Blame our boom years for today's energy price news

Things get "tight and uncomfortable".

“Life could get very tight and uncomfortable around 2015 to 2018”, said Ofgem’s departing chief executive, Alistair Buchanan to the BBC’s Today Programme this morning.

The “tight and uncomfortable” refers to new energy price rises forecast amid power station closures. Coal is, in Buchanan’s words, “coming off the bars now” and nuclear and renewable sources are still in their infancy. So, in another breath of optimism, Buchanan explains: “We’re going to have to go shopping for gas in world markets... which briefly will be tight themselves, so we’ll have a double squeeze”. Again he emphasises, “Prices are going to get quite squeezy as supply and demand converge”.

Words like “uncomfortable” and “squeezy” from an influential figure like Buchanan are worrying. Although nobody yet knows quite how harsh these price rises will be, there is one certainty – this is unwelcome news.

For once, though, these unwelcome bills are not Coalition policy, they are the direct result of our boom years. International emissions agreements signed between 2004 and 2008, right before what Buchanan labels the “financial tsunami”, take most of the blame. While environmental policy, not the economy was headlining political rhetoric and green protests, not occupy movements were plaguing London’s streets, deals were made to cap emissions. These good intentions have now come back to haunt us as coal power stations are forced to close earlier than expected, and our reliance on gas doubles from 30 to 60 per cent.    

Allocating blame to the past eases the pain. Decisions have been made and we must live by the consequences. But the effects are only short-term: once our wind turbines start spinning, wave hubs start floating and nuclear power plants start...humming, we will surely be back in the black.

Photograph: Getty Images

Oliver Williams is an analyst at WealthInsight and writes for VRL Financial News

Getty
Show Hide image

Donald Trump is the Republican nominee. What now?

So a Clinton-Trump general election is assured – a historically unpopular match-up based on their current favourability ratings.

That’s it. Ted Cruz bowed out of the Republican presidential race last night, effectively handing the nomination to Donald Trump. “From the beginning I’ve said that I would continue on as long as there was a viable path to victory,” Cruz said. “Tonight, I’m sorry to say it appears that path has been foreclosed.”

What foreclosed his path was his sizeable loss to Trump in Indiana. Cruz had bet it all on the Hoosier State, hoping to repeat his previous Midwest victories in Iowa and Wisconsin. He formed a pact with John Kasich, whereby Kasich left the anti-Trump field clear for Cruz in Indiana in return for Cruz not campaigning in Oregon and New Mexico. He announced Carly Fiorina as his vice-presidential nominee last week, hoping the news would give him a late boost.

It didn’t work. Donald Trump won Indiana handily, with 53% of the vote to Cruz’s 37%. Trump won all of the state’s nine congressional districts, and so collected all 57 of the convention delegates on offer. He now has 1,014 delegates bound to him on the convention’s first ballot, plus 34 unbound delegates who’ve said they’ll vote for him (according to Daniel Nichanian’s count).

That leaves Trump needing just 189 more to hit the 1,237 required for the nomination – a number he was very likely to hit in the remaining contests before Cruz dropped out (it’s just 42% of the 445 available), and that he is now certain to achieve. No need to woo more unbound delegates. No contested convention. No scrambling for votes on the second ballot. 

Though Bernie Sanders narrowly won the Democratic primary in Indiana, he’s still 286 pledged delegates short of Hillary Clinton. He isn’t going to win the 65% of remaining delegates he’d need to catch up. Clinton now needs just 183 more delegates to reach the required 2,383. Like Trump, she is certain to reach that target on 7th June when a number of states vote, including the largest: California.

So a Clinton-Trump general election is assured – a historically unpopular match-up based on their current favourability ratings. But while Clinton is viewed favourably by 42% of voters and unfavourably by 55%, Trump is viewed favourably by just 35% and unfavourably by a whopping 61%. In head-to-head polling (which isn’t particularly predictive this far from election day), Clinton leads with 47% to Trump’s 40%. Betting markets make Clinton the heavy favourite, with a 70% chance of winning the presidency in November.

Still, a few questions that remain as we head into the final primaries and towards the party conventions in July: how many Republican officeholders will reluctantly endorse Trump, how many will actively distance themselves from him, and how many will try to remain silent? Will a conservative run as an independent candidate against Trump in the general election? Can Trump really “do presidential” for the next six months, as he boasted recently, and improve on his deep unpopularity?

And on the Democratic side: will Sanders concede gracefully and offer as full-throated an endorsement of Clinton as she did of Barack Obama eight years ago? It was on 7th June 2008 that she told her supporters: “The way to continue our fight now, to accomplish the goals for which we stand is to take our energy, our passion, our strength, and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama, the next president of the United States.” Will we hear something similar from Sanders next month? 

Jonathan Jones writes for the New Statesman on American politics.