It is no surprise to see a government that claims to be committed to making economic growth a priority giving the green light to expansion of Gatwick Airport and Luton Airport.
Nor, for that matter, would it be a surprise for a third runway at Heathrow Airport to be given the go-ahead by Sir Keir Starmer‘s government – particularly as Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, told the London Evening Standard in July last year that she had “nothing against expanding airport capacity… I want Heathrow to be that European hub for travel”.
Put in purely economic terms, airport expansion is a no-brainer.
The independent commission led by Sir Howard Davies, the former chairman of NatWest, and published as long ago as July 2015, concluded that “expanded airport capacity is crucial for the UK’s long-term prosperity”.
Gatwick, according to a report prepared for the airport by the independent economic consultancy Oxera, generated £5.5bn for the economy in 2023 and supported more than 76,000 jobs.
More on Heathrow Airport
Related Topics:
The airport’s owner estimates that expanding it to take annual capacity to 75 million by the mid-2030s, up from the £46.5m it hit in 2019, would create around 14,000 jobs and generate an extra £1bn a year in economic benefits.
Those numbers are difficult to verify – but it can be stated with confidence that anything which provides access to new markets for both consumers and businesses will be positive for growth.
Expanding the smaller Luton Airport would, similarly, be positive for growth.
Image: A plane flies past a ‘Stop Heathrow Expansion’ sign in west London. Pic: PA
The airport in 2019 – these pre-pandemic numbers are probably the most reliable given the upheaval of the last few years – is estimated to have supported 16,500 jobs in the local area and contributed £1.1bn to GDP. Expansion on the airport’s estimates creates up to 6,100 jobs and contributes an extra £900m to GDP.
Trumping them both, of course, is Heathrow.
The Davies Commission said that building a third runway to the northwest of the airport would provide for around 40 new destinations from Heathrow and would create more than 70,000 new jobs by 2050, adding some £147bn to GDP.
It stated: “Heathrow is best-placed to provide the type of capacity which is most urgently required: long-haul destinations to new markets. It provides the greatest benefits for business passengers, freight operators and the broader economy.”
It is worth noting that among the members of the commission was Sir John Armitt, the respected former chairman of the Olympic Delivery Authority, who is now chair of the National Infrastructure Commission.
His term of office was extended by Ms Reeves in October last year in order for him to oversee the 10-year strategy ordered by the chancellor and the establishment of the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority.
He will be an influential voice in this debate.
However, while the economic case for airport expansion is unimpeachable, the bigger question, perhaps, is whether it is achievable.
Political considerations
Getting approval for the expansion of both Luton and Gatwick will be a major test of the new government’s commitment to overhauling planning regulations where they are an impediment to growth.
And here there are – for supporters of expansion – ominous signs.
A decision on whether or not to expand Luton was postponed for the third time just before Christmas so that Heidi Alexander, who had just succeeded the disgraced Louise Haigh as transport secretary, could be given time to assess the application.
Climate concerns
Tied into the planning hurdles are the inevitable environmental objections.
The Climate Change Committee, the government’s independent advisory body, has already said emissions savings would have to be made elsewhere in the economy were there to be a big expansion in airport passenger numbers.
The aviation industry will doubtless argue that it has already committed to becoming net zero by the middle of the century – but the environmental lobby has a long track record of successfully campaigning against airport expansion.
On top of that are the political obstacles.
Ms Reeves – and Ms Alexander, should she back expansion of Gatwick and Luton – will face implacable opposition from within their own cabinet, not least from Ed Miliband, the energy and climate change secretary.
Backing Heathrow expansion would be more controversial still.
Sadiq Khan, the London mayor, is strongly opposed to this and so are other senior Labour figures, among them Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester.
He argues that a third runway at Heathrow would run counter to levelling-up proposals – although it is worth noting here that some of the UK’s biggest regional airports, such as Newcastle, support a third runway on the basis that it would boost international connectivity to their region.
That means leadership will ultimately have to come from Sir Keir Starmer who, it is worth noting, voted against a third runway at Heathrow in 2018.
Government unlikely to ever get credit
Supporting airport expansion is often difficult for governments – quite apart from the environmental objections and the inevitable planning hurdles – because it takes so long to add capacity and ministers are therefore unlikely to receive credit for it during their political lifetime.
