Miliband must really be spluttering on his burger now

Not content with the Budget's new policy of 

Prioritising a cheaper energy mix and procuring new generation only where it lowers bills, benefits the system, and can be accommodated by the grid

 ... the Burnham - Healey axis has now decided to shelve AR8, the next round of renewables subsidies allocations! 

the UK would “only procure clean power” through round eight “if we are confident it will lower bills”

Well that's that, and absolutely puts paid to Miliband's cherished programme.  "Clean Power 2030" - always infeasible anyway - is now as dead as a doornail.  Chew on that one, Ed.  

(found in Bucharest earlier in the year.)

ND 

Actually, there was something in the Budget ...

... 179 references to 'energy', and well over 5,000 words.

Having now read the full Budget doc, it turns out the seemingly footling stuff on energy prices that dominated the headlines was far from the end of the story.

It starts with the predictable "not our fault, guv" - in some statistical detail - and, yes, there are the sticking-plaster give-aways the headlines were all about, which seem to characterise Burnham's style.  But there is bigger stuff, too: "This Budget represents a shift in the government’s approach to energy".  Since there's no space here to summarise the whole lot, it seems to mean two main things, the first of which had already started under the last Tory government: a gradual switch away from dumping all "policy costs" onto electricity and (to a lesser extent) gas bills, in favour of charging it to general taxation.  There's to be more of that going on now.

Secondly, we have: 

... this Budget kickstarts the long-term action required to get energy costs down for good: 

• Controlling energy costs – no new policy costs will be put on bills until a comprehensive Cost Control Framework is in place at the spending review in 2027, which will set budgets for components of energy costs, including policy costs.
• Prioritising a cheaper energy mix and procuring new generation only where it lowers bills, benefits the system, and can be accommodated by the grid.

Now that could be really interesting.  Of course, "lowering bills" can get very theological when the playing-field is fundamentally tilted by not attributing the costs of intermittency etc to the causes of that intermittency - but it's a very interesting line for them to be taking, and provides a stick with which to beat them when, e.g., the next batch of CfDs is to be awarded.  No more floating offshore windfarms at £216.49/MWh: in fact, only solar farms could creep in under that definition, properly interpreted.

On top of this, it's becoming increasingly clear that the bloated DESNZ budget is being raided to fund all manner of things - small things this time round, of course, but when the Defence aspect of the putative 10-year Plan hoves into view, it is likely to hit DESNZ up for quite a few quid more, with correspondingly more bleating to come from the usual quarters.  Finally, there is a bit on the energy aspects of data centres, for anyone interested.

And the aim of all this?  "Cutting bills to reindustrialise the country."  Sic!  A laudable aim indeed.

Unfortunately, just when you think Miliband's fantasies have been consigned to where they belong, it's all spoiled by the assertion that "The focus now is to unleash cheap electricity".  WTF?  Where have you been hiding it all this while?!

ND  

Budget: what was that all about?

In days of yore, our founder CU would have had a lot to say about the Budget.  Any Budget, in fact.

But with this one - has anyone got much to say?  Except, as Krishnan Guru-Murthy put it (and I don't ever recall quoting him before) - so where's that "putting an end to 40 years of neo-liberalism", eh?

Shan't be surprised if the BTL comments are thin on the ground this time ...

ND

PS: much more entertaining is the briefing war being waged over Rosebank.  Harriet Harman a drill-baby-driller!  Who knew?  I'm taking names.  In circumstances of not much else to talk about in politics this week, it's a lot of fun.

Jackdaw - bingo!

From the day Burnham took office, the green-left has been howling at him not to approve Jackdaw & Rosebank.   This raucous attempt at intimidation possibly peaked with a piece in the Graun analysed at C@W here, when more than 20 distinct (and awfully shrill) "arguments" were made, one after the other - and hilarious reading they still make.  It was always pretty obvious they did protest too much which, as regards Jackdaw at least, they probably now recognise themselves.  

And now he's gone and "Failed His First Big Test" or, as we would put it, "Passed".  Time will tell if the threatened back-bench revolt / party split / defections to the Greens will result.  I'm guessing not, but will be taking a forensic interest in how things pan out in the public debate.  (If anyone spots a really juicy piece in an obscure journal etc, do let us know.)

As we said all along, Jackdaw (gas) was always the easier decision to make and to sell.  You don't need to have a degree in Party Management to see the logic in running it first, in order to see how matters pan out from here (- not to mention in order to get the gas ashore this winter!)  If it turns out to have burned a bunch of political capital, Rosebank (oil) might have to wait.  If, by contrast, it's a walk in the park, Rosebank will follow, as night follows day.  Fahnbulleh seems to be briefing that she's agin'; but let's see.  That might just be to get the protestors off her back for now.  It's Burnham's call anyway, and he & Healey might want the exports / jobs / tax revenues / preservation of international reputation.

