Heathrow

When Governments face rebellion in the back benches, they traditionally defer whatever is causing the problem. This buys them enough time to offer out peerages and cushy jobs to the rebels, defusing enough of the protest to win a vote when the division bell sounds. But Transport Secretary Geoff 'Buff' Hoon may live to regret delaying the Heathrow decision, because this rebellion shows no sign of dying out.

West London Labour MPs who recognise they'll get a kicking in the next election (and a fair few who would benefit from high-speed rail) are now demanding a vote in the Commons - and the Tories or Lib Dems may be able to provide one. Senior Cabinet Ministers are now openly briefing against expansion, concerned that the "strict, local environmental limits" will be broken. BAA even tried to talk up an independent board to analyse the airport's eco-impact, only to be laughed off the Today programme.

The latest plan is to scrap the runway and opt for mixed-mode; such a political option. Mixed-mode - where the airport uses both runways for take-offs and landings - is not as sexy as the destruction of an ancient village, and there would not be as many extra flights. But it's still nonsense. It really doesn't matter whether your emissions come from new runways or old ones; what matters is whether they are increasing or not. Mixed-mode will increase emissions, so it must be sent packing - along with any residual plans to build another runway.

With everyone expecting an announcement on Heathrow next Tuesday, Transport Supremo Geoff Hoon has decided to delay his decision until next year to give himself more time to decide. It's no surprise that he's stalling for time: councils across London are gearing up for a judicial review and Hoon needs to be seen to have thought about his decision very carefully.

There are also rumours of a seismic split in the Cabinet, with a strange coalition of Harman, both Milibands and Hilary Benn on the opponents bench. But forget about democracy: Hoon also vowed not to let the Commons vote on expansion (because he'd lose - over 50 Labour rebels signed an EDM against expansion, wiping out Labour's majority). It makes a mockery of Brown's statement that "decisions should be taken on the floor of this House" when we scrambled about on his roof.

This dithering really isn't good enough: Sipson and West London have had the spectre of expansion hanging over them for far too long. The Government needs to come clean and tell us whether the runway is going ahead or not. After all, there's the long, hard work of building barricades to be sorted - or organising street parties, in the unlikely event that Labour comes to its senses and does the right thing.

Just days before the expected announcement on Heathrow's third runway, and the BBC reports that BAA has agreed to an independent watchdog to monitor the airport and cap the number of flights. It claims it wants to use the new capacity to reduce congestion. What a load of nonsense: it's just a trick to get runway alternation lifted and the village of Sipson turned into runway three.

• Listen to the Today Programme report.

This is just like Stansted, which was subject to a cap on the number of flights, put in place when they airport was converted to passenger use. Last year BAA applied to have it lifted, and the Government just gave its permission. Similarly Heathrow's expansion was once limited to the fourth terminal, then the fifth. Even BAA used to claim that they didn't want a third runway - now they won't deny wanting a fourth.

The third runway and runway alternation must be a line in the sand. Any expansion at Heathrow - even if just to reduce congestion but not overall flights - cannot be allowed to go ahead. Sipson must not be sacrified to help BAA do its job properly - and if it is, then everything we've worked for will be lost, as the number of flights will just rise anyway once the tarmac is on the ground and the damage already done.

Proving that our finger is on the pulse of all things aviation related, Plane Stupid can exclusively reveal today that Boris Johnson has agreed to part-fund a legal challenge to Heathrow's expansion. (Exclusively, because everyone else ran this story last week.) London's mayor has stumped up £15,000 to help 2M prepare a challenge based on breaches of the EU-set NOx limits.

In 2010 a series of NOx limits will come into effect, and any country who breaches them will meet with heavy fines. It's expected that Governments would have taken steps to reduce emissions to avoid the fines, but there are already breaches at Heathrow airport and no sign of any action to reduce NOx levels. We're not very optimistic of any either, given that this would basically necessitate closing the M4 or the M25, or digging up runway 2. The current solution is to push for a 5 year exemption... basically to postpone the enevitable.

If Heathrow is already breaching NOx limits then building another runway is unlikely to reduce its emissions, so the councils, backed by Boris, are to take the UK to court to challenge the expansion plans. I think they've got a pretty strong case - after all, BAA had to do all sorts of fiddling to rig NOx levels in the consultation document. I suppose I should be grateful to BoJo for his cash - but given that he's supporting expansion at City Airport, I'm not. Green with one hand, blue with the other.