And another thing…

WHEN Geoffrey Clifton-Brown said that his party’s policy on airport expansion might be revisited after the general election, my immediate thought was, “Uh-oh, maybe they are serious about government after all.”

But now Theresa Villiers, the Shadow Transport Secretary has stepped in and slapped down Mr Clifton-Brown and basically told him to stick to international development.

The thing is, the Tories aren’t at all opposed to regional airport expansion, as was made clear last time the Commons debated it; they’re (nominally) opposed to the third runway at Heathrow, much to the bewilderment and frustration of most of the business community. And they’re against it for reasons that have nothing to do with the environment (hence their support for airport expansion elsewhere) and everything to do with trying to win votes in the west of London.

Fair enough, you may say. But it’s hardly the attitude you would expect from a party that wants to be taken seriously as a government-in-waiting.

A RULE about reshuffles is that, whether in government or in opposition, they tend to be initially welcomed by the media. If doubts emerge, it is only in the aftermath, 24-48 hours later.

So the Tories have done well so far to dominate the political headlines on the day a second tranche of cash is to be shoveled into the black hole that is our banking system. And there are some interesting and intelligent moves: Grayling has done well in both his recent positions – transport and DWP – and it will be intersting to see how effective his rottweiller approach will be at Home Affairs.

Theresa May will probably be glad to have her second stint as Shadow Leader of the House finally end. Alan Duncan will enjoy his weekly jousts with Harriet Harman during Business Questios on Thursday mornings. As Coffee House rightly says this afternoon, Dominic Grieve should probably not have been given Shadow Home Secretary last summer when David Davis resigned, and he may well be more suited to Shadow Justice Secretary.

Two negative points, though: I share the disappointment of the business community and a sizeable number of Tory MPs that Cameron has not shifted Theresa Villiers out of transport (though I accept that would have been difficult following a week when he gave her such unambiguous support in her campaign against economic growth Heathrow’s third runway).

And then there’s the DD question. Having accepted the argument for bringing back at least one of the so-called Big Beasts, what is Cameron’s reason for not bringing back David Davis, especially after his tacit admission today that DD’s replacement has not performed well?

Having won the argument for Clarke’s return, DD’s supporters are unlikely to allow the prospect of his eventual return to the front bench disappear from the headlines or from Tory blogs.

WHILE staying perfectly sober and respectable at all times, I spent part of this evening at a party in the vicinity of the Palace of Westminster and fell into some disreputable company - specifically a prominent and respected Tory MP.

Taking advantage of the “lobby terms” that prevail at such events, I asked him what he and his colleagues thought of the Shadow Transport Secretary, Theresa Villiers’ crazy bonkers plan to block a third runway at Heathrow if the Tories win the next election.

He sighed deeply and said: “Theresa was Shadow Chief Secretary, and then she was Shadow Transport Secretary. We have a saying in the parliamentary party: no third Villiers.”

Maybe so, but it still doesn’t explain why Do-Nothing embraced her “policy” so whole-heartedly at Tory Party conference this year.

THERESA Villiers’ incredibly short-sighted vision as regards aviation policy is at last coming in from some serious criticism from within her own party, according to Iain Dale.

I WAS genuinely surprised when Theresa Villiers confirmed during her party’s conference that the Conservatives would oppose a third runway at Heathrow.

Surprised because this is one promise that simply won’t be kept, and she should know that; and because it flies in the face of Cameron’s valiant efforts to depict his party as serious about government.

Over at Conservative Home today, Theresa has been defending her policy, presumably in part a response to her own backbench colleague, David Wilshire, who used the same site to blast the policy earlier this week. I’ve spoken to one senior Tory front bencher who shares my utter bemusement at this policy and I doubt if he is alone.

Certainly the Tories’ traditional core constituency, business leaders, are appalled by Villiers’ suggestion that the need for a third runway could be offset by the building of a new high-speed rail network. High-speed rail will, I’m sure, have an important part to play in this country’s transport strategy in the future. But to claim that it will obviate the need for more runway capacity at Heathrow is over-optimistic at best, self-delusional at worst.