Not all of the authors of the original 20+ Shrill Arguments will have been cowed by Jackdaw: indeed some of them - including Ed "Climate Vandalism" Miliband himself - had already accepted by then that Jackdaw might be quite likely to fly.  So for Round-2-Rosebank we may expect another round of high-pitch whining and threatening in the days and weeks to come.  Part of our forensic analysis of this political fallout will be to note exactly who considers it worth prolonging the fight - and how much of their own political capital they are willing to expend in doing so.  

That won't include many Labour backbenchers, I'm guessing: so no big backbench revolt.  Of course, one of the 20+ was the threat of defections to the Greens, and loss of votes in the same direction: and for sure, a lot of would-be ambitious MPs are now simply concerned to save their seats.  It helps greatly that "Polanski" is staggering on the ropes, of course: and that the red entryists have systematically made the Green party look anything but cosy & welcoming.

How are the popcorn reserves holding up?

ND

Air defence for the UK in 2026

A bit later than intended: but I said we'd have a post on Badenoch and her £10 bn 'Britannia Shield'. 

One should never fall for "the bomber will always get through" as an excuse for doing nothing.  She's right that we haven't been doing remotely enough.  But we need to examine both the history of our air defences and the current threats, to recognise the challenge we face.

1.  WW1  No air defences at all, until some fighters were belatedly deployed against Zeppelins.  Even then, the casualties per ton of bombs dropped, on an essentially unprepared nation, were extraordinary - so much so that, extrapolating to the Luftwaffe's bombing resources, it was estimated that London alone would suffer a quarter of a million casualties in the first week of a prospective WW2**.

2.  WW2  Fortunately, this didn't result in a policy of What's The Point?  Quite the reverse.  Making good use of the months of Phoney War, effective multi-layer defences were instituted.  Radar station, very capable fighter cover, barrage balloons, anti-aircraft guns, air raid shelters of various types, blackouts, ARP wardens and teams of fire watchers.  

All very well: but that's a time of flat-out national effort, no expense spared.

Cold War  A very different enemy, based in East Germany and point eastwards, with no aircraft carriers.  Our interceptors were pretty effective but, by the 1960s, few in number: our long-range AA missiles (Bloodhound, Thunderbird) were not impressive, neither in quality nor quantity.  Quite plainly, the strategy was one of (a) forward defence on the Lüneburg Heide & (b) hide behind the Americans.  

The one area in which some rather more impressive protective measures were put in place against air attack was the Navy, which was then upgraded significantly post Falklands / Exocet. 

But now, however well armed, we can't muster a single destroyer on demand!  So a protective line of these vessels is certainly out of the question.

Threat in 2026  It's not bombers!  RAF Typhoons may be expected to make short work of any stray Tu-95s.  Clearly, it's cruise missiles (however launched), ballistic missiles and, since Ukraine's impressive Spiderweb operation, drones launched from lurking trucks and coastal vessels.  Here's the thing.  The USA and Israel have invested mightily in "exquisite" air defences, and since February have been comprehensively taken to the cleaners by Iran.  

Solutions  Our needs are not the same as theirs, however; and as regards long range missiles, forward defence in the classic sense remains the solution (though not for Poland et al).  What else can / should be done?

Firstly, get the well-armed destroyers operational!  In recent years the Navy has become a disgrace.  (Gordon Brown's bloody aircraft carriers are of course much to blame.)   

We may safely rule out Trump's 'Golden Dome' as a solution or model for us: £10 bn doesn't buy you much down that track.  Passive defence - hardening our military assets - must be part of the plan: but Russia, the USA, Israel and the Gulf States have discovered that it's really difficult to protect infrastructure (being static, with locations known precisely).  The Russians have in fact tried to harden their refineries, to no avail.  (As regards the Spiderweb military targets, they hadn't even tried.)

When we get down to the level of hostile drone swarms, it's not clear the 'nuclear option' - even supposing we had an independent capability - gets us very far.  Another very important form of forward defence is intelligence from all sources, which should definitely be beefed up: we're even quite good at it.  

Which brings us to tech solutions, which probably require a load of R&D - and not into the exquisite systems that can't be afforded.  Early-warning detection systems are definitely needed for ship-launched short-range cruise missiles: shouldn't be beyond the nation that developed radar.  The real puzzle is the drone swarm from within, or just offshore.  Detection at a distance?  I am not abreast of the latest technology, but it seems implausible to me.  However, no detection = precious little chance of shooting down: so R&D should go into that, too.  If the drones were to be guided or require Starlink, it's possible GCHQ might have a very useful role.  But Ukraine deploys pre-programmed autonomous drones requiring merely the initial launch command.   

Finally, bringing down drones on the perimeter of targets, 'Goalkeeper' style (albeit all these things are easier at sea).  We're in danger of getting into science fiction here, but is there some kind of laser etc that could both detect and defeat an attack on the spot?  It needs to be cheap, if it's to be deployed at scale. 

Last thought: we should (continue to) stay close to Ukraine in these matters.  They are so far ahead of the game, we could do a lot worse than making this a joint venture. 

Any other perspectives?

ND

_______________

** The authorities were debating as to whether the bodies should be dumped in to the gravel pits where Heathrow is today, or into the Thames at high tide.