Centrica's deal with the US is important - but we won't feel the benefits for aeons

It's a start, but just a start.

Today Centrica struck a £10bn supply deal with the US  - describing it as a "landmark agreement".

"This... represents a significant step forward in our strategy, enabling Centrica to strengthen its position along the gas value chain and helping to ensure the UK's future energy security," said Sam Laidlaw, Centrica's chief executive in a statement.

Just how landmark is it? Well, it's effectively the first time the UK has signed a gas import deal with the US - so it's important for a number of reasons.

US natural gas prices are very much cheaper than those in the UK and Europe - around a quarter to a fifth. Here's the thing though: this deal won't lower UK prices all that much, as although the price of the contract is indexed to the US gas market, there is a significant fixed fee on top, which roughly doubles that price. In addition, the volumes of gas involved aren't big enough to have much of an impact on price anyway.

But the important thing about this deal is that it's the first - and therefore a gateway for all sorts of similar contracts.

"More and more deals will get signed with the US from Europe" says Jonathan Lane, Head of Power Consulting at GlobalData. "This will push the US price up, and the European price down. Natural gas prices will eventually harmonise".

The other benefit of the deal is one of security. At the moment the UK relies on a small number of gas suppliers - and heavily on Qatar. The contract with the US will bring some diversity, increasing potential sources and energy security if a pipeline fails.

This is all set very much in the future though - the first shipments aren't due until 2018, so the current strain on our gas supplies may continue for a while.

More on this here.

 
Photograph: Getty Images
Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Voters are turning against Brexit but the Lib Dems aren't benefiting

Labour's pro-Brexit stance is not preventing it from winning the support of Remainers. Will that change?

More than a year after the UK voted for Brexit, there has been little sign of buyer's remorse. The public, including around a third of Remainers, are largely of the view that the government should "get on with it".

But as real wages are squeezed (owing to the Brexit-linked inflationary spike) there are tentative signs that the mood is changing. In the event of a second referendum, an Opinium/Observer poll found, 47 per cent would vote Remain, compared to 44 per cent for Leave. Support for a repeat vote is also increasing. Forty one per cent of the public now favour a second referendum (with 48 per cent opposed), compared to 33 per cent last December. 

The Liberal Democrats have made halting Brexit their raison d'être. But as public opinion turns, there is no sign they are benefiting. Since the election, Vince Cable's party has yet to exceed single figures in the polls, scoring a lowly 6 per cent in the Opinium survey (down from 7.4 per cent at the election). 

What accounts for this disparity? After their near-extinction in 2015, the Lib Dems remain either toxic or irrelevant to many voters. Labour, by contrast, despite its pro-Brexit stance, has hoovered up Remainers (55 per cent back Jeremy Corbyn's party). 

In some cases, this reflects voters' other priorities. Remainers are prepared to support Labour on account of the party's stances on austerity, housing and education. Corbyn, meanwhile, is a eurosceptic whose internationalism and pro-migration reputation endear him to EU supporters. Other Remainers rewarded Labour MPs who voted against Article 50, rebelling against the leadership's stance. 

But the trend also partly reflects ignorance. By saying little on the subject of Brexit, Corbyn and Labour allowed Remainers to assume the best. Though there is little evidence that voters will abandon Corbyn over his EU stance, the potential exists.

For this reason, the proposal of a new party will continue to recur. By challenging Labour over Brexit, without the toxicity of Lib Dems, it would sharpen the choice before voters. Though it would not win an election, a new party could force Corbyn to soften his stance on Brexit or to offer a second referendum (mirroring Ukip's effect on the Conservatives).

The greatest problem for the project is that it lacks support where it counts: among MPs. For reasons of tribalism and strategy, there is no emergent "Gang of Four" ready to helm a new party. In the absence of a new convulsion, the UK may turn against Brexit without the anti-Brexiteers benefiting. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.