Boris Johnson has been branded a hypocrite for taking a short helicopter flight from London to the West Midlands to promote a local bike hire scheme.
The train journey would have taken him just over two hours.
Critics branded the flight ‘completely unnecessary’ and said it cast serious doubt on the sincerity of the prime minister’s promise to fight the climate crisis.
Johnson took the 50-minute helicopter ride in a Sikorsky S-76C on 5 May, departing from north-west London and landing at Wolverhampton Halfpenny Green airport.
He then travelled to Stourbridge to meet Andy Street, who was subsequently re-elected as West Midlands metro mayor.
“Great to show the PM around Stourbridge by bike,” Street tweeted.
Great to show the PM around Stourbridge by bike as well as visiting local businesses & residents
Having Govt’s support over the past 4 years has been key to driving investment & jobs so I hope I’ll have the opportunity to continue to fight for our regionhttps://t.co/GDymh329gt
— Andy Street (@andy4wm) May 5, 2021
Johnson and Street used bicycles from the West Midlands Cycle Hire scheme during the trip and were pictured cycling along a canal together.
The helicopter Johnson flew in is registered to the digger manufacturer JCB, whose chairman is the billionaire Tory peer and frequent donor to the Conservative party Lord Bamford, The Guardian reports.
The prime minister also used a helicopter to travel to Wolverhampton on 19 April, landing at a local golf club. During the visit, he took the controls of a tram at the West Midlands Metro depot in Wednesbury.
This isn’t the first time Johnson has been criticised for flying short distances.
In December 2019, while campaigning for the general election, he took a private jet from Doncaster to Darlington, which are less than one hour apart by train.
Leo Murray, a co-director at the climate charity Possible, said: “The prime minister’s decision to travel by helicopter and private jet for election campaigns on trips that could easily have been made by train is very troubling.
“He either does not understand the implications of the climate targets he has signed Britain up to, or he is not serious about doing what needs to be done to meet them.
“Imagine the positive message [travelling by train] would have sent to the British public about public transport use post-Covid.
“It really casts doubt on the sincerity of the recent, very welcome messages from the government about the climate crisis.”
Johnson has made action on the climate crisis a central part of his agenda, promising green jobs to ‘level up’ deprived areas.
On 6 May, Johnson told other world leaders that the climate crisis would be ‘right at the heart of the agenda’ of the G7 summit in Cornwall this summer, which he claimed would be ‘completely carbon neutral’.
Nadia Whittome, Labour MP for Nottingham East, said: “Boris Johnson taking a private helicopter from London to the West Midlands is clearly completely unnecessary.
“But beyond the prime minister’s personal actions, it’s the government’s hypocrisy on spending and legislating to tackle the climate crisis that really concerns me.
“Johnson has said he wants to cut taxes on domestic flights. It shouldn’t be cheaper to fly in the UK than to take the train, but our overpriced, privatised rail system means that it often it is.”
A Conservative party spokesman said: “It has long been the case that party leaders make visits across the country during election campaigns using a wide variety of transport.
“Such visits are an important part of the democratic process, so politicians, including prime ministers, can visit as many places as possible within time constraints.
“Under this Conservative government, we’ve reduced carbon emissions faster than any other G7 country, are producing a record amount of electricity from renewable sources and are a world leader in offshore wind.”




















45 thoughts on “Boris Johnson took ‘completely unnecessary’ helicopter trip to promote cycling scheme”
I wonder, if BJ, the PM’s
I wonder, if BJ, the PM’s team and his body guards had taken the train, would the headline be: “PM on train causes passengers to be left standing on the platform”? as social distancing has limited train capacity.
What I would question: is the PM using a chartered helicopter? or is JCB providing this FOC?
As PM, he has access to
As PM, he has access to military aircraft but as with his holidays, his flat and probably lots of other things still to come out, he seems to accepting “gifts” from all the donors for these things to save “direct” costs to the taxpayer. Of course what the costs to the taxpayers will be indriectly is very hard to work out once they call in the reason for these gifts.
