
Could 'going nuclear' finally end Ed Miliband's career?
Not far from me, in the lovely Leicestershire village of Nevil Holt, for some reason a replica of the notorious "Ed Stone" has been erected in a churchyard. It's all part of the small but growing Nevil Holt art and literature festival, and I imagine it's to remind passersby of the ephemeral nature of so much of politics — if not life. If you recall, the mini obelisk was commissioned as a stunt by the Labour Party for the 2015 general election, held a decade ago last month. Ed Miliband was then the leader of the party, and had trouble persuading people of his seriousness. Hell, yes, he did! The idea was to — all too literally — carve his promises into stone to prove just how serious he was. He lost.
To be fair to Miliband, one of politics' great survivors, he himself tells the story about when he was last a cabinet minister, during the Brown government. He was a great advocate for building more nuclear power stations in a carbon-free future, but as a here-today-gone-tomorrow energy secretary he couldn't do much about it before Labour lost the 2010 election. Only now can he launch a renewed attempt to build Sizewell C, with £14.2bn of public money behind it. Whether he's still in government by the time it opens, circa 2036, is debatable. As Miliband knows better than most, general elections have a habit of thwarting all kinds of ambitions.
The nuclear point is that these nukes take so long to build, are so costly, so prone to overruns and vulnerable to unpredictable trends in global energy prices — it's impossible to say whether Sizewell C is a good idea or not. But the pressure of current assumptions means we will have to go ahead anyway. The private sector can't and won't bear the risk, so it's down to the taxpayers.
As things stand, and given that fossil fuels are undesirable on climate grounds, atomic power is the only way we can guarantee a reliable base load of energy for when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. It could be that by 2040, say, battery or other storage of electricity generated by renewables could be so advanced that nuclear power is unnecessary — or that someone will invent such a clean and secure system of carbon storage we can go back to burning coal, as Nigel Farage suggests. Albeit, he doesn't mind the soot, or sentencing young Welsh people to an old age of emphysema and pneumoconiosis.
But maybe those developments don't materialise, and we will need the kind of plentiful clean, green, cheap, safe nuclear electricity that has been so long promised to us. In the 1950s, they said it would be so inexpensive it wouldn't be worth metering it. It's a strange case of walking into something knowing that that could end up as a financial or environmental catastrophe, or both, because the alternatives are even less bearable.
The Rolls-Royce mini-reactors are more problematic. We know where we are with big nukes. Mostly they're fine, and, if they ever lived up to their scientific promise, they'd bring the planet to the closest it has ever come to utopia. But we also know it can go very, very wrong: Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and other, hushed-up "incidents" periodically remind us that, so far, utopia remains just a nice idea. Somehow we can rationalise the risks. Having one down the road, on a corner where the petrol station used to be, with all the secret sinister menace that lies beneath its humming, brightly-coloured exterior is another matter. Are they really safe? Where does the nuclear waste go — green bin or brown bin? Will the council come and get it every week or every fortnight? What will a mini-nuke do to property prices?
