Brown's vision for a nuclear Britain

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Those of us hoping for a change of direction once Blair swans off to the US lecture circuit were given an indication of things to come by Gordon Brown when he made, as one of his first pronouncements as Prime Minister in waiting, a promise to build up to eight new nuclear power stations, possibly within 15 years.

The reaction was swift and negative:

Greenpeace last night condemned his plans. A spokesman said: 'Reaching for nuclear power to solve climate change is like taking up smoking to lose weight. Is it a simple answer? Yes. Is it an effective answer to the climate change crisis? Absolutely not.'

Of course, Alastair Darling - the Trade and Industry Secretary, who is a close Brown ally - sought to sell this as a way to combat global warming by insisting that Britain will also be investing in wind farms located offshore.

Darling will make clear that Britain will have to embark on a major renewal of nuclear power if it is to guarantee power supplies while delivering a 60 per cent cut in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. 'This is a really urgent problem,' Darling told The Observer

A major push to harness wave power and build hundreds of new wind farms - many of which will be based offshore - are also likely to be approved. 'A mix of energy supply is right,' Darling said of his plans to boost low-carbon energy, particularly offshore projects where there are fewer planning hurdles.

Although Darling insisted that no formal decisions had been made, it is clear that nuclear and wind will provide a significant part of future energy needs. He said: 'The global demand for energy is going up. We've got to come to a decision one or way or another this year. If you didn't do anything [then in 10 to 15 years] you'd come perilously close on very cold days or very hot days to seeing interruptions in supply.'

Darling was, of course, one of the nuclear industries harshest opponents when he was first elected to Parliament twenty years ago, just as Tony Blair was once a member of CND.

Now Blair wants to renew Trident and Darling wants to renew our nuclear power stations.

And both of these highly contentious positions will be eagerly accepted by Brown, despite no consultation with the public over these matters.

And they wonder why there is voter apathy in the UK? Perhaps if there was a Labour option, a genuine choice between two contrasting political values, then the public might get engaged enough to get off their arses and vote. As things presently stand they have a choice between Tory and Tory-Lite.

We really are living in the world of Yes, Prime Minister:

Sir Humphrey: "With Trident we could obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe."

Jim Hacker: "I don't want to obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe."

Sir Humphrey: "It's a deterrent."

Jim Hacker: "It's a bluff. I probably wouldn't use it."

Sir Humphrey: "Yes, but they don't know that you probably wouldn't."

Jim Hacker: "They probably do."

Sir Humphrey: "Yes, they probably know that you probably wouldn't. But they can't certainly know."

Jim Hacker: "They probably certainly know that I probably wouldn't."

Sir Humphrey: "Yes, but even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn't, they don't certainly know that, although you probably wouldn't, there is no probability that you certainly would."

Twenty billion pounds on a weapon that we can't use without American permission and nuclear power stations littering our coast lines. New Labour...

The more things change....

Click title for full article.

Tags: Brown, nuclear power stations, trident