need for shorthaul air feeders.

[David T Breaker]

Tanuki, how is taxing aviation to fund tax cuts elsewhere an own goal? For one day we will have the press that we are creating a new tax on aviation (which a lot support anyway), but then we'll have cash to use on tax cuts that we can trumpet at the next election - targetted tax cuts that swing voters.

This is shifting the burden of tax. Far better the burden be on aviation than small businesses.

And greenery isn't a niche market fad. A lot of it's nonesense, but people do care.

[Tanuki]

David T Breaker@18:48 - taxing Peter to pay Paul isn't my idea of any valid form of Fiscal Conservatism.

We should be reducing the total tax-take. Period. And we shou,d be proud of the fact that we see our mission as having Government do less. less regulation; less dirigiste planning-laws; less trying to change peoples' behaviours to fit in with the green fad-of-the-day.

[Cleo]

The environment is an absolutely crucial issue and taxation should be used to tax carbon more because society has to change to become more sustainable. Government has to lead and set the example.

[Alistair]

Agree entirely Cleo.

But the chances of Cameron and his henchmen actioning such an enlightened policy are about as rosy as those of a snowball in Hell.

This window-dressing is so unconvincing I can't stop laughing.

[The Huntsman]

If the price of the domestic air ticket remains cheaper than the comparable rail ticket, even after imposing VAT on domestic air fuel @17.5% or 20% or whatever (and the airlines still have considerable price leeway over rail), why will this make the slightest difference to carbon emissions?

Many will suspect this is a green fig-leaf for (a) revenue raising and (b) either doing nothing about producing energy that is carbon neutral or doing nothing adequate about it.

What it may do is penalise yet again the non-business traveller with limited means trying to use the cheapest means of travel possible, a sure vote winner.

[Socialists unite]

Note that our socialist Troll, aka Alistair, agrees with our resident Cameroon "Carry On Cleo".

[GADFLY]

HOW ABOUT THIS FOR A GOOD IDEA OR THREE.A LEVEL TAX RATE,WATER METERS IN EVERY BUILDING AND DO AWAY WITH THE TAX DISC ON CARS.PUT IT ON ALL TYPES OF FUEL EXCEPT THAT USED BY COMMERCE.THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN BECAUSE THOSE THAT HAVE THE MOST ARE SUBSITISED BY THOSE THAT HAVE NOT SO MUCH.PLUS END THE TAX BRAKES WHERE OFFICES CAN LAY EMPTY FOR YEARS WHEN THEY COULD BE MADE INTO HOUSING.LOOK AROUND ANY CITY OR TOWN OF ANY SIZE AND ACRES OF UNUSED DERELICT LAND IS ALL AROUND.PLUS PUT A TAX OF 90% ON LAND BANKS OF MORE THAN TWO YEARS.

[Niallster]

Three points:

No Tory should be advocating any tax increases on the vastly over taxed English if they want to be elected. Further the idea of 'shifting the tax to the airlines' is absurd as Jocky Brown saying PRT is only paid by oil companies. THE CONSUMER ALWAYS PAYS AS HE IS AT THE END OF THE LINE MISTER GUMMER!

Even if you accept the Green issue why is it always more taxes and more laws? 20% of all vehicles on UK roads are untaxed and probably also unsafe. Just get our bloody useless police force to actually enforce an existing law for a change and shazzam Kyoto target met by UK.

Have you been to Charles De Gaulle airport lately? It is expanding at the speed of light. If we don't want the transatlantic business they will take it no problem. I can foresee the day when we will all be taking a coach to France to catch a flight. Massive boost to the French economy massive bash to ours and even if your accept the Green Con no net benefit for the world.

Idiots is the politest term I can come up with.

[Mr Angry]

So there we are with, as yet, very little that looks like a vote winning policy and Gummer and Goldsmith, true men of the people if ever there were two, come up with a guaranteed vote loser like this nonsense.

I,in common with a surprisingly large number of other people in the real world, earn my living in a way that means I must fly around 30 or 40 times a year. Whilst I heartily agree with breaking up BAA, and let's face it privatising it into a monopoly was a Tory mistake in the first place, additional taxation on aviation will have a materially detrimental effect upon my ability to earn a living and upon my business in general. I for one am not going to vote for that let alone campaign for it.

The Conservative Party under Cameron appears determined to sleep walk its way to oblivion.

[Philip]

Might not be our most vote-winning policies but that alone wouldn’t make them not right. The environment might not win many votes (so polls say?), but the other side of the coin of foreign holidays being slightly more expensive, or there being not not so many domestic flights, is that this surely wouldn’t worry the electorate as much as crime, social breakdown, security/terrorism, the NHS?

Anyhow if there were to be fewer domestic flights there has to be realistic competitive high-speed rail alternative. This could bring Edinburgh/Glasgow to 2½ hours of London. However even if it were decided now to build a high-speed line, its completion would be years, even decades away, and so much more needs to be achieved with the present rail network. The new franchise for the line to Edinburgh promises more trains achieving the journey to Edinburgh in around 4hr 20mins – hardly a significant improvement when the journey was done in 4 hours until recently.

