If Miliband doesn't U-turn, Britain could face power cuts in months
Watching the scenes from Spain and Portuga l as Iberians stumbled around wondering what to do without any electricity prompted sepia-tinted memories of the black-outs here in the 1970s. In 1972, the miners went on strike in the middle of winter, reducing supplies to the power stations and triggering power cuts. I can remember doing my school homework by candlelight.
It happened again with another NUM strike starting in the autumn of 1973. On the day before the wedding of Princess Anne and Captain Mark Phillips, Conservative prime minister Edward Heath declared a state of emergency.
The Central Electricity Generating Board decided to switch off power on a rota basis between 7am and midnight every day, with blackouts lasting up to nine hours. Factories (remember those?) and businesses closed with more than a million workers laid off.
The use of electricity for floodlighting, advertising and for the heating of shops, offices and restaurants was banned. Households were without electricity for hours every day. The areas to lose power were listed in the papers each morning and television went off the air at 10.30.
Oil companies were ordered to cut deliveries to private and industrial consumers by 10 per cent, petrol coupons were issued, a 50mph speed limit introduced, a heating limit of 17C imposed on offices and commercial premises and street lighting dimmed.
From Jan 1, 1974 a three-day week took effect and in February Heath called an election with the question 'Who Governs?' only to receive the answer 'Not You Ted'. Labour were returned to office but the shock of that period would continue throughout the governments of Harold Wilson and James Callaghan, with national bankruptcy, rampant inflation and economic mayhem culminating in the Winter of Discontent.
But while it was difficult it was not a catastrophe. It was still possible to heat your home with coal, cook on gas, listen to a battery powered radio, pay for food in the shops with cash and make a phone call.
What was apparent on Monday in Spain and Portugal was the total dependence we now have on electricity-driven devices and how vulnerable modern society is to a collapse in the grid for whatever reason.
Everything stopped.
Rail transport was paralysed for hours, flights diverted and the Madrid metro shut down. On the roads traffic lights failed, causing huge jams. The mobile phone and internet networks collapsed, while shops closed their doors when their electronic tills failed.
We still don't know for certain what happened but the finger of scientific suspicion points to the heavy use of solar power. For those of us who have no clue how these things work, we are learning about the importance of inertia in electricity grids. In conventional power systems – fossil-fuel or nuclear – the large, heavy turbines continue to rotate at a constant speed through inertia even when power generation or demand changes.
With renewables, however, there is no inertia, which makes maintaining a stable grid frequency more difficult. This phenomenon is known to the people who run the system. National Grid boffins are trying to design a new approach to keep the system running at the right frequency with renewables. In some regions like South Australia, where there is a heavy use of solar power, systems operators allow gas generators to run to deliver inertia to the grid and maintain frequency.
This seems to be the most likely explanation for what happened in Iberia on Monday and applies to other renewable inputs like wind upon which we are expected increasingly to rely. Does Ed Miliband know about this potential vulnerability and if so why has he not told us about it?
Britain is particularly at risk both because of its switch to renewables as part of the Government's aim to decarbonise the grid by 2030 and its heavy reliance on imported electricity. We have been close this year. In January during an anti-cyclonic period of no sun or wind which the Germans call Dunkelflaute, a black-out was only averted because of electricity from Norway through the 450-mile interconnector.
But many Norwegians object to paying more for their domestic power to meet overseas demand for their power. They take issue with the poor energy decisions made by their neighbours, like Germany's ban on nuclear power. Now we can add the UK's mad dash to decarbonise the grid. Why do we assume that gas and oil will always be available from elsewhere – and why should we import it when it can be extracted from our own North Sea fields if new licences were allowed?
Mr Miliband has been on a mission recently to denounce all and sundry who dare to question the breakneck speed of his decarbonising agenda, though this is a con since we will still need gas as a back-up for the foreseeable future. The next few years will see our ageing nuclear power plants phased out leaving a gap before new ones are built so wind and solar will have to take up the load.