People are already nervous enough about moving in close to an electricity substation or a quarry. One morning you'll be strolling down to the park to give the dog some exercise and ka-boom! The roof's blown off the local baby nuke, and glowing hot radioactive ash is showering the surrounding streets. A small Armageddon, but an Armageddon all the same. This is the kind of thing that, among other things, such as leaving a toxic legacy for thousands of years and an upsurge in deformities and cancers, could end political careers. Even Ed Miliband's.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The National
10 hours ago
- The National
Fears for UK's global influence as Foreign Office suffers cuts
The UK's Foreign Office has taken the brunt of cuts in the latest government spending review, prompting fears that Britain's 'soft power' capabilities will be heavily eroded. Staff face a cut to their overseas allowances and potentially being downgraded on pay scales as the department tries to save £78 million a year, a supplementary document revealed. If we aren't proactive in maintaining our global influence, we can expect our standing to diminish Emily Thornberry With a major reduction in overseas aid to fund an increase in defence spending already announced, there is growing concern that Britain's ability to use 'soft power' diplomacy tools will be severely curtailed. The cuts were condemned by senior Labour MP Emily Thornberry, chairwoman of the cross-party Foreign Affairs Committee, who said they were 'alarming and inconsistent' and could damage Britain's global influence. The reduction in Foreign Office spending was part of the review announced by Chancellor Rachel Reeves, in which the military and security services, and the National Health Service receive significant increases in spending. Efficiency plans Morale at the Foreign Office is understood to have taken a blow after the small print of the review, labelled 'departmental efficiency plans', shows proposed cuts to pay and allowances. The government department, which has 156 embassies and 49 consulates worldwide, will 'tighten grading standards to ensure roles are … appropriately remunerated'. 'This will counter a pattern of grade inflation that has emerged over the past decade and more robustly support cost control,' the report warned. Those operating in overseas postings, where they are compensated to maintain a standard of living comparable to the UK, are fearful that they too face cuts. The overseas allowance would face 'reform' and 'streamlining' with the monetary value of specific allowances 'being reviewed and revised', the report said. 'This is an ambitious plan to transform the FCDO [Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office] into a smaller, technologically advanced department with planned investment in both workforce reform and digital transformation that will drive significant efficiencies,' it stated. Harshest cuts Ms Thornberry said that in the current international turmoil Britain had 'never been more needed as a force for good'. However it was, she added, 'very concerning that the FCDO appears to be suffering the harshest real-terms cuts'. With the overseas aid budget already cut from 0.5 per cent to 0.3 per cent of GDP to pay for defence, she was 'deeply concerned about the strain that this spending review will place on the entirety of the department'. She would scrutinise the report to ensure the department was 'not suffering major further cutbacks'. 'Real-term cuts to the Foreign Office budget are alarming and inconsistent with the government's objective to position the UK as a leader on the world stage,' she warned. BBC World Service worries Ms Thornberry also raised concern about the lack of 'clarity or concrete commitment' to finance the British Council and the BBC World Service, which both rely heavily on Foreign Office funding. The BBC has already scaled back the World Service, prompting concern about the UK's soft power overseas. BBC Arabic radio was among 10 foreign language services to stop broadcasting in 2023. Russian-backed news services have begun broadcasting in Lebanon on the former BBC Arabic frequency, leading to acknowledgement that closing the service may have been a mistake. It has also been reported that ministers have asked the British Council look at efficiencies that could make the influential overseas organisation close in 60 countries 'If we aren't proactive in maintaining our global influence, we can expect our standing to diminish, and for autocratic states to fill the vacuum we leave,' Mrs Thornberry concluded. The efficiency report also revealed that the Integrated Security Fund, which supports initiatives on national security risks domestically and overseas, would need to 'deliver efficiency gains' of £10 million within three years, mainly through 'automation, AI, and digital tools'. Lib Dem MP Rachel Gilmour warned on X that cutting the foreign aid budget by £6 billion a year could 'not only undermine our soft power, but also leave vital regions exposed to hostile powers and geopolitical rivals.'


Gulf Today
2 days ago
- Gulf Today
Could 'going nuclear' finally end Ed Miliband's career?
