The Tories need a top-quality politician to shadow Ed Miliband

C Powell

Labour's energy policy has consisted, as far as I can see, in (i) ignoring it; (ii) windmills; and (iii) taxes under the usual "green" scam. No thanks.

The first thing the Tories should be asking is why, after 11 years, Labour has done nothing to secure our energy supplies so that we face the very real prospect of the lights going out in a few years or of being held to ransom by Russia?

Labour have no answer to this. I don't care as much about climate change as I do about heating my home and my family at a reasonable price and I don't want my children to have to do their homework by candlelight, as I had to do in the 70's.

Like the French, the Tories need to go for nuclear, asap, and tell people that this is the way we get power at a reasonable price which does not make us dependent on potential enemies. The mood on this has changed; climate change comes much lower on the list of people's priorities now that people are worried about being able to afford to heat their house at all. The Tories need to reflect this just as they've had to change their approach re the economy.

Sir Buffy de Vere Spoofington, Bt

Greg Clark is hard-working, has a formidable grasp of policy and strategy and is always on top of the detail. So, clearly, he won't get the job. Send for Vaizey. More our sort of chap.

Victoria Street

You're right, Ed Miliband is a threat in this role. He has the skills to take advantage of an area that Cameron has made his own. Duncan is far too close to the generators and Old Oil. The Tories need a new, charismatic, media savvy face - Jeremy Hunt.

dennis

I agree that Greg Clark and Ed Vaizey deserve promotion, but I'm not sure this is the right route.

This is a subject where....dare I say it.... experience ... is vital.

A novice couldn't read his way into the climate change/ energy stuff over a weekend. Or even a month of Sundays.

Ainsworth knows everything there is to know about all this.

Better, surely, to leave it to him?

Andrew

You can't be serious! Liam Fox would be a diaster in this brief. Yes energy security should be a concern, but apart from his hostility to Russia what else has he ever said about energy or clmate change?

mitch

Why? the mans a void, I cannot remember anything he has said or done.

Puncheon

Back to the future - this is where I came in, a desperate and unpopular Government creatinf a Dept of Energy. C Powell is dead right, why have the NuLab Govmt avoided ordering new nuclear stations, when evryone knows that that is the only way of keeping the lights on. Windmills are just the Home Counties middle-class parading their green credentials at somepne else's expense.

Polly and Alice's mum

I think John Redwood is just the man for the job.

Nicholas

Isn't creating a new Department going to cost more taxpayers money? Is this Brown using his experience in digging a big black hole
in the economy to dig it even deeper?

Shouldn't a prudent government being trying to save money by reining in grandiose and expensive new projects?

TGF UKIP

"Tory energy policy is far too woolly at the moment." Thank you James. I've been banging on about this for months but I'm afraid Coffee Housers are going to be sadly short-changed if they follow your link to the Tory Party website and its current summation of its energy policy.

Until just a very few days ago if they had looked up Tory energy policy they would have been treated to a side splitting document entitled and sub titled "POWER TO THE PEOPLE The decentralised energy revolution." Now obviously withdrawn, this was a policy that had all the hallmarks of the green movement in its distortions, exaggerations and downright mendacity and was presented with all the earnestness that it could only have been written by Zac Goldsmith with the assistance of a bunch of particularly earnest bunch of Guardian reading sixth formers.

But before we get onto the politics, a word about where we are at present. The current (2007) energy mix is roughly

Gas 38%
Coal 36%
Nuclear 18%
Oil, hydro & renewables 8%

The policy and political dilemma comes because over the next ten year 6 nuclear and six coal power stations are scheduled for closure. So as thing stand it's LIGHTS OUT and power rationing from about 2015 as power stations either switch off or break down.

Indeed over the past couple of decades and more the only power stations that have been constructed have been gas fired and as our N. Sea gas runs out we are increasingly dependent not only on Norweigan but on Algerian and Russian supplies - and hands up all those happy at that thought.

So far as renewables are concerned, forget them. They are both inefficient and expensive and we are already paying far too much for our electricity due to the Renewables Obligation imposed on the generators.

And so we come to nuclear. All fine and dandy except our problem is here and now, and nuclear stations take many years to plan and build. There are also two other significant problems with nuclear: firstly, generating costs when nobody appears to know the answer to the question who pays for nuclear waste disposal and plant decomissioning costs. Secondly, one major nuclear accident anywhere in the world (a "when" not an "if") will inexorably lead to massive outcries for shutdowns for major safety and design checks at least. This latter consideration strongly militates against any notion that the UK should go the same way as the French and turn 80% of their power generation over to nuclear. Nuclear, yes certainly, but probably limited to about 25% of the mix.

Which leaves coal, the world's most popular fuel now and for the future (forecast use worldwide set to rise 40% between 2006 and 2030.) Coal is relatively "dirty" compared with gas and nuclear and really clean coal technology (carbon sequestration) is decades away and will add 25% to generating costs (hands up all those families already paying £1200 pa for electricity who want to pay another 25% to keep Dave and Zac happy.) Coal is more widely available than gas from more politically stable and friendly countries and the UK does have huge untapped reserves of coal (albeit very expensive to access and mine.) Coal generating plants while also taking years to plan and build are nevertheless obtainable far more quickly than their nuclear equivalents.

And so here we get to the politics. Mandelson back and Campbell in and out of No 10 means we can expect a fine populist agenda. Ten days or so ago John Hutton announced that the government were going to go ahead with new coal fired stations on the basis of energy security and self sufficiency. I have seen no Tory response to this yet but when Hutton announced the go-ahead for Kingsnorth, Sweetie Duncan immediately declared Tory opposition on green grounds.

My feeling is, therefore, that Gordon is ready to square up on this one. Vote for Dave if you want to feel good and be green and vote for Gordon if you want to keep the lights on and pay less for your electricity. I have long had the view that all this green daftness was going to end up biting Dave in the arse and I think Gordon may be bringing that to pass.

And as far as your suggestion of Greg Clark and Ed Vaizey as dynamic couterweights goes, James, well I don't know much about Greg other than he was the bright spark who suggested the Tories pay more attention to Polly Toynbee than Winston Churchill and Ed Vaizey is one of the ultra posh Notting Hill set and presumably another regular at Annabels so frequently is he on Andrew Neil's Daily Politics Show, usually agreeing with whichever Labour minister he's on with. Exactly the right sort of pair of Tory tigers to mix it with Gordon's boys on a subject which is about to take centre stage.

James Forsyth

TGF my friend, Vaizey is probably the most ardent advocate of nuclear power on the Tory front bench which makes him rather a good fit for this job to my mind.

Frank P

What a weird picture! He should definitely have been named Isiah: one eye's 'igher than t'other.

David Bachauer

Placing Milliband in charge of windmills is simply sentencing him to oblivion. It is the commerial equivalent of appointing someone the fire officer or in charge of health and safety - a message that you are of no further use to the organisation.

TGF UKIP

James, if he's the evangelist for nuclear that you paint him, then he would be a wrong and exceedingly dangerous choice.

In my mind the Tories have too many nuclear advocates and I have more than a sneaking feeling that their hidden agenda if they do by get into power is to emulate the French and go for 70- 80% nuclear.

This would have long term potentially devastating consequences for this country as it is still likely to have for France.

I too believe in nuclear but as part of the mix with a ceiling of 20 - 25% and certainly no more than 30% at the very outside.

Be under no illusion though Labour are gunning for the Tories on energy so foolish and deficient is their energy "policy" and it was interesting to note that the FT pigeonholed Ed Milliband as "pro clean coal."