Yet we now discover that this is fraught with uncertainty. Not only are we being left exposed to any breakdown in international supplies but there are inherent issues with renewable generation that may not be resolved by 2030.
The problems may be with us now. The National Grid is investigating unexplained outages that hit the UK's system hours before Spain and Portugal were plunged into blackouts. There was also an unexplained failure of the Viking Link interconnector between the UK and Denmark.
A few years from now, maybe sooner, the UK will face the same problem as Spain and Portugal, only far worse. Just before the crash on Monday, solar was providing about 53 per cent of Spain's electricity with another 11 per cent from wind. Gas was providing only about 6 per cent. Ed Miliband wants Britain to be doing even more than this.
At least it is usually sunny on the Iberian peninsula so if they can solve the inertia problem they are blessed with copious solar power. Here, in a cold, high pressure winter with little wind and no sun, those power cuts of 1972/3 will no longer be a distant memory but a present-day reality.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Farage's proposal is just the latest undermining of the Barnett system
This, according to senior criminologists and ex-police officers, is not just a failure of admin, it's the result of austerity-era cuts that stripped police forces of capacity, dismantled the state-run Forensic Science Service in 2012, and left fragmented, underfunded systems to cope with ballooning evidence demands. Austerity didn't just weaken institutions; it disassembled infrastructure. READ MORE: Nigel Farage could cut the Barnett Formula. Here's what devolution experts think of that While these failings may seem like an English and Welsh concern, they tell a broader UK-wide story. Because when public services are cut in England, the Barnett formula translates those cuts into reduced budget allocations for Holyrood, too. Scotland has long borne the dual burden of being denied full fiscal autonomy while also seeing its devolved budget squeezed by decisions made for entirely different priorities south of the Border. Cuts to police, criminal courts, housing, public health, and local government in England have systematically eroded the spending floor on which Scottish services rest. So when justice collapses in England, it affects Scotland financially – even if the governance is separate. And now, against this backdrop of UK-wide budgetary degradation, Nigel Farage has called for the scrapping of the Barnett formula entirely. It's a move that's politically convenient, historically illiterate, and economically reckless. But more than anything, it's a distillation of what's already happening by stealth. Successive UK governments have undermined the foundations of the Barnett system – and devolution itself – for more than a decade. READ MORE: Furious Anas Sarwar clashes with BBC journalist over Labour policies It's obvious to every Scot that Farage's view relies on a mischaracterisation of Barnett as a subsidy, when in fact it simply ensures Scotland receives a proportional share of changes to spending in England for devolved services. It doesn't calculate entitlement or need, it mirrors policy shifts at Westminster. If England increases education or health spending, Scotland sees a relative uplift. If England cuts deeply, Scotland's budget falls, even if demand remains or rises. This has led to an absurd and punitive dynamic where Scotland loses funding not by its own decisions, but because England spends less. And when Scotland chooses to maintain higher standards in public services, it must do so from a proportionately smaller pot. Perversely, it doesn't stop there, though. Since the 2016 Brexit vote, Westminster has begun bypassing devolved governments directly. Funds like the Levelling Up Fund and Shared Prosperity Fund are allocated by UK ministers to local authorities, often bypassing Holyrood entirely. Promises made in The Vow on the eve of the 2014 independence referendum to deliver near-federal powers and respect Scottish decision-making have unravelled. READ MORE: SNP must turn support for independence into 'real political action' The Internal Market Act has overridden devolved laws under the banner of market 'consistency'. Powers that returned from Brussels in areas like food standards, procurement, and agriculture were supposed to go to Holyrood, but in many cases they were retained by Westminster. The Sewel Convention, once a safeguard of devolved consent, has been treated as optional. Farage's proposal to scrap Barnett isn't an outlier, it's the natural conclusion of a decade-long pattern: cut services in England, shrink the Barnett allocation, bypass devolved institutions, and then blame the devolved nations for 'taking more than their share'. There's no consideration of fairness, or implementation of a needs-based analysis, it's a strategy of erosion; one that gouges out the Union from the centre while draping itself in the flag. The failures of justice in England, catastrophic as they are, expose a deeper injustice: the systematic unravelling of the constitutional promises made to Scotland. Ron Lumiere via email
South Wales Guardian
