Another energy shambles from the coalition

Lib Dem energy secretary Ed Davey and Tory energy minister John Hayes go to war over wind farms.

On the day that Michael Heseltine's growth report called for the government to adopt a "definitive and unambiguous" energy policy, ministers are offering anything but. In an interview in today's Daily Telegraph, the recently appointed Conservative energy minister John Hayes, launched a full-frontal attack on wind farms, declaring that they could no longer be "imposed on communities" and that "enough is enough".

He told the paper:

We can no longer have wind turbines imposed on communities. I can’t single-handedly build a new Jerusalem but I can protect our green and pleasant land.

We have issued a call for evidence on wind. That is about cost but also about community buy-in. We need to understand communities’ genuine desires. We will form our policy in the future on the basis of that, not on a bourgeois Left article of faith based on some academic perspective.

Unsurprisingly, his outburst hasn't gone down well with his boss, Lib Dem Energy Secretary Ed Davey. The Department for Energy has let it be known that Davey removed the remarks from a speech Hayes made yesterday and that his comments "will not be government policy". One source tells the Guardian:

What he planned to say was not government policy; will not be government policy. It might be what the Tory party would like to be energy policy, but it is not. He is not in charge of renewable policies on his own, he has to follow the coalition agreement which is in favour of renewable energy and meeting our legal EU targets for 2020.

He has been very silly to give interviews to the Telegraph and the Mail on a speech he was not allowed to deliver.

The only way we are going to meet our targets is if we include renewable energy which is ultimately a cheap form of energy, and in parts of Wales and Scotland is popular.

The row is another example of how coalition discipline is breaking down. Earlier this week, Nick Clegg denounced Defence Secretary Philip Hammond for "jumping the gun" by announcing £350m of new funding for the renewal of Trident and last week the Lib Dems declared that they would veto Iain Duncan Smith's plan to cap benefits for larger families. Even taking into account the reduced standard of collective ministerial responsibility in a coalition, the degree of disunity is striking.

After David Cameron's botched announcement on energy prices earlier this month (which Davey did not receive prior notice of), it's also further evidence of the government's increasingly chaotic approach to policy in this area. Expect Ed Miliband to point out as much at PMQs later today.

The turbine sails of the Scout Moor Wind Farm in the South Pennines. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.