The Conservatives’ nuclear option is a ticking time bomb

Parliamentary Business: Gossips in the Conservative parliamentary party believe Mr Osborne and Mr Johnson will struggle to retain their pre-eminence until Mr Cameron steps down

The Conservatives may have to start considering their very own nuclear option (Getty)

It’s fun to try to spot Conservative leadership bid subplots every time George Osborne and Boris Johnson open their mouths. The Chancellor and London Mayor are on manoeuvres, yet they aren’t dead certs to dominate the formal contest to succeed David Cameron, probably four years from now.

It’s not quite true that modern political history shows party leaders are unknowns who suddenly seize the crown.

Jeremy Corbyn aside, they typically come to mild prominence around a year beforehand: John Major was promoted to chancellor in October 1989 and succeeded Margaret Thatcher 13 months later; the “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” sound bite that made Tony Blair’s name was first wheeled out in 1993 and he became Labour leader after John Smith died in 1994; and Mr Cameron had attracted attention for his “compassionate conservatism” months before he took on David Davis, the Tory favourite, in 2005.

Either way, gossips in the Conservative parliamentary party believe Mr Osborne and Mr Johnson will struggle to retain their pre-eminence until Mr Cameron steps down (the PM has said this term, his second, will be his last).

And so MPs are trying to spot if some of the stars of the 2010 intake, such as Business Secretary Sajid Javid and justice minister Dominic Raab, will deliver on their enormous potential and pace the race just right so they are front-runners come 2019.

Another is Andrea Leadsom, who may or may not have told Mr Osborne to “fuck off” when he tried to influence how she should vote on an EU bill in 2011, much to the delight of her many rebellious colleagues. Despite her maverick, tough nature, the 52-year-old was subsequently promoted, firstly to economic secretary to the treasury and now she is an energy minister.

This week, Ms Leadsom told Labour’s Paul Flynn, who is concerned over Chinese investment in the proposed £24bn Hinkley Point C nuclear plant in Somerset, that “safety and security in the civil nuclear industry are of paramount importance to the Government”. If that is the case, why has the Government insisted on cutting the resources of the nuclear regulator, which is already struggling to find people with the right skills to become power plant inspectors?

Minutes of a 13 October board meeting of the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), which is sponsored by the Department for Work & Pensions (DWP), show this to be the case: “DWP has been tasked with saving £590m by mid-2019, and this target will include the activities of ONR. The board set a very clear expectation that ONR would need to contribute to the efficiency savings and that we needed to be looking for efficiencies across all of ONR and not just the back office functions.”

I’m with those who think Ms Leadsom is a decent outside bet for the Conservative leadership in 2019. But, she must square her rhetoric with the financial demands of the DWP: cutting costs at the ONR, when we are on the cusp of building a new generation of nuclear power plants, is ridiculous.

Firms wary of backlash over Palace renovations

I’ve previously warned how civil engineering firms, architects and project managers will be on a major hiding to nothing if they bid to oversee the long overdue renovations to Parliament.

The current guesstimates – they are little more than that – are as high as £7.1bn, but could be much greater given the awkward location and fire hazards that riddle the Palace of Westminster.

Through no fault of their own, these companies will be blamed for the inevitable delays, budget-busting changes to the scope of the work, and previously unseen problems that they may encounter.

MPs and peers could move out while the work was done, meaning refurbishment will be quicker and less costly. But the cross-party committee of MPs and peers looking into the renovation think this could have tremendous safety implications. The nearby Queen Elizabeth II conference centre has long been earmarked as a temporary venue for debates.

There were already worries that MPs would have to scurry across busy Westminster roads to get to votes from their riverside offices. Under Parliament’s archaic rules, they have only eight minutes to get to division.

Of greater concern, though, is the possibility of confrontation. MPs reach votes through underground pathways, so they are not harassed by protesters, tourists or passing members of the public.

Going past Parliament Square for the couple of hundred yards to the QEII centre would leave them exposed. It would be a security nightmare, as demonstrated by the protests against the scrapping of student grants this week. If police get eggs thrown at them, heaven help a passing Conservative education minister.

Parliament Square could be closed to traffic, but that would be a logistical disaster for London’s transport system. Any MP who was attacked or any roads closed, would be at least partly blamed on the unfortunate building contractors.

The committee could try to build a short-term structure on the Parliamentary estate. This would be a squeeze and it’s unclear whether it is even viable.

In short, the more MPs and peers look into the refurbishment of our democratic home, the more difficult the job appears to be. Winning the contract might seem like a glittering CV bullet point, but the risks of reputational damage that come with it are enormous.