For example, the two main airport expansion projects currently under way in Europe, the new Luis de Camoes airport in Lisbon and the new Solidarity superhub in Warsaw, are unlikely to be completed until the mid-2030s.
But the latter, in particular, highlights how other European governments have no hesitation in seeing airport expansion as a major generator of growth.
It is not alone. Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport, an increasingly important competitor to Heathrow, is currently investing some €6bn in upgrades with the aim of expanding both passenger and flight numbers. Budapest, an airport once owned by BAA, the former parent of Heathrow and Gatwick, is looking to build a third terminal that would generate an extra three million passengers by the end of the decade.
These examples highlight how other European governments are less squeamish about putting airport expansion over environmental considerations in the name of pursuing economic growth.
You can be sure that the international investors who own Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton will be looking to the UK to do likewise.
Donald Trump’s trade war escalation has sparked a global sell-off, with US stock markets seeing the biggest declines in a hit to values estimated above $2trn.
Tech and retail shares were among those worst hit when Wall Street opened for business, following on from a flight from risk across both Asia and Europe earlier in the day.
Analysis by the investment platform AJ Bell put the value of the peak losses among major indices at $2.2trn (£1.7trn).
The tech-focused Nasdaq Composite was down 5.8%, the S&P 500 by 4.3% and the Dow Jones Industrial Average by just under 4% at the height of the declines. It left all three on course for their worst one-day losses since at least September 2022 though the sell-off later eased back slightly.
Analysts said the focus in the US was largely on the impact that the expanded tariff regime will have on the domestic economy but also effects on global sales given widespread anger abroad among the more than 180 nations and territories hit by reciprocal tariffs on Mr Trump‘s self-styled “liberation day”.
They are set to take effect next week, with tariffs on all car, steel and aluminium imports already in effect.
Price rises are a certainty in the world’s largest economy as the president’s additional tariffs kick in, with those charges expected to be passed on down supply chains to the end user.
The White House believes its tariffs regime will force employers to build factories and hire workers in the US to escape the charges.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
5:07
The latest numbers on tariffs
Economists warn the additional costs will add upward pressure to US inflation and potentially choke demand and hiring, ricking a slide towards recession.
Apple was among the biggest losers in cash terms in Thursday’s trading as its shares fell by almost 9%, leaving it on track for its worst daily performance since the start of the COVID pandemic.
Concerns among shareholders were said to include the prospects for US price hikes when its products are shipped to the US from Asia.
Other losers included Tesla, down by almost 6% and Nvidia down by more than 6%.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:54
PM: It’s ‘a new era’ for trade and economy
Many retail stocks including those for Target and Footlocker lost more than 10% of their respective market values.
The European Union is expected to retaliate in a bid to put pressure on the US to back down.
The prospect of a tit-for-tat trade war saw the CAC 40 in France and German DAX fall by more than 3.4% and 3% respectively.
The FTSE 100, which is internationally focused, was 1.6% lower by the close – a three-month low.
Financial stocks were worst hit with Asia-focused Standard Chartered bank enduring the worst fall in percentage terms of 13%, followed closely by its larger rival HSBC.
Among the stocks seeing big declines were those for big energy as oil Brent crude costs fell back by 6% to $70 due to expectations a trade war will hurt demand.
The more domestically relevant FTSE 250 was 2.2% lower.
A weakening dollar saw the pound briefly hit a six-month high against the US currency at $1.32.
There was a rush for safe haven gold earlier in the day as a new record high was struck though it was later trading down.
Sean Sun, portfolio manager at Thornburg Investment Management, said of the state of play: “Markets may actually be underreacting, especially if these rates turn out to be final, given the potential knock-on effects to global consumption and trade.”
He warned there was a big risk of escalation ahead through countermeasures against the US.
Sandra Ebner, senior economist at Union Investment, said: “We assume that the tariffs will not remain in place in the announced range, but will instead be a starting point for further negotiations.
“Trump has set a maximum demand from which the level of tariffs should decrease”.
She added: “Since the measures would not affect all regions and sectors equally, there will be winners and losers as in 2018 – although the losers are more likely to be in the EU than in North America.
“To protect companies in Europe from the effects of tariffs, the EU should not respond with high counter-tariffs. In any case, their impact in the US is not likely to be significant. It would be more efficient to provide targeted support to EU companies in the form of investment and stimulus.”
