Labour-run Haringey Council has refused to join the campaign against the expansion of Heathrow:

Haringey Council has refused to join a coalition of local authorities opposing an expansion at Heathrow.

In the last two weeks, neighbouring boroughs Islington and Camden have both signed up to the 2M Group, or Two million voices against Heathrow expansion, alongside nine other London boroughs.

But calls from environmental pressures group for the council to pledge its support have been rejected…

The introduction of a third runway would mean an additional 220,000 flights a year, higher levels of noise pollution and more carbon emissions caused by new flight paths – many of which could fly over the borough.

Janet Boorman, a campaigner from Tottenham and Wood Green Friends of the Earth, said: “The third runway will bring more aircraft over Haringey.

“It will be responsible for more carbon dioxide emissions than the whole of Uganda, with over 25 million people. It’s obscene to be doing this when we desperately need to cut emissions to prevent climate catastrophe”…

Hornsey and Wood Green MP, Lynne Featherstone, who has signed an Early Day Motion in Parliament calling for the for proposed third runway to be scrapped, said: “I cannot believe that Haringey Council has failed to take a position on this vital issue for Haringey’s residents.

“Where other councils across London are taking a strong stance, Haringey Council has yet again shown that it is completely devoid of any environmental credentials.” (Haringey Independent)

… but this time it is in Camden, rather than Haringey. Just heard that the Conservative councillor for Camden’s Highgate ward – Paul Barton – has resigned and that polling day will be on 1st May.

It will be interesting to see what the Green Mayor candidate Sian Berry does – she’s stood for the council before in Camden – and not won. In normal circumstances I suspect she’d be very tempted to stand in this by-election … but can she do that whilst standing for London Mayor at the same time?

Well – there’s a very clear message from the three post-Budget opinion polls! Good to see the Liberal Democrats holding our own – but there’s clearly been a big move from Labour to the Conservatives. At least for the moment – and I say that because there have been some pretty huge swings back and forth in recent times (remember last Autumn?).

I must admit I find it difficult to believe Darling’s Budget is the cause of all this – yes, it was full of missed opportunities and timid half-measures, but above all it was soooooo boring. Boring equals bad in my book when there are huge challenges out there which need to be met, but boring doesn’t normally equal huge swings in public opinion.

So – I wonder if the real story here is the turmoil in the financial markets? A quick look at the figures for how many people of working age are contributing to a private pension, or have a partner contributing to one, puts the total at 17.9 million people (in 2004, see figure 1.8). That’s out of a working age population of 34 million – in other words, it’s more than half of us.

Now – not everyone contributing to a private pension will have been hit by the big falls in the stockmarket, but there seems to me to be a huge political problem for Labour here. If you know you are heavily dependent on the health of the financial markets for your income in retirement (and with the relative falling away of the basic state pension, more and more people feel they are) then big falls in the stockmarket are very bad news – especially the older you are.

And here’s the FTSE100 share index story: it closed today at the levels it was in back in January 1998 – and that’s without allowing for inflation. There have been ups and downs in the meantime, but the bottom line is – for many people their pension situations are now looking far worse than they did only recently. And with that fear and reality of having your pension savaged – an outcome you have to live with all through your retirement – comes a big political price it would seem.

Brought to my attention is the plight of refugee women and illegal immigrants who are victims of domestic violence but who are trapped in abusive situations because benefits rules prevent them running away – a classic and tragic case of bureaucratic rules gone wrong.

The situation is that these women who are vulnerable but whose immigration status does not ‘allow’ them the access that settled status does. They can’t get access to emergency refuges or welfare and so are left with having no choice really other than to suffer abuse – or become totally destitute on the streets.

Amnesty International and Southall Black Sisters have just issued a report which says – and I agree – that the Government should make exceptions to the rules for these women so that they can be properly helped. It’s a difficult climate – and we all want proper rules properly and fairly applied on asylum and immigration – but for goodness sakes we cannot stand by as a civilised country and simply let women be beaten up and abused.

The spotlight this report shines on the desperate situation of abused women trapped in immigration limbo with literally nowhere to turn is welcome. With no real or secure support from the Government, these women face a bleak choice between destitution or continued dependence on their abuser.

They have already suffered at the hands of their abusers – they shouldn’t have to suffer at the hands of the state too. It’s just not acceptable.