Opinion: Corbyn’s ‘crude and calculated’ energy campaign

It probably seems like a lot longer than almost three months ago that nominations to stand as Labour leader closed. With a prolonged series of hustings, public meetings, TV debates and seemingly endless – and sometimes absurdly antagonistic – social media comment, all four candidates will be relieved that, finally, this weekend the result will be announced.

During that time, in the real world, the CMA has issued its preliminary findings, Centrica have overturned their strategy while N-power have turned out their chief executive, Iberdrola have confirmed the closure of Longannet and EDF have conceded delays in Hinkley. In Labour-world, all four candidates have talked about the challenge of climate change, energy efficiency and decarbonisation.

Andy Burnham has confused energy and electricity in his commentary on shale gas. Both Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall have highlighted the need for clarity of policy to stimulate private sector investment in infrastructure. Yet it is only really Jeremy Corbyn’s apparent commitment to renationalisation of the utilities and re-opening coal mines that has got any attention.

His ten point energy plan, launched alongside former Labour MP turned green campaigner Alan Simpson, is largely underpinned by the familiar analysis of environmental groups. Jeremy Corbyn’s statements about re-opening pits in South Wales might seem inconsistent with the document his campaign produced, but appealing simultaneously to Greenpeace members and former mining communities is a calculated move. As crude and simplistic as it might be, it also helps Corbyn justify his longstanding opposition to nuclear power and dismiss its low carbon baseload merits.

When newspapers reported Jeremy Corbyn favouring National Grid and the big six being under public control, utilities analyst Peter Atherton costed, on the basis of current market consensus valuations, the state acquisition of the entire sector at £185 billion. A big figure, even if you are supposedly planning just to print the cash. Cue the headlines on a quiet August day – alarming the industry but delighting many of Labour’s new members simultaneously. Indeed, the idea of nationalising utilities is very popular – at least superficially – amongst the public at large. This isn’t a surprise to energy companies, well aware that part of the recent legacy of rising bills, confusing tariffs and poor customer service is a nostalgia for public ownership.

Perhaps that is why Jeremy Corbyn’s campaign have not spent too much time drawing attention to what he actually said. Stepping back to let opponents attack you for something you didn’t propose – because it is more popular than what you have suggested – may seem to be at odds with the anti-cynicism mantle being claimed, but it is what has happened.

While initially suggesting buiding up a shareholding gradually (but as the Atherton note pointed out, a 30 per cent stakeholding necessitates an offer for the whole company), it was a “personal wish” rather than a policy. Jeremy Corbyn’s policy paper, instead, talks about widening ownership, more suppliers, a more competitive market, re-cast regulation, community energy, localised storage and demand management, local authorities and consortiums developing smart power systems – in short, a combination of previous Labour policy, an acceleration of what is happening as technology has advanced and the challenges large utilities face already.

Utilities should not dismiss the reasons why calls to renationalise are popular with many, and should be focussing relentlessly on demonstrating to customers a much improved approach. They may, though, have also noticed Jeremy Corbyn’s unofficial spokesperson, Guardian polemicist Owen Jones, has started to lower expectations in anticipation of his favoured candidate winning on 12 September.

And, of course, the relevance of opposition policies increases only if a general election victory seems probable, let alone possible.