British companies and business groups have expressed alarm over President Donald Trump’s 10% tariff on UK goods entering the US – but cautioned against retaliatory measures.
It comes as Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds launched a consultation with firms on taxes the UK could implement in response to the new levies.
A 400-page list of 8,000 US goods that could be targeted by UK tariffs has been published, including items like whiskey and jeans.
On so-called “Liberation Day”, Mr Trump announced UK goods entering the US will be subject to a 10% tax while cars will be slapped with a 25% levy.
The government’s handling of tariff negotiations with the US to date has been praised by representative and industry bodies as being “cool” and “calm” – and they urged ministers to continue that approach by not retaliating.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
5:07
The latest numbers on tariffs
Business lobby group the CBI (Confederation of British Industry) said: “Retaliation will only add to supply chain disruption, slow down investment, and stoke volatility in prices”.
Industry body the British Retail Consortium (BRC) also cautioned: “Retaliatory tariffs should only be a last resort”.
‘Deeply troubling’
While a major category of exports, in the form of services – like finance and information technology (IT) – has been exempted from the tariffs, the impact on UK business is expected to be significant.
Mr Trump’s announcement was described as “deeply troubling for businesses” by the CBI’s chief executive Rain Newton-Smith.
The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) also said the tariffs were “a major blow” to small and medium companies (SMEs), as 59% of small UK exporters sell to the US. It called for emergency government aid to help those affected.
“Tariffs will cause untold damage to small businesses trying to trade their way into profit while the domestic economy remains flat,” the FSB’s policy chair Tina McKenzie said. “The fallout will stifle growth” and “hurt opportunities”, she added.
Companies will need to adapt and overcome, the British Export Association said, but added: “Unfortunately adaptation will come at a cost that not all businesses will be able to bear.”
Watch dealer and component seller Darren Townend told Sky News the 10% hit would be “painful” as “people will buy less”.
“I am a fan of Trump, but this is nuts,” he said. “I expect some bad months ahead.”
Industry body Make UK said the 25% tariffs on cars, steel and aluminium would in particular be devastating for UK manufacturing.
Cars hard hit
Carmakers are among the biggest losers from the world trade order reshuffle.
Auto industry body the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) said the taxes were “deeply disappointing and potentially damaging measure”.
“These tariff costs cannot be absorbed by manufacturers”, SMMT chief executive Mike Hawes said. “UK producers may have to review output in the face of constrained demand”.
The new taxes on cars took effect on Thursday morning, while the measures impacting car parts are due to come in on 3 May.
Economists immediately started scratching their heads when Donald Trump raised his tariffs placard in the Rose Garden on Wednesday.
On that list he detailed the rate the US believes it is being charged by each country, along with its response: A reciprocal tariff at half that rate.
So, take China for example. Donald Trump said his team had run the numbers and the world’s second-largest economy was implementing an effective tariff of 67% on US imports. The US is responding with 34%.
How did he come up with that 67%? This is where things get a bit murky. The US claims it studied its trading relationship with individual countries, examining non-tariff barriers as well as tariff barriers. That includes, for example, regulations that make it difficult for US exporters.
However, the actual methodology appears to be far cruder. Instead of responding to individual countries’ trade barriers, Trump is attacking those enjoying large trade surpluses with the US.
A formula released by the US trade representative laid this bare. It took the US’s trade deficit in goods with each country and divided that by imports from that country. That figure was then divided by two.
More on Donald Trump
Related Topics:
So, in the case of China, which has a trade surplus of $295bn on total US exports of $438bn, that gives a ratio of 68%. The US divided that by two, giving a reciprocal tariff of 34%.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:58
PM will ‘fight’ for deal with US
This is a blunt measure which targets big importers to the US, irrespective of the trade barriers they have erected. This is all part of Donald Trump’s efforts to shrink the country’s deficit – although it’s US consumers who will end up paying the price.
But what about the small number of countries where the US has a trade surplus? Shouldn’t they actually be benefiting from all of this?
That includes the UK, with whom the US has a surplus (by its own calculations) of $12bn. By its own reciprocal tariff formula, the UK should be benefitting from a “negative tariff” of 9%.
Instead, it has been hit by a 10% baseline tariff. Number 10 may be breathing a sigh of relief – the US could, after all, have gone after us for our 20% VAT rate on imports, which it takes issue with – but, by Trump’s own measure, we haven’t got off as lightly as we should have.