Germany’s election will decide the EU’s future

This September has been awash with commentary regarding the future of Europe. From Macron’s address on a future EU finance ministry, to President Juncker’s call for a new EU blueprint, Theresa May’s Florence speech and the upcoming German election result, it is clear that the tectonic plates are shifting. But in what direction and what does this all mean.

The EU’s political consensus is fracturing. The Brexit referendum has demonstrated that EU membership is not permanent and consequently that there are political consequences to constantly attacking the union. As a result, politicians who have previously attacked the EU in order to deflect unpopular decisions in their countries now face a choice: do they make a pro-federalist case for EU reform through integration or do they support a de-centralisation strategy. The choice is likely to be settled by two issues: the German election composition and Turkey.

Germany’s election is more complex than it seems. Current polling suggests that the CDU will win, but the question is whether they are able to govern with a “Jamaica coalition” of the FPD and Greens. A Jamaica coalition is desirable because of another party, the AfD. The AfD are on course to receive 11% – 12% of the popular vote and become the 3rd largest party in the Bundestag. If the CDU and SPD were to form another grand coalition, then the AfD would become the official opposition to the German government. A great podcast covering this is available here. If Germany does assemble another grand coalition, it is expected to be much more open to renewed EU federalism. However, if the FDP enters government then the dream of an EU finance ministry will be dead in the water.

Assuming a pro-reform minded Germany, the only barrier to further EU reforms would be Turkey. The migration crisis in 2015 was not resolved, but Merkel’s bilateral arrangement with Turkey has been a very effective stop-gap measure. Following a heated war of words between both nations in the last two years, the status of the refugee arrangement may be under review. According to the UN there are 3.1mn Syrian refugees alone in Turkey, though the official number may be higher. Were Turkey to renege on the deal, Greece would certainly see a significant uptake in new arrivals, as would most of south east Europe. Given the current hostilities and tension towards migration in the union, the risk that shengen may collapse in parts is very feasible. Such an action would again set back momentum towards a unified Europe.

The resurgence of pro-EU sentiment following Brexit, suggests that the political stalemate on further integration may finally be broken and that meaningful treaty reform is feasible. But this requires the German domino to fall into place and the migration pact to hold. As Guy Verhofstadt’s most recent book title suggests, this may be “Europe’s last chance” to successfully push through irrevocable integration among EU members.

Advertisements

UK Climate change – progress report

Ask many British industry experts whether the UK has an energy strategy and you’ll mostly be met with laughs or exasperated expressions. But while the UK may look like a mess to industry insiders, the country has been remarkably successful in de-carbonising its economy.

Let’s start with the big question: is the UK on track to meet its legally binding 2007 target of reducing CO2 emissions by 80% below 1990 standards by 2050? The answer appears to be yes. From 1990 to present the UK has reduced its gross emissions from 800mn tonnes of CO2 per annum to under 500mn tonnes. On a net basis (including emissions captured by newly planted vegetation or offset against renewables/re-forestation in other parts of the world), the UK has also fallen from 600mn tonnes in 1990 to 400mn tonnes by 2015.

UK climate target

But if emissions are falling, the next question is whether this is due to government policy or if this was inevitable. Examples of an inevitable decline would point to aspects like declining economic growth, de-industrialisation, declining population growth and basic energy efficiency gains. Thus, the question is whether any of these features have a role to play in the UK’s declining emissions story.

The answer is a partially. The UK population grew by over eight million people between 1990 and 2017, while the UK economy grew from USD $1trn in 1990 to USD $2.6trn today. These factors should have contributed to increased greenhouse gas emissions, but offsetting some of these rises is the decline in manufacturing from 17% of UK GDP in 1990 to 9.69% in 2016 . Nevertheless, UK CO2 emissions per capita have fallen from 9.7 tons in 1990 to 6.31 tons in 2017 .

As a consequence we can state that the fall in UK emissions seems to be primarily driven by alterations in the UK energy supply.

UK Renewable Generation

As the table above shows, the UK has expanded its share of Renewable Generation from 5GWs to 35GWs in little over 7 years (the equivalent of 10 – 12 Hinkley points). However it is worth noting that a significant proportion of the renewable electricity generated has come from re-converting the Drax power station in Yorkshire, so that 50% of the towers now run on biofuels (aka woodchips). Drax power station was the 2nd largest power plant in Europe when it was built, with ~4GW of coal capacity. Today over 60% of the electricity it generates comes from woodchips, mostly from North Carolina and Canada. Perhaps not (in this authors view) exactly “renewable” but certainly a step up from Coal.