How could high-speed trains reduce demand for international travel? In fact, while Heathrow operates at 99 per cent capacity at the moment, best estimates suggest the kind of high-speed network now advocated by the Tories could reduce that by just two per cent.

An expanded Heathrow is necessary because without it, international travellers will vote with their executive club cards and turn their backs, not just on Heathrow, but on UK plc. We will not be able to maintain London’s position as Europe’s financial capital while our biggest and most important airport is choking to death.

But the policy would claim another victim which has so far been ignored: Crossrail.

Crossrail, due to open in 2017, will provide a new commuter link between Maidenhead and Heathrow to the west of London to the City of London and onwards to Kent in the east. It is not only essential to the economic prosperity of London and the rest of the country – it is also very, very expensive. It will cost more than £15 billion, with the taxpayer meeting about a third of the cost and the remaining two thirds being met through a supplement on London’s business rates and by contributions from the capital’s financial institutions, who see the new link as vital to their future prosperity.

The financial package is robust, though inevitably there are those who remain unconvinced. But how robust will the package be if the airport to which Crossrail will provide a vital link is to be left to wither on the vine? How much value will Crossrail itself add to London if Heathrow cannot expand and cannot compete? And how willing will the City be to pay for a link to Yesterday’s Airport?

The real motivation behind this Tory transport policy – one of the few that the front bench team have come up with after Ms Villers’ 18 months in charge – is votes. Or more specifically, a clutch of marginal seats to the west of London that the Tories need to win in order to have a chance of forming the next government.

What a handicap for any new government to have to carry in its first months in power: a manifesto commitment to eroding a central pillar of our economic success, a commitment which would have serious – possibly terminal – consequences for the most ambitious and expensive rail scheme since the end of the war.

Which is why it’s a promise that simply won’t find its way into the Tory manifesto at the next election. Because to include it would be to invite the (justified) accusation that Cameron isn’t serious about growing the UK economy.

But if this policy is to be ditched, it’s surely very likely that a new policy will have to be developed and promoted by a new Shadow Transport Secretary.

MY soon-to-be ex-boss has issued this excellent* response to Ms Villiers’ silliness this morning:

“These proposals are politically opportunistic, economically illiterate and hugely damaging to Britain’s national interests.

“The Tories are posing a false choice – we need both more capacity in Britain’s airports and on our main rail lines. 

“Even if every flight from Manchester and Leeds/Bradford to Heathrow were replaced by a new high speed line then Heathrow would still be operating at 97% capacity.

“It is the Tories who cannot face up to the tough decisions needed to support the economy, hiding behind unfunded, ill thought through policy announcements which only reinforces their reputation as lightweight, shallow and only interested in grabbing a headline.  It’s hard to take them seriously when they can’t even get their facts straight.”

As a small post script, here’s my own prediction: the next Conservative manifesto will not include a watertight commitment either to vetoing the third runway or to building a new high-speed line. They will equivocate.

You read it here first.

* She’s leaving, so I’m not just sucking up

OOH, the temptation! But I’m not going to succumb, not this time.

Theresa Villiers confirms her party want to scrap Heathrow’s third runway, Boris wants to build a floating airport in the Thames estuary, and Iain Dale – the only one among them with any sense and he’s not even a candidate! – raises the kind of concerns that the Tories should be well aware of, but clearly aren’t.

But I’m not going to trespass on transport matters that aren’t directly part of my brief, no sirree. I’ll keep schtum for now and quietly conclude that so far, it’s been a good conference.

Fascinating to watch the reaction of shadow chancellor George Osborne yesterday during Ruth Kelly’s statement on Manchester’s successful bid for Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) money. Dismissed out of hand by shadow transport secretary Theresa Villiers, our policy was nevertheless warmly welcomed by former Tory environment secretary John Gummer. But as Gummer made clear his own personal commitment to the environment and to combatting climate change, George visibly winced. Someone on our side shouted, ironically, “Vote blue, go green!” But that’s a long-dead Tory slogan. Now it’s “Vote Blue, go blue.”