Edit: Although I just realised that if he was “campaigning” he might not be able to use Government resources.
As for the first question, as most travel is pre booked during Covid, I doubt there would be as much disruption although the one carriage would probably have been requsitioned.
yes but people get their
yes but people get their knickers in a twist about the PM using those too, or having planes with Union flags on them, meanwhile our EU neighbours often have entire fleets of aircraft at their disposal and no-one pays it any notice as its just accepted, whilst we have groups arguing over whether its appropriate to have two planes on lease.
anyway, this was an election campaign trip, so it wouldnt have been appropriate to use government resources (ie taxpayer funded) to do it, unless he had government business there as well, so it makes sense to have used a party donors largesse if it was available and it meant he could do PMs questions on the same day in the Commons.
“party donors largesse”
“party donors largesse”
I wouldn’t trust Johnson to make the distinction between party business and government business. I wouldn’t trust Johnson.
Awavey wrote:
You’re really obsessed with the EU, aren’t you?
no, but maybe you are if that
no, but maybe you are if that sentence specifically bothered you.
so enlighten us why is it unreasonable to compare what countries, who are still our near geographic neighbours, who we share thousands of years of history with, who are of similar sizes,with similar populations & similar wealth & with similar outlooks and attitudes as a comparison ? just because the UK left the EU doesnt mean they are suddenly out of bounds to compare against.
and they have better train networks and better public transport in general, better roads too often, but when you dig into the detail and find actually they consider air travel for their governments/heads of state, even just to fly around their country to be just one of those things you do and no one moans or complains about it, or about what colour they painted their planes, or really who uses them or for what purposes, thats just a terribly British hangup about it, probably rooted in class envy, as is complaining that someone should have used the train instead of a helicopter, which really has absolutely nothing to do with the environment or cycling at the end of the day imo.
Awavey wrote:
It’s whataboutery; your only reason to bring it up is to distract from Johnson.
Voters in all countries are perfectly capable of criticising their own politicians, and the defense “but everybody else is also bad” doesn’t sound good anywhere.
And you’re not “comparing”, it’s just a claim.
“Such visits are an important
“Such visits are an important part of the democratic process… visit as many places as possible within time constraints”.
The spokesperson omitted the last part which should have added context – “as long as they have the billionaire donors to provide them with helicopters and private jets”.
Democratic indeed.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
I know the RAF have planes suitable for “VIP” flights, I don’t think they have any helicopters set aside for this purpose. Unlike the US air force.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
The GE was in December. Train travel had limited spaces due to social distancing, and lots of people travelling for xmas would have made this difficult.
The main helicopter story was
The main helicopter story was less then two weeks ago and the rest was in April? And the GE was before social distancing as it was 2019.
I appreciate that he’s
I appreciate that he’s sending mixed messages with this, but I don’t see it as particularly noteworthy. I’d rather see more attention on the huge disparity between road spending (aimed at motorists) and active travel spending. If you want to criticise Boris then there’s plenty of better targets (e.g. poor/late coronavirus response).
I must have missed the
I must have missed the article on this site praising the PM for promoting cycling during the election campaigns. If so, please provide the link.
It’s pretty rare that we get a prime minister who ever straddles a bicycle at all – the only other one that springs to mind was David Cameron. This is supposed to be a cycling website, not a party political one.
well maybe if there was some
well maybe if there was some kind of high speed rail link for passengers to use to the west midlands…
Awavey wrote:
— AwaveyThere is.
Euston to Wolverhampton in under 2 hours. He could do some work, take phone calls or whatever while travelling. Producing much lower emissions and us taxpayers would have paid a lot less for him to sit in first class than the helicopter ride (which is also a far more dangerous form of transport).
I can’t believe a bike hire scheme is worthy of a visit anyway. Nice though it is, there are far more urgent and worthwhile things for the PM to give attention to, as hawkinspeter has said.
Yet another “charity” that
Yet another “charity” that seems to be little more than a political mouthpiece. Once again these obviously motivated attacks cast doubt on the goals of the Green movement.
