No. 10 refuses to deny that subsidy for nuclear power has broken Coalition Agreement

The PM's spokesman merely says that the agreement on a new nuclear power station is "a very important announcement".

The Coalition Agreement was unambiguous on the question of public subsidy for new nuclear power stations: there would be none. It stated:

Liberal Democrats have long opposed any new nuclear construction. Conservatives, by contrast, are committed to allowing the replacement of existing nuclear power stations provided that they are subject to the normal planning process for major projects (under a new National Planning Statement), and also provided that they receive no public subsidy.

But this pledge is flatly contradicted by today's deal on a new plant in Hinkley, which guarantees the French-owned EDF and Chinese state investors a strike price of £92.50 per MegaWatt Hour, nearly twice the current market rate for wholesale energy, over a 35-year period.

When I put this point to the Prime Minister's spokesman at this morning's Lobby briefing, he replied:

Today is a very important announcement, it's around, as he [David Cameron] described it, long-term planning for our economy, for energy security, actually for jobs as well, there are 25,000 jobs associated with today's announcement, and we need this broad energy market and that's why today's announcement is a very important one.

I replied that this was an explantion of why the investment was needed, not of why the position had changed, and he said:

I actually think that the position around the need for energy security, the need for more competition in the market, that has been the government's policy and you're seeing a very important announcement today in regard to that.

So No. 10 is refusing that deny that the coalition has broken its 2010 pledge on public subsidy, simply because it cannot credibly do so. Should wholesale prices fall or rise at a slower rate than expected, it is the public who will pick up the tab in the form of higher bills (which are expected to rise by around £8 as a result of today's agreement) or higher taxes.

But if it is remarkable that the Tories, who dismiss a two-year energy price freeze as "socialism", are willing to guarantee foreign state-owned companies prices for 35 years, it is even more remarkable that the Lib Dems have gone from opposing any new nuclear power stations to supporting a multibillion subsidy for them.

Energy Secretary Ed Davey and David Cameron examine site plans for Hinkly C nuclear power station at Hinkley Point. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.