Lobby: Follow the leader?

The outcome of the imminent Labour leadership contest will be a defining moment for opposition policy, says Mathew Beech.

A year on from Labour’s last leadership challenge and the party finds itself in the same situation once again. In the red corner, holding the title of party leader and the man who was backed by almost 60 per cent of Labour members in 2015, Jeremy Corbyn.

In the other red corner, his challenger, the man who successfully saw off the challenge of the woman who started the wheels in motion for the leadership contest, Owen Smith.

As the race enters its final couple of weeks, both the incumbent and the contender are stepping up their campaigns and setting out their visions for the party, and the country.

Corbyn and Smith claim to be cut from the same traditional Labour cloth, pushing more socialist ideals than seen under the previous leadership of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown or Ed Miliband. This includes renationalisation talk, primarily around the railways, although each man would seek to shake up the energy sector and make it “fairer” for the end consumer, and clamping down on the big utilities.

With the future of the party at stake, and potentially its very cohesion as cracks widen between grassroots members and the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP), both men will hope their arguments will win the day with the party’s 500,000 members, and ultimately lead Labour into power.

Tackling the trilemma

Corbyn and Smith have both set out plans to reduce Britain’s carbon emissions and to continue the transition to a low carbon economy.

However, the incumbent Labour leader has been far more explicit about his plans and the targets he wants the party, if they get elected under his stewardship, to achieve.

In his ten leadership pledges, Corbyn sets out his intention to put “social justice at the heart of our environment” by making sure the UK takes its “fair share of action to meet the Paris climate agreement”. The first step in this plan is for Britain to get on track to achieve its Climate Change Act goals – reducing carbon emissions to 80 per cent of 1990 levels by 2050.

Innovative technology is the backbone to achieving this. Corbyn has sung the praises of the Islington heat network, which uses excess heat from the London Underground. Fracking, however, is vehemently opposed, as is nuclear power. He does favour the continuing use of coal, but only if carbon capture technology is used.

Smith agrees with Corbyn on the need for innovative technology to help solve the low carbon capacity need. He is a big supporter of hydrogen fuel cells, but differs to Corbyn on nuclear power. The challenger is a big supporter of technology and has been vocal in his criticism of the government for delaying a decision on Hinkley Point C.

Another area of commonality between Smith and Corbyn is the use and deployment of large-scale renewable technologies. Both men support it and see it as a vital part of the UK achieving its Climate Change Act goals.

Corbyn is calling for a National Investment Bank to fund renewable schemes, with new projects being publicly owned as well as community owned. A key part of this is to ensure that any developments that do take place help protect the current ecosystems and biodiversity of the areas where they are built. He is also keen to “protect and extend” EU environmental regulations despite Brexit.

Smith follows a similar tone to Corbyn in so far as he wants the state to fund and own renewable energy projects. At a debate in Gateshead, he said: “I’d think about having a nationalised renewables company. If it makes sense to private companies to invest enormous amounts over 100-year periods in, for example, harnessing wind and wave power in this country, why should the government not do that?”

The final element of the trilemma, affordability, would be tackled in similar ways by both men. Smith says he wants to wants to “end the scandal of fuel poverty” and help lower consumer energy bills by investing in an energy efficiency programme.

Corbyn, while not stating anything in his 10 pledges, has seen Labour put forward plans to improve the energy efficiency of the UK housing stock, which would cut consumption and reduce bills.

Conclusion

The energy visions of Corbyn and Smith in the Labour leadership battle are similar, although there are some areas of differentiation, such as support for nuclear power and the subtleties of how each man wants to achieve their goals.

The winner will not immediately be able to put his vision into action, however, since leaders of the opposition can only challenge and hold the government to account.

If either man, once chosen, fails to unify their fractured party, the opposition will remain weak and policy uncertainty in the Labour ranks will go on. This would leave utilities uncertain of Labour’s position over key areas – such as the UK’s future relationship with Europe, environmental regulations, and even support for new forms of energy generations and plants. With Brexit bringing more than enough uncertainty, stability in the opposition is viewed as a necessity.

On the record: Corbyn as leader

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn promised “a different kind of politics” and to end “throwing clubhouse theatrical abuse across the floor of parliament”.

The first couple of prime minister’s questions were relatively subdued, with Corbyn putting questions from the public to the PM.

This vision of a different kind of politics also extended to the energy sector, where, despite personal wishes to see renationalisation, it was actually plans to “democratize” energy that came from the party at last year’s party conference in Brighton.

This was left vague, and then-shadow energy secretary Lisa Nandy and former shadow energy minister Alan Whitehead were left to clarify. The idea is to encourage the decentralisation of generation and the development of community energy projects.

However, as opinion poll ratings plummeted, discontent entered the Corbyn camp, with backbenchers deserting their leader. Mass resignations from the shadow cabinet and ministerial teams saw Corbyn having to replace his shadow energy and environment teams, with nothing more than vague commitments and rhetoric, rather than firm policy plans, being pitched to the public.