Not far from me, in the lovely Leicestershire village of Nevil Holt, for some reason a replica of the notorious "Ed Stone" has been erected in a churchyard. It's all part of the small but growing Nevil Holt art and literature festival, and I imagine it's to remind passersby of the ephemeral nature of so much of politics — if not life. If you recall, the mini obelisk was commissioned as a stunt by the Labour Party for the 2015 general election, held a decade ago last month. Ed Miliband was then the leader of the party, and had trouble persuading people of his seriousness. Hell, yes, he did! The idea was to — all too literally — carve his promises into stone to prove just how serious he was. He lost. To be fair to Miliband, one of politics' great survivors, he himself tells the story about when he was last a cabinet minister, during the Brown government. He was a great advocate for building more nuclear power stations in a carbon-free future, but as a here-today-gone-tomorrow energy secretary he couldn't do much about it before Labour lost the 2010 election. Only now can he launch a renewed attempt to build Sizewell C, with £14.2bn of public money behind it. Whether he's still in government by the time it opens, circa 2036, is debatable. As Miliband knows better than most, general elections have a habit of thwarting all kinds of ambitions. The nuclear point is that these nukes take so long to build, are so costly, so prone to overruns and vulnerable to unpredictable trends in global energy prices — it's impossible to say whether Sizewell C is a good idea or not. But the pressure of current assumptions means we will have to go ahead anyway. The private sector can't and won't bear the risk, so it's down to the taxpayers. As things stand, and given that fossil fuels are undesirable on climate grounds, atomic power is the only way we can guarantee a reliable base load of energy for when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. It could be that by 2040, say, battery or other storage of electricity generated by renewables could be so advanced that nuclear power is unnecessary — or that someone will invent such a clean and secure system of carbon storage we can go back to burning coal, as Nigel Farage suggests. Albeit, he doesn't mind the soot, or sentencing young Welsh people to an old age of emphysema and pneumoconiosis. But maybe those developments don't materialise, and we will need the kind of plentiful clean, green, cheap, safe nuclear electricity that has been so long promised to us. In the 1950s, they said it would be so inexpensive it wouldn't be worth metering it. It's a strange case of walking into something knowing that that could end up as a financial or environmental catastrophe, or both, because the alternatives are even less bearable. The Rolls-Royce mini-reactors are more problematic. We know where we are with big nukes. Mostly they're fine, and, if they ever lived up to their scientific promise, they'd bring the planet to the closest it has ever come to utopia. But we also know it can go very, very wrong: Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and other, hushed-up "incidents" periodically remind us that, so far, utopia remains just a nice idea. Somehow we can rationalise the risks. Having one down the road, on a corner where the petrol station used to be, with all the secret sinister menace that lies beneath its humming, brightly-coloured exterior is another matter. Are they really safe? Where does the nuclear waste go — green bin or brown bin? Will the council come and get it every week or every fortnight? What will a mini-nuke do to property prices? People are already nervous enough about moving in close to an electricity substation or a quarry. One morning you'll be strolling down to the park to give the dog some exercise and ka-boom! The roof's blown off the local baby nuke, and glowing hot radioactive ash is showering the surrounding streets. A small Armageddon, but an Armageddon all the same. This is the kind of thing that, among other things, such as leaving a toxic legacy for thousands of years and an upsurge in deformities and cancers, could end political careers. Even Ed Miliband's.


Khaleej Times
2 days ago
- Khaleej Times
UK to pump £14b into new nuclear plant on path to net zero
The UK government Tuesday said it will invest billions of pounds in the new Sizewell C nuclear power plant as it strives to meet its net zero and energy security targets. The £14.2 billion ($19 billion) investment will end "years of delay and uncertainty", the UK Treasury said in a press release, adding it would unlock a "golden age" of nuclear to "boost the UK's energy security". The UK is the majority shareholder in the plant being built in eastern England, after Chinese company CGN left the project and the other partner, French energy giant EDF, scaled back its involvement. The plant, which comprises two EPR nuclear reactors each with 1.6 gigawatts capacity, could cost a whopping total of £20-30 billion to build. The sum could be even higher, according to some estimates which are disputed by the government and EDF, and it is not expected to start generating electricity until 2035. "The government's decision to move ahead with Sizewell C is fantastic news for Britain, its energy security and economic growth," EDF Energy CEO Simone Rossi said. The latest injection is part of budget announcements by Britain's finance minister Rachel Reeves, who is due to detail her spending and investment priorities for the coming years on Wednesday, with defence and health as key areas. The UK is now the majority shareholder in Sizewell C, EDF said in January. With a fleet of ageing nuclear power stations managed by the French energy company, the UK has refocused on shoring up nuclear power since the start of the war in Ukraine, in the name of energy security. The Labour government, which took over from the Conservatives in July, is following the same line, and says it wants to implement "the biggest nuclear rollout program for a generation". It also announced on Tuesday in its press release "record investment" in research and development into nuclear fusion of more than £2.5 billion over five years. But the announcement has been met with anger by some local residents worried about the impact of the new plant on the local town of Leiston in Suffolk. Nearby is also the single water pressurised Sizewell B nuclear power station which is currently is due to close in 2035, and Sizewell A which is in the process of being decommissioned.