Oi Leo – in the real world, if the prime minister takes the fastest and most efficient form of transport, nobody cares. No one is going to base their personal travel decisions on what Boris Johnson is doing.
How about emphasising the positive things that are happening on active travel and pushing for more, instead of engaging in petty, snide, class-based politics? Get a proper job man.
And, straight out of the
And, straight out of the blocks is our resident #ToryScum apologist in a pathetic attempt to defend the blatant hypocrisy of the bumbling clown pretending to be PM.
Eton Rifle wrote:
Personal attacks on the internet. Very mature.
Jenova20 wrote:
Stop making personal attacks says someone ending their comment with a personal attack.
For the record, Nigel Garrage is a #ToryScum apologist, that’s simply a statement of fact.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Stop making personal attacks says someone ending their comment with a personal attack.
For the record, Nigel Garrage is a #ToryScum apologist, that’s simply a statement of fact.— Eton Rifle
calling someone scum is a personal attack
referring to a specific action as immature is a comment on a particular action, not a personal attack.
Hence in the commons it is ok to call a statement a lie, buit it is not ok to call a member a liar.
wycombewheeler wrote:
In fairness he didn’t call him scum, he called him a #toryscum apologist….
Captain Badger wrote:
yeah, I read that as toryscum and apologist, rather than the perhaps intended apologist FOR toryscum.
wycombewheeler wrote:
“You apology for toryscum!”
Ouch
Whereas you represent the
Whereas you represent the kinder, gentler politics this country so desperately needs.
Careful now.
Careful now.
Road.cc don’t tolerate personal abuse in the comments.
I’m sure the moderators will be along any second now…
Rich_cb wrote:
It’s not abusive if it’s
It’s not abusive if it’s directed at ‘that group’.
As any fool knows.
Rich_cb wrote:
I’m all for free speech tbh – all water off a duck’s back. Besides, having the freedom to offend often gives a window into the character of those who exercise that freedom.
Although it would be nice if any rules were applied evenly.
I’m not really offended by
I’m not really offended by some keyboard warrior throwing insults around either.
Personally I think we would all benefit if political discussions could be kept civil but that doesn’t appear to be the world we live in anymore.
I very much doubt we’ll ever see the equal application of the rules on this particular forum but I will continue to issue gentle reminders.
Isn’t he a PM pretending to
Isn’t he a PM pretending to be bumbling clown? Lots of people fall for the act and don’t realise that he’s a power hungry, self-serving, moral vaccuum.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Exactly.
“Boris” is a character created for public consumption by Alexander de Pfeffel Johnson.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Fastest, probably. Most efficient? He probably got less than 2.5 MPG (over 100 L/100 km,) and that not counting if the helicopter flew from somewhere to collect him.
Unfortunately, this is a
Unfortunately, this is a continuation of the current government failing to lead by example. Parliament declared a climate emergency 2 years ago and this should now inform all decision making.
He should have taken a coach
He should have taken a coach with some memorable lie printed on the sides…
ktache wrote:
That wasn’t a lie was it? I would have thought since Brexit the tories would have had upped investment in the NHS by an equivalent amount. Must confess I hadn’t bothered to check as they are all men of their word, as we know……
Captain Badger wrote:
Marcus Ball took Boris to court over this and Boris won. Further, the NHS has been given £280B because of the pandemic. how much of that funding will be permanent is currently unknown, but:
A) It’s more than £350M a week.
B) Saying “let’s fund the NHS instead” does not mean it should receive all £350M. It’s a shame that this still has to be explained after 5 years to people, and this is why Marcus Ball lost his court case.
EDIT: The NHS is indeed receiving a boost of more than £350M a week – https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/nhs-budget
Jenova20 wrote:
What’s your point?
Wow, Tory government not only planning ahead (switch), but also doing it in the knowledge there was to be a pandemic coming up. Just as well we left the EU in time for that eh…
you’ve just said that it would be unknown…..
We already knew that. It’s a shame that even 5 years later some folk don’t get that they’ve been had……
Why thankyou Brexit! it couldn’t/wouldn’t have happened without you….
