Helm Talks - energy climate infrastructure & more

What if Britain’s grand plans are holding back the growth they promise? From HS2 to net zero 2030 and 1.5 million new homes, ambitious pledges have been built on optimistic assumptions that subsequently become costly commitments, difficult to deliver and even harder to abandon. But the price is more than money spent. What happens to the roads, infrastructure and everyday maintenance crowded out by the next big project? Is it time to put aside the appeal of sweeping targets and ask whether lasting prosperity starts with something less dramatic: getting the basics right?

Is it time to buy some candles? The PM says yes: stock up for a three-day emergency (including the candles). The grid operator NESO says no: the lights will stay on this winter. It's NESO’s reassurance that should worry you. Why does it need to reassure us at all? There are two reasons the lights may go out. First, a cyber attack might reveal how all the infrastructures are now intwined in a mutual dependency on our vital networks. One serious hack or severed communications cable could put every system – including electricity – at risk. Second, the electricity system might be unable to cope during a windless, cold and dark winter Dunkelflaute. Then intermittent wind and solar, together with reliance on European power supplies, may not be enough. The fixes are practical, if unglamorous: dependable standby generation, stronger electricity and gas networks, more storage, smarter demand management and serious cyber protection. All add to the already very high systems costs. Until then, keep the candles, and the matches, within reach.

Many voted to stay in the EU (including me). Rejoining the EU may sound simple, but the Europe Britain left no longer exists. With a string of major elections approaching and far-right nationalist parties surging across the continent, a future EU could be shaped far more by figures such as Le Pen (France), Meloni (Italy) and the AfD (Germany) than by the centrist consensus of the past. If a more Gaullist Europe emerges, one of the biggest obstacles to re-entry may be a simple question from Brussels, Paris and other capitals: why would they want Britain back? Would this be a Europe that Labour, LibDems and Greens would like? Le Pen’s vision of Europe is more like Thatcher's, so ironically it might be more amenable to the Conservatives and Reform than to the Left, repatriating powers over the very things that the PM wants to delegate to the Commission. Much of European law and regulation is about farming and the environment. Brexit dismantled the Common Agricultural Policy and led to major domestic reforms, including the Agriculture Act and Environment Act. Rejoining would mean accepting the evolving EU rulebook in full - “giving back control”. Ditto energy, state subsidies and immigration. It’s all much more complicated than some naively assume.

Britain faces a crisis of delivery. From nuclear power stations to airport runways and water infrastructure, costs have spiralled and timelines have stretched into decades. How has a major modern economy become so incapable of building what it needs? From amongst the most expensive nuclear power stations in the world, to huge costs for airport runways and the absurdities of the HS2, Britain is an infrastructure basket case. This matters not least to ensure that the economy can grow, as the politicians keep talking about. The causes are not insolvable: political indecision; the absence of system-wide planning; and construction processes clogged with bureaucracy rather than construction. This podcast sets out what must change — and why fixing Britain’s infrastructure is fundamental to restoring competitiveness and economic resilience.

As oil prices continue to fluctuate in global markets, Britain’s energy costs have become a distinctly British crisis. They cannot be explained away as a temporary consequence of global events. Industrial electricity prices continue to be among the highest in the developed world, consumer bills remain high, and there is little prospect of relief even in the longer term without a fundamental rethink of policy. At the heart of the argument is the fact that wind and solar alone cannot deliver cheap, secure, homegrown energy. The full energy system costs, of electricity grids, backup, storage and firm power, have been underestimated, and this matters hugely for competitiveness, industry, AI and future economic growth. Energy realism means that Britain needs to face the hard choices about what sort of energy system can deliver affordability, security and climate progress together. The current government is persisting with its predecessors’ slogans. It is tinkering with subsidies and marginal fixes, but what is needed is structural reform now.

Recent prime ministers have become very good at the politics of the long grass, and Andy Burnham is at risk of following this line. Promise the big things: growth, clean rivers, better defence, cheaper energy, new nuclear, decent transport and social care. Then push the hard choices beyond the next election, offer short-term palliatives, and hope that someone else will eventually pick up the bill. The result is not merely delay; such an approach actually results in higher costs in the long term, weaker infrastructure, and yet another obstacle to the growth that he, and many of his predecessors claim to want. What is needed right now in Britain is not another slogan, mission or target, but a serious long-term framework for investing in the much-needed assets: energy, water, transport, communications and defence. The politics of the long term is harder than the politics of the long grass, but, without it, Britain will keep choosing affordability today at the expense of prosperity tomorrow, and at the risk of passing on an inheritance to the next generation that is much poorer than the one it inherited.

Following on from the latest change of Prime Minister and announcements about his new Cabinet, what is going to change? Andy Burnham has a new ten-year plan, and is promising a fundamental revision of politics, but Britain’s deeper economic problems remain unresolved. The fact is, underneath the headlines, the country is still trying to live beyond its means, with high borrowing, weak growth and rising debt interest putting serious pressure on its public finances. Three key costs are holding the economy back: labour, capital and energy. Higher employment costs, high interest rates and expensive electricity all make it harder for British businesses to compete, and small political fixes will not be enough. If Burnham wants to make the radical turnaround he is promising, a more honest national debate about public finances, competitiveness and economic growth is needed. Without a serious, long-term economic strategy, the underlying problems will continue to build, whatever the political headlines of the day.

As another heatwave grips the UK and much of Europe, we need to look beyond the immediate discomfort of hot weather and ask why existing policies are failing to dent the relentless rise in the carbon concentration in the atmosphere. More wind farms and solar panels are not going to crack the problem. Climate policy must be judged not by good intentions, but by its real-world costs, impacts and global effectiveness. Renewables alone cannot deliver cheap, secure and clean energy. The wider costs of electricity systems, storage, back-up power and networks also need to be taken into account. The UK’s choices need to be seen in the international context and compared with the energy strategies of major economies such as China, the US and those in Europe. No other country thinks relying on wind and solar plus a bit of nuclear is going to power a modern economy. A broader mix of technologies, including nuclear power, and a willingness to confront the costs of pollution created by our own consumption are needed. Climate change is real, action is essential, but policy must be practical, affordable and effective if it is to make a meaningful difference. The UK fails on all counts.

With the renewed political enthusiasm for nationalisation, what, in practical terms, does it mean and what would actually change? How might “Manchesterism” apply in practice? Using buses, rail, water and electricity as examples, in this podcast I argue that public ownership and public control are not the same thing, and that different sectors require different models of organisation, regulation and investment. Appeals to “take back control” are simplistic, and need to be examined with a focus on the long-term funding, planning and delivery needs of core infrastructure. While the nationalisation debate is useful, it needs to move beyond rhetoric towards detailed questions about ownership, regulation, incentives and the proper role of the state.

Politicians have been seeking for decades to put right the infrastructure crisis in this country that is rooted not in a lack of ambition, but in deeper economic and political constraints. Building in Britain is exceptionally costly, with high energy prices, high labour costs and high financing costs making major projects difficult to deliver at scale. At the same time, the country saves too little to fund long-term investment, leaving infrastructure heavily reliant on foreign capital, while government is constrained by debt and rising interest payments, and repeatedly prioritises short-term spending over capital renewal. Taking Thames Water as a case study, regulatory hesitation and political short-termism have both delayed necessary restructuring and entrenched decline. Meaningful renewal will require more than rhetoric: it demands lower input costs, stronger incentives to save and invest, firmer control of public debt, and a clear political willingness to favour long-term capital investment over immediate consumption. Without a whole-economy approach, the goal will remain elusive.