2 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
Swinney – Reform voters in Hamilton by-election ‘angry', not racist
The First Minister was asked on the BBC Scotland's Sunday Show if those who backed Reform were 'gullible' or 'racist' – a term the SNP leader has previously used to describe the party. Mr Swinney said the 7,088 people who backed Reform – more than a quarter of the vote – in the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse ballot were 'neither', but were instead 'angry at the cost-of-living crisis'. He added: 'I think that's what motivates the Reform vote. People have got poorer because of one central thing – Brexit, and the author of that is (Reform UK leader Nigel) Farage. 'I'm standing up to Farage. I'm going to make no apology for it.' He said the SNP is 'in the process of recovery' and he had come into office as First Minister a year ago 'inheriting some significant difficulties' within the party, and that it needs to get stronger before the Holyrood election in 2026. He said voters are 'having to work hard for less' and are concerned about public services, particularly the NHS. Mr Swinney was asked about comments he made prior to the vote saying 'Labour were not at the races' and claiming it was a 'two-horse race' between the SNP and Reform. Labour's Davy Russell gained the seat from the SNP with 8,559 votes, while SNP candidate Katy Loudon came second on 7,957, ahead of Reform's Ross Lambie. The First Minister said that since the general election campaign last year, people he has met have pledged never to vote Labour due to the winter fuel allowance being cut, while Reform's support increased. Mr Swinney said: 'People were telling us on the doorsteps, they were giving us reasons why they weren't supporting Labour. We could also see that Farage's support was rising dramatically and that's happening across the United Kingdom, it's not unique to Hamilton. 'I positioned the SNP to be strong enough to stop Farage, and that's what we were determined to do.' Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar has branded the SNP's campaign 'dishonest and disgraceful' and said it had put the spotlight on Reform. Those comments were put to the First Minister, who said he had previously been allies with Mr Sarwar in a campaign to 'stand up to far-right thinking'. Mr Swinney said: 'That was months ago and then we found ourselves in the aftermath of the UK local authority elections, the English local authority elections where Farage surged to a leading position and won a by-election south of the border. 'So the dynamic of our politics change in front of us. 'I've been standing up to Farage for months, I've been warning about the dangers of Farage for months, and they crystallised in the rise of Farage during the Hamilton, Stonehouse and Larkhall by-election.'
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
The winners and losers in Labour's first spending review
When Rachel Reeves publishes the government's spending review on Wednesday, the stories the Treasury will want to tell are the energy, transport and other infrastructure projects that will get a share of the big boost in capital funding – £113bn. They will argue that cash, freed up by the change to the fiscal rules in the budget, could only have happened under Labour and was opposed by the Tories and Reform. But the capital spending cannot stop expected cuts in day-to-day spending, meaning extremely tight settlements for departments, with savings expected from policing budgets, local government, civil service cuts, foreign aid, education and culture. Treasury sources said they would still spend £190bn more over the five-year parliament than the Conservatives' spending plans – meaning more than £300bn will be distributed among departments. Real-terms spending will grow at an average of 1.2% a year over the three years that the spending review period covers, a significant drop from the first two years when it will be 2.5%. Even that figure does not tell the full story because of the disproportionate boost being given to defence and the NHS – and has led the Institute for Fiscal Studies to warn that the spending commitments will require 'chunky tax rises' in the autumn, when coupled with other expected priorities such as restoring the winter fuel allowance to more pensioners and action on child poverty such as ending the two-child benefit limit. Here are some of the key offers from the spending review – and the rows over cuts. The biggest row of the spending review has been between Reeves and the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, over policing, which one source describes as being a 'huge headache'. Cooper has brought out the big guns to make her case, first with a letter from six police chiefs who warned that without more funding the government would not meet its manifesto promises on crime. Sir Mark Rowley, the head of the Metropolitan police, and other senior police officers have also written to the prime minister to warn him that investment was need to prevent some crimes being routinely ignored. It is understand the policing budget will not face real terms cuts but the level of spending is still under discussion. The Home Office is under strain as a major spending department that is key to some of the most ambitious manifesto pledges – including halving knife crime, police recruitment, reducing violence against women and girls as well as dealing with monitoring offenders who will be released earlier due to sentencing changes. The other major spending review row is over deep dissatisfaction from Angela Rayner – the deputy prime minister and housing secretary – with the level of funding for social homes in the spending review, making her one of the last remaining holdouts in negotiations with the Treasury over departmental spending settlements. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has been battling for more funding for the affordable homes programme as well as trying to preserve cash for local councils, homelessness and regional growth initiatives. The Treasury had previously put £2bn into affordable housing, described as a 'down payment' on further funding to be announced at the spending review, which Reeves said would mark a generational shift in the building of council homes. However, the next phase of funding has caused a major rift with Rayner – and more so because capital spending on infrastructure such as housing is meant to be a priority. The environment secretary, Steve Reed, is said to have been holding out for a big capital injection to fund flood defences. The autumn budget said the government was facing significant funding pressures on flood defences and farm schemes of almost £600m in 2024-25, and that those schemes would have to be reviewed for their affordability. Sources at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) confirmed a post-Brexit farming fund would be cut in the review. Labour promised a fund of £5bn over two years – from 2024 to 2026 – at the budget, which is being honoured, but in the years after that it will be slashed for all but a few farms. The energy secretary, Ed Miliband, had a long fight to keep cash for a major programme of insulation, which was a key part of the government's net zero strategy. However, there are reports suggesting other schemes could be scaled back to protect the insulation programme. At the October budget, Reeves announced £3.4bn over three years for household energy efficiency schemes, heat decarbonisation and fuel poverty schemes. The government responded to concerns expressed at the time calling the sum the 'bare minimum' and promising a spending uplift at the review. Miliband's department is expected to get significant capital investment in energy infrastructure including nuclear – with the government poised to give the go ahead to the Sizewell C nuclear plant. The chancellor has already announced £15bn in transport spending across the north of England, funds which she said fulfil promises made by the Conservatives to the country but which the party had no way to pay for them in its own plan. Wes Streeting's department is set to be one of the big winners of the spending review and it will lay the groundwork for the NHS 10-year plan, which will be published imminently after the spending review. The department will get one of the biggest boosts to funding as others face real-terms cuts. The funding for the plan prioritises three key areas, moving care from hospitals to communities, increasing the use of technology, and prioritising prevention. No 10 and Streeting hope that the 10-year plan will contain major commitments and a positive story that the government will finally be able to tell properly on improvements to the health service – though any good news could be scuppered by the ballot for strike action by resident doctors. Still, Streeting's department was one of the last to settle formally with the Treasury due to negotiations over drug prices, though departmental sources downplayed any specific row. Any child in England whose parents receive universal credit will be able to claim free school meals from September 2026, the government has said. Parents on the credit will be eligible regardless of their income. The government says the change will make 500,000 more pupils eligible. A Department for Education (DfE) source said it was the best measure outside welfare changes to address child poverty and that the education secretary, Bridget Phillipson, had consistently fought to protect school food programmes through each round of spending negotiations. But schools budgets will be squeezed. Teachers will get a 4% pay rise next year, with additional funding of £615m. But schools will still have to fund about a quarter of the rise themselves – a total of £400m from their current budgets. Phillipson has tasked the DfE with finding savings in schools budgets, such as energy bills. Savings will also come as the government is removing public funding for level 7 apprenticeships, which has drawn criticism from skills experts. The justice secretary, Shabana Mahmood, was one of the first to reach her settlement to allow her to announce a £4.7bn plan to build three new prisons starting this year, part of a 'record expansion' as the government attempts to get to grips with the prison crisis. The early announcement was essential because it came alongside an announcement that the government would put a limit on how long hundreds of repeat offenders can be recalled to prison amid Whitehall predictions that jails will be full again in November.
