Post Election: A Different Kind of Nuclear Bomb

Tom Burke on how an incoming Labour Government will have to deal with the unexploded political bomb of nuclear left behind by the Conservatives

The construction of the the new Hinkley Point C nuclear power station with the old Hinkley point A and B. Photo: Rory Hailes/Alamy

You know something is changing in British politics when our better-known political commentators start turning up at Green Party events. They have not found it easy to make much sense of what such a heterodox coalition offers voters. But there is no doubting that their presence signals an old order in transition.

The Financial Times publishes a general election poll tracker. The picture it shows has not changed significantly for eighteen months. A consistent  20 point gap between Labour and the Conservatives is now barely worth a comment. Much less noticed, however, has been another equally consistent pattern.

Adding together support for the insurgent parties – Reform at 11.5%, Lib-Dems at 9.2% and the Greens at 6.3% – may not tell you much about the balance of power in the next Parliament but it does tell you something significant about Britain’s electorate. Voter support for the three minor parties totals 27%, almost 4% higher than that for the ruling Conservatives.

Put another way, more than 70% of British voters want anyone  other than the current Conservative Government to run the country. Apart from being a clear demonstration of the wisdom of crowds, this is another dagger at the heart of our archaic and increasingly dysfunctional first past the post voting system. The political complexities of the 21st Century cannot easily be tackled as a tidy battle between labour and capital. Voters have already recognised this. It is time that our political leaders did too.

No issue makes this more apparent than that of climate change. The Conservatives’ choice of this issue as a key battleground on which to fight an electoral culture war was entirely voluntary. There was no great grassroots pressure from within the Party itself. Nor was there any groundswell of public opinion although there was a noisy, if evidence-free, torrent of editorial ink from the Rothermere, Murdoch, Barclay press.

The Uxbridge by-election last July paused a string of Conservative losses. Victory was put down to a voter rebellion against too-expensive climate change policies. The Government then seized on climate as a wedge issue for the forthcoming election and began a systematic winding back of climate action.

In doing so it was copying an election strategy first adopted by the Australian National Party. Since our Prime Minister’s election strategist is the Australian Isaac Levido – a protégé of another, better known, Australian political strategist, Lynton Crosby, this should not have surprised anyone.

What is less explicable is why anyone should have thought that a strategy that failed in Australia would work here. Labour’s victory in the 2022 Australian election was aided by a break-away group of candidates standing as ‘Teals’ – blue-green Conservatives. Exactly the constituency David Cameron had wooed for the Tories here in 2010.

As things currently stand, Labour looks like being helped into Downing Street by an ill-chosen culture war that climate change won. This will have its own challenges for Labour. No-one doubts their good intentions on the climate. But their clumsy handling of, and subsequent back pedalling on, their £28 billion a year green prosperity pledge has left a legacy of doubt in voters’ minds. It risks being punished by increasingly volatile voters if it cannot quickly resolve those doubts.

---

The Nuclear Legacy

The Government has accidentally left behind an unexploded bomb for an incoming Labour Government. Should it go off, it will be early evidence for the argument that Starmer can’t be trusted. The bomb in question is whether or not to go ahead with building another large French nuclear power station at Sizewell in Suffolk.

Our current experience with building large French nuclear power stations is not encouraging. Although, unusually, we are not alone in this respect. No-one else, including the French themselves, has been able to do so either. Indeed, France has now decided not to even try to build any more of the type of reactors intended for Sizewell as they are too expensive and difficult to build. They will build a different design instead.

The French reactor we are currently building at Hinkley Point was promised to cost £5.6 billion in 2008 and be producing the electricity to cook turkeys on by 2017. In today’s money it will cost nearer to £46 billion and not be producing electricity before 2030. To get EDF to invest, the then Labour Government promised EDF an index linked price for its electricity.

This means that, were it available now, electricity from Hinkley Point would cost £130/MWh. Since National Grid will sell you electricity today for about £80/MWh why would anyone buy more expensive nuclear electricity? To get EDF to build Hinkley Point a Conservative Government bought 35 years’ worth of electricity in advance at a fixed price. To pay for the difference between what EDF can get from the wholesale market  there will be tax on everyone’s electricity bill.

It is beyond my understanding why any sane person would want to repeat this experience. Yet that is just what the Conservative Government, with Labour support, was planning to do. It is often argued that building a second station using the same reactors will be cheaper. If that were so, someone needs to explain why the French have already decided not to build any more. Is there something they know that we don’t?

Labour now face a particular difficulty on Sizewell. Since their wind-back of the green prosperity plan, they have doubled down on their promise to deliver carbon-free electricity by 2030. So let us, for argument’s sake, put aside any reservation about whether this is practical. We, and our children, will all certainly be better off if they can deliver carbon-free, secure and affordable electricity to consumers by 2030.

But construction of Sizewell cannot start until after 2030. What then, is the case for forcing homeowners and businesses to pay a tax on their energy bills to finance an unnecessary nuclear power station? And what would this do to the scale and speed of investment in the energy efficiency and renewables which are cheaper and faster ways to get both bills and carbon emissions down?