[TOmTom]

How would the northerners get to Zeebrugge and Hoek van Holland". Going by ferry seems to nullify any sense of urgency.

Not really...it is a super overnight crossing and really much pleasanter than either the train journey to Heathrow via King's Cross or driving the M1 or M25 to get to Heathrow.....and Gatwick you can forget.........

THe other option is Leeds-Bradford feeding Schiphol with cheap KLM flights

[TomTom]

seems to nullify any sense of urgency.

Most flying isn't from "urgency" it is simply to cross large distances over water.....lots of Germans drive from Hamburg to Spain......

It doesn't take much to set off a day earlier and do an overnight on a ferry with restaurant and berths in a 50,000 tonne ferry - after all lots of people then travel by coach to Poland from Zeebrugge

[Ken Stevens]

TomTom
Fully agree the attractions of ferries; I love 'em. It was the conjunction with hispeed rail to Schiphol that then seemed incongruous.

There are already air services between, e.g. Manchester, Leeds/Bradford and Newcastle airports and Schipol and Brussels, so Heathrow can already be avoided. Question is do we want to send business away from UK. Not just commercial & employment aspect but also effectively saying that northerners should have a further sense of detachment from the south. ..Whilst telling them to embrace the continent as their natural transport hub is anathema to a swivel-eyed nutter such as me!
Hispeed rail has potential beyond basic function, to provide a greater sense of cohesion 'twixt north and south (inc the wild Celts further up). An opportunity for Tories to make inroads (inrails?) to the northern electorate, perhaps?

[TomTom]

Ken - Northerners do have a detachment from the South believe me. If it costs £177 for an Open Return to London from Leeds the prospect of flying for £30 roundtrip to Dublin or £40-100 roundtrip to Amsterdam; or £70 return to Krakow, or £45-£100 return to Paris or £46-£90 to Duesseldorf............then look at Leeds-Bradford to Heathrow at £105 return

Clearly London is so distant from Leeds that it costs a small fortune to get there

[Jay]

Some of these comments are detached from reality. The communities affected by Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted are CONSERVATIVE ones, and many residents are fed up with ever-expanding air traffic blighting their neighbourhoods. I for one live in Nicholas Soames' constituency and am daily (and nightly) affected by the Gatwick flight path. I can see no rationale for the UK wanting transatlantic transit passengers. We are a very small, very crowded island, and controlling airport expansion is part of a Conservative ethos - protecting quality of life. The New Labour ethos is to ride roughshod over local communities in the name of big business. Don't let's follow that.

[James Maskell]

This report could be the one that most undermines our arguments on tax. We need to tread very carefully here. We get this part wrong and we blow our campaigns on lower taxation and attacking Labour's high spending will become pointless. I have big concerns about using the aviation industry as the target for our taxes.

[Ken Stevens]

TomTom "..Northerners do have a detachment from the South, believe me.."

Oh, I do.
Problem is what to do about it. Something seems to have gone wrong with air and particularly rail travel that it is so prohibitively expensive within our country.

I think the answer has to be different financing philosophy for rail, though to mention subsidy invites loud hisses & boos. Instead of saying 'subsidy', one needs to refer to 'expenditure in furtherance of national interest'as with health and defence, which are not costed on commercial basis of return on capital employed, etc.

One Nation Tories need to think of One Nation cohesion and ease of communication is an important aspect of this.

[Ken Stevens]

Mentions of rail and air, prompt an incidental topic that occurs to me now and then:

There used to be a Civil Aviation Constabulary, until it was absorbed into area police forces. So why is there still a separate British Transport Police? If area forces can handle specialist locales such as airports, then why not rail stations & lines?

[James Maskell]

Interesting idea Ken, an extension of localism, something that has become a lower priority in Conservative thinking in recent times.

[david]

cancelling short haul fights not an option, people fly to and from Heathrow to connect with long haul flights.Instead auction the slots

[BMc]

Speaking of subsidy, as many of us are, it is interesting to note that there is a fairly compelling argument that the majority of our proposals, which ostensibly 'penalise' the aviation industry, are actually more of a redress of the substantial de facto tax breaks and subsidies that they receive from the government. It is not about raising taxes, its about removing exemptions, subsidy and other unnecessary distortions of the free market.

And as for those bemoaning the reduction of the number of cheap flights: Good Lord. After all our arguments against the Human Rights Act, are we really intending to campaign for the Right to Cheap Overseas Holidays? Get a grip.

[TomTom]

There has been ZERO subsidy on The East Coast Main Line since at least 1990 and GNER went under because the Government expected PROFIT from them with their £130 million annual payment up from £34 million

Journey times on many services operated by GNER have actually increased since the days of British Rail. The fastest London to Edinburgh journey time offered by the state corporation was 3 hours 59 minutes, whereas the fastest GNER service today (with the same rolling stock) takes 4 hours 10 minutes (the 15:00 London Kings Cross to Edinburgh).

National Express is paying even more for this franchise £1.4bn (NPV) will be paid over the life of the 8 year franchise in premium as a contribution to DfT’s rail budget

[ToMTom]

the majority of our proposals, which ostensibly 'penalise' the aviation industry, are actually more of a redress of the substantial de facto tax breaks and subsidies that they receive from the government.