No, there was no winning or
No, there was no winning or losing as the High Court decided that the Private Prosecution couldn’t be brought as the laws did not cover false statements by MP’s as Parliament didn’t cover that in the act on lying during campaigning. And the lie was there from the act of how much was sent out in real terms AND the insinuation it was all meant for the NHS otherwise why have that in very large writing on the side of the bus and not just writing US.
I’m not sure where the NHS has gotten £280 billion figure for Covid has come from as of the £340Bil spent, half has gone on Furlough payments unless you think thay is NHS spending.
And the link you sent through is again only on Covid funding, yet it shows without that it has only gone up £12billion since 2015 where it should have gone up 18.2 billion a year with the full £350mill.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
Unless i’ve misread: “In July 2018, the Prime Minister announced a new five-year funding deal that would see NHS funding rise by £33.9 billion in cash terms (ie, not adjusted for inflation) by 2023/24 compared to 2018/19, a rate of increase that is closer to, but still lower than, the long-term average.”
Unless i’ve misread that as being £33.9B spread over 5 years.
That being said – the NHS is getting £394M extra a week from 2023 according to this older source, so it seems they’ve increased it again and it will be more than Theresa May announced: https://fullfact.org/health/nhs-england-394-million-more/
The last line in your italics
The last line in your italics is key. It is keeping with the long term average rises but is still less then that which was about 3.4%. But the Governement can say “we are doubling the spending into the nhs” from 10 years ago but I doubt they will say “because we brought it down to an average of 1.4% for 10 years due to Austerity”.
It will also be interesting if the funding rises do go ahead as they have already reneged on the promised pay rises to the Nurses and lower NHS staff due to Austerity 2.0.
It does mention in the fullfact that the EU funding was less then the £350 million and we will only have a net sum of £10bill from 21 onwards. They mention that any extra spending in the NHS will need to come from “from increased taxes, increased borrowing, or reducing spending on something else”. And bearing in mind this was well before Covid expeditures which the Corporate Tax rise is there to cover (which was not going to happen otherwise). So which Peter is losing out for Paul? Or are the Government being massive borrowers now (which was traditionally a Labour Policy).
Jenova20 wrote:
Maybe you should have actually read that full fact article. Direct quote:
“There is no guaranteed extra money to pay for this increased NHS funding from stopping our payments to the EU budget. Other costs associated with Brexit are expected to outweigh the savings.”
In other words, the additional funding for the NHS is sod-all to do with Brexshit, because the EU contributions we were making have been dwarfed by the massive costs of leaving.
Jenova20 wrote:
Indeed that would be impossible, as the UK contribution to the EU was never £350m a week, closer to £260m a week after rebate, with about half of that amount being spent in the UK by the EU, on things which the government will need to fund going forward unless they are going to be cut. Such as agriculture subsidies.
Either way it is quite clear te NHS funding has not benefitied from leaving the EU as implied in your post and on the bus, because government revenues are siginificantly down and yet funding for the NHS has been found, because it had to be. Any boost in NHS funding during this health crisis is not relevant in the discussion on brexit campaign claims
The net contribution to the EU ammounts to around £3 per adult per week, and the cost of leaving has exceeded that many times
“Such visits are an important
“Such visits are an important part of the democratic process, so politicians, including prime ministers, can visit as many places as possible within time constraints.”
I’d be quite happy if he didn’t visit so many places, especially any near me.
“Under this Conservative government, we’ve reduced carbon emissions faster than any other G7 country……”
Because we’ve exported all our manufacturing to China, and we buy all the Chinese products so we’ve actually created more emissions because of the distance they are transported to us. But hey, Boris rides a bike, so that’s ok then.
“He either does not
“He either does not understand the implications of the climate targets he has signed Britain up to, or he is not serious about doing what needs to be done to meet them.”
It’s more likely to be “both”.
With an added bit of self-interest/self-promotion, and called-in favours from anonymous donors for the “free” (but no doubt enjoyable) chopper ride.
Boris Johnson is unnecessary.
Boris Johnson is unnecessary. Boris Johnson doesn’t give a f*ck about anything other than Boris Johnson.