Tim Yeo spent 32 years – the bulk of his adult life- as a Conservative MP,
So, it may come as a surprise to hear him say the best outcome from the upcoming general election, at least in terms of energy and climate change issues, could be a hung parliament.
Yeo, who served as chairman of the House of Commons energy and climate change select committee during the 2010 parliament, sees a lot of merit in the broad thrust of the Labour Party’s decarbonisation policies.
A hung parliament, in which Labour’s more radical ambitions are held in check by smaller parties that don’t share the opposition’s appetite for nationalisation “could take away some of the lunacies of the Labour manifesto,” he says.
Chief amongst these for Yeo, who was first elected as an MP during Thatcherism’s mid-eighties heyday, is the plan to reverse the utilities privatisation introduced by the then Conservative government.
“What really weakens the Labour manifesto is the obsession with nationalisation, which has absolutely nothing to do with clean energy. It’s not going to make energy any cleaner to nationalise it and won’t make it any more secure or cheaper.”
Yeo, who is now chairman of the New Nuclear Watch Foundation, believes the manifesto conflates arguments for carbon reduction and state ownership.
“Calls for much more urgent action (on climate change) are muddled up with left-wing economic arguments about nationalisation.
“It will be a distraction because we can’t solve the climate problem without the active support of the business community and if they are alienated by people banging on about nationalisation that’s going to be very damaging.
“It may sound wonderful in a university debate but in a practical world there is no evidence that using a lot of public money to buy up a load of energy businesses is going to make a difference. There is no evidence that it will make it better and some evidence that it will make it worse and it’s just irrelevant to the very urgent challenges to decarbonisation, keeping prices down and maintaining energy security.”
He also dismisses the assertion in Labour’s manifesto that access to energy and water should be treated as rights rather than commodities as “slightly barmy” albeit a “no doubt well-intentioned attitude.”
Amid this broader critique of Labour’s plans, Yeo says the opposition is “quite right” to debate the status of National Grid.
“We should look at the role of National Grid, and they should divest themselves of unregulated businesses outside the UK,” he says, arguing that it is in the company’s commercial interests to focus investment on its less regulated overseas assets as opposed to its tightly policed UK business.
One problem for the ex-MP with the Conservative manifesto by contrast is too little detail.
That includes silence on the future policy towards onshore wind and solar power, which has led some to wonder whether the Conservatives will backtrack on what has effectively been an embargo on such developments since the 2015 general election.
“I hope they will make it easier. It (onshore wind) is a very cost-effective low-carbon source and there are parts of the country where there aren’t objections. The evidence suggests that where there is local ownership, people are more likely to support it.”
But Yeo’s main concerns about the Conservatives’ platform stem from the implications of its broader approach to Brexit.
He worries in particular about noises from the Tories which he fears will “open the door to a watering down” of environmental regulation.
“Taking control of environmental regulation implies they are going to weaken it considerably. The EU has pretty good environmental standards and is one of the best in the world.”