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.

Garry Knight via Creative Commons
Show Hide image

Why Barack Obama was right to release Chelsea Manning

A Presidential act of mercy is good for Manning, but also for the US.

In early 2010, a young US military intelligence analyst on an army base near Baghdad slipped a Lady Gaga CD into a computer and sang along to the music. In fact, the soldier's apparently upbeat mood hid two facts. 

First, the soldier later known as Chelsea Manning was completely alienated from army culture, and the callous way she believed it treated civilians in Iraq. And second, she was quietly erasing the music on her CDs and replacing it with files holding explosive military data, which she would release to the world via Wikileaks. 

To some, Manning is a free speech hero. To others, she is a traitor. President Barack Obama’s decision to commute her 35-year sentence before leaving office has been blasted as “outrageous” by leading Republican Paul Ryan. Other Republican critics argue Obama is rewarding an act that endangered the lives of soldiers and intelligence operatives while giving ammunition to Russia. 

They have a point. Liberals banging the drum against Russia’s leak offensive during the US election cannot simultaneously argue leaks are inherently good. 

But even if you think Manning was deeply misguided in her use of Lady Gaga CDs, there are strong reasons why we should celebrate her release. 

1. She was not judged on the public interest

Manning was motivated by what she believed to be human rights abuses in Iraq, but her public interest defence has never been tested. 

The leaks were undoubtedly of public interest. As Manning said in the podcast she recorded with Amnesty International: “When we made mistakes, planning operations, innocent people died.” 

Thanks to Manning’s leak, we also know about the Vatican hiding sex abuse scandals in Ireland, plus the UK promising to protect US interests during the Chilcot Inquiry. 

In countries such as Germany, Canada and Denmark, whistle blowers in sensitive areas can use a public interest defence. In the US, however, such a defence does not exist – meaning it is impossible for Manning to legally argue her actions were in the public good. 

2. She was deemed worse than rapists and murderers

Her sentence was out of proportion to her crime. Compare her 35-year sentence to that received by William Millay, a young police officer, also in 2013. Caught in the act of trying to sell classified documents to someone he believed was a Russian intelligence officer, he was given 16 years

According to Amnesty International: “Manning’s sentence was much longer than other members of the military convicted of charges such as murder, rape and war crimes, as well as any others who were convicted of leaking classified materials to the public.”

3. Her time in jail was particularly miserable 

Manning’s conditions in jail do nothing to dispel the idea she has been treated extraordinarily harshly. When initially placed in solitary confinement, she needed permission to do anything in her cell, even walking around to exercise. 

When she requested treatment for her gender dysphoria, the military prison’s initial response was a blanket refusal – despite the fact many civilian prisons accept the idea that trans inmates are entitled to hormones. Manning has attempted suicide several times. She finally received permission to receive gender transition surgery in 2016 after a hunger strike

4. Julian Assange can stop acting like a martyr

Internationally, Manning’s continued incarceration was likely to do more harm than good. She has said she is sorry “for hurting the US”. Her worldwide following has turned her into an icon of US hypocrisy on free speech.

Then there's the fact Wikileaks said its founder Julian Assange would agree to be extradited to the US if Manning was released. Now that Manning is months away from freedom, his excuses for staying in the Equadorian London Embassy to avoid Swedish rape allegations are somewhat feebler.  

As for the President - under whose watch Manning was prosecuted - he may be leaving his office with his legacy in peril, but with one stroke of his pen, he has changed a life. Manning, now 29, could have expected to leave prison in her late 50s. Instead, she'll be free before her 30th birthday. And perhaps the Equadorian ambassador will finally get his room back. 

 

Julia Rampen is the editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog. She was previously deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.