So do the same for buses and remove the £1,000,000,000 Diesel Subsidy which funnily enough equals the reported profits of the privatised bus companies

Or impose VAT on bus fares and taxi fares so the playing field with private motorists is levelled

[BMc]

"So do the same for buses and remove the £1,000,000,000 Diesel Subsidy which funnily enough equals the reported profits of the privatised bus companies

Or impose VAT on bus fares and taxi fares so the playing field with private motorists is levelled"

Not sure that I would equate public transport funding which helps ensure that people can get to work in the morning with a tax break for companies which help ensure that people can get legless in the Med for two weeks.

[David T Breaker]

People, get a grip. I can't believe how this has sent people.

"Taxing Peter to pay Paul isn't my idea of any valid form of Fiscal Conservatism. We should be reducing the total tax-take."
Yes, in a dream World. In a dream World there would be zero tax, constant good weather, an abudance of space and something decent to watch on television - it's not gonna happen! In the long run we can cut the total tax take by reducing waste and boosting growth, but we can't go into an election promising it otherwise it'll get seen as cuts to services. Any tax cuts must be funded. We must cut the taxes that have the biggest possitive net effect.

"And we shou,d be proud of the fact that we see our mission as having Government do less. less regulation; less dirigiste planning-laws; less trying to change peoples' behaviours to fit in with the green fad-of-the-day."
This is government doing less, this is the government no longer compulsary purchasing private property for BAA.

"No Tory should be advocating any tax increases on the vastly over taxed English if they want to be elected. Further the idea of 'shifting the tax to the airlines' is absurd as Jocky Brown saying PRT is only paid by oil companies. THE CONSUMER ALWAYS PAYS AS HE IS AT THE END OF THE LINE MISTER GUMMER!"
Well, some tax does impact the company's profits and isn't passed onto consumers, but we see your point. But this is why we want tax cuts too. That way we can decide how to spend our own money.

"Even if you accept the Green issue why is it always more taxes and more laws? 20% of all vehicles on UK roads are untaxed and probably also unsafe. Just get our bloody useless police force to actually enforce an existing law for a change and shazzam Kyoto target met by UK."
I'm not doing it for green issues. I am interested in private property rights and tax cuts for businesses and families.

"Have you been to Charles De Gaulle airport lately? It is expanding at the speed of light...[everyone coach to France]...no net benefit for the world."
Big benefit if you live in Stansted.

"Idiots is the politest term I can come up with."
Thanks.

"I...earn my living in a way that means I must fly around 30 or 40 times a year....taxation on aviation will have a materially detrimental effect upon my ability to earn a living and upon my business in general."
Current taxation has a detrimental effect on many businesses, businesses which will benefit from lower rates funded by taxes on aviation.

"Some of these comments are detached from reality. The communities affected by Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted are CONSERVATIVE ones, and many residents are fed up with ever-expanding air traffic blighting their neighbourhoods. The New Labour ethos is to ride roughshod over local communities in the name of big business. Don't let's follow that."
I agree entirely. Let's have an end to big government dictating and riding roughshot over local communities.

"Speaking of subsidy, as many of us are, it is interesting to note that there is a fairly compelling argument that the majority of our proposals, which ostensibly 'penalise' the aviation industry, are actually more of a redress of the substantial de facto tax breaks and subsidies that they receive from the government. It is not about raising taxes, its about removing exemptions, subsidy and other unnecessary distortions of the free market. And as for those bemoaning the reduction of the number of cheap flights: Good Lord. After all our arguments against the Human Rights Act, are we really intending to campaign for the Right to Cheap Overseas Holidays? Get a grip."
Agree entirely. I pay VAT on my fuel and car, fuel tax, road tax, a toll on the Dartford Crossing...why is aviation free of VAT?

[Frankland Macdonald Wood]

There is no hope for this party if it starts to go down this silly socialist path towards tax and control. Cheap air fares are a boon to the very people the party should be seeking to vote for it. It will make not one whit of difference to anything or anybody whether the country reaches the Kyoto Accords or not. Don't lets be hidebound by any of these supra national ideals. Be the party for Britain and the interests of the public and repudiate all this nonsense signed up to for no good reason by socialists in all the parties. I have had quite enough of accords, agreements, Human Rights Acts, European Courts and whatever. Do what needs to be done to get the country sorted out, defended, protected from aliens and scroungers and central spenders. If necessary quit any European or World agreement unless it works positively in Britain's interests. Anything else is a form of do-gooding madness, up with which many of us are heartily fed up and will not vote for under any circumstance. Get a grip before it is too late.

[David T Breaker]

Frankland, a lot of what you say isn't incompatable with what's being said. I'm not against cheap air fares. I am against aviation being cheap due to being heavily subsidised by VAT expemtions and expanding through the state dictat of compulsary purchase orders.

I am however in favour of shifting the tax burden away from individuals and small businesses to sectors where the tax will be less inefficient (i.e. harm growth less), such as aviation.