It’s worth pausing to mention coal briefly. In 1990 the UK relied on coal for circa 30% of its electricity needs. Today that figure is below 9%. Moreover no new coal plants will be built in the UK and in April[1], the National Grid reported that the UK had its first day without any coal fired electricity generation in over 200 years. This trend seems set to continue. In 2017 Scotland set a record for 70% of generation coming from renewable resources, while the UK has averaged 50% of electricity from renewable resources for the 2017 period to date.

Bizarrely perhaps for people accustomed to thinking of the UK as wet and windy, the leading source of Renewable generation in the UK is now Solar PV.

UK Renewable Energy techs

The stalling of wind has been largely driven by strong local community resistance and cuts to the UK’s principal subsidy tool, the Feed in Tariff regime. However Solar PV has surged and UK developers now believe that Solar PV can be built without subsidies and will compete at around the £70 – £90 per Megawatt hour. This is comparable to the Levelized Cost of Energy that a new Combined Cycle Gas plant would require. In a further sign of confidence Blackstone (a leading Private Equity fund) and Lightsource (a leading UK developer) approved a £1bn fund to buy already operational UK solar sites in 2017[2]. It is precisely the emergence of a secondary market, through tie-ups between PE firms and Developers, which reflect the maturity of Solar PV in the UK market and should attract further buyers.

Beyond the wholesale market, the most exciting new frontier is on the retail side. The latest papers by the UK energy regulator Ofgem and the UK Department for Business, Energy, Industry & Skills (BEIS) have highlighted sweeping changes to the classification of battery storage and how these assets can earn revenues. Alongside more favourable battery deployment laws, the UK is also introducing TimeOfUse tariffs into the retail sector, allowing savvy energy users the opportunity to reduce their electricity bills through smart meters and smart appliances. In a sign of things to come, Ikea has announced a scheme to sell Solar PV panels and Lithium ion storage batteries to UK home owners. These changes, while still too early to fully assess, indicate a continued progression towards a distributed UK clean energy system.

Of course the UK has much more it can do. At circa 100,000 Electric Vehicles on the road (from over 20mn ICE vehicles), the UK has a long journey to reach a 20% reduction in transportation by 2020. Similarly on the heating side, the UK will be fortunate to reach a 10% reduction, despite a committment to a 20% reduction by 2020. But these failures have to be placed in context.

Improving Energy Efficiency is the key to reducing heating emissions. But replacing/refurbishing existing housing stock is extremely hard. The simple fact is that if the UK built more new homes (the current rate is a pitiful 100-150k per annum) to even moderate specs, the UK would make significant progress in reducing its heating emissions. On the transportation side the UK may be lagging, but with the 3rd largest EV fleet in Europe (Norway is the largest) its hardly a laggard. EV’s remain expensive and at any rate the real emissions in transportation come from freight, rail, aviation and shipping. In all of these regards, the move towards electricification, hydrogen fuel cells and second generation bio-fuels is progressing and the UK remains a leader in funding Hydrogen deployment.

In short the UK probably deserves a 7/10 on its climate change score card. Could it do more? Certainly. But is it behind its targets? The evidence would suggets otherwise.

[1]Real Estate IPE, 2017 https://realestate.ipe.com/news/investment-vehicles/uk-pension-funds-allocate-11bn-to-blackrock-renewables-fund/10019933.article – Blackrock renewable funds

[2] Guardian, 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/21/britain-set-for-first-coal-free-day-since-the-industrial-revolution

All the wrong issues

Despite 7 years of stagnant economic growth in Europe, austerity in Britain and growing inequality in the US, the political left has never looked weaker. That is a problem. All good political systems require competition of ideas to help both sides refine and improve the policies which they offer their electorates. In the founding of any democracy it is widely acknowledged that a failure to create two equal political parties, who can act as counterweights to one another, is essential. Some even believe that if the Russian Communist party had split into two parties in 1990, one moderate and the other traditionalist, it would have fundamentally changed the trajectory of Russian democracy.

But why are the political left so weak? The answer is that they are focusing on all the wrong issues. LGTBQQ rights, climate change, religious tolerance and gender equality are important issues in making our world a better place. But they are not the reason why people decide to vote for one party or another at the ballot box. Hillary Clinton did not lose because every Trump voter is a climate-denier, racist, misogynistic homophobe who wishes to punishes poor people. Though there were likely many of those too. But the reality is that people vote for bread and butter issues and as Bill Clinton once famously quipped, it’s often about “the economy stupid”.

Politicians in the modern era have a tendancy to focus on issues that are at best tangental and at worst, irrelevant, to the day-to-day lives of most citizens. Climate change is a huge issue, one that I passionately seek to help fix every day. But it isn’t something you can explain or resolve in a tweet. It also is something that is extremely hard to explain to citizens that work 9am – 5pm in an office. The same is true with the rise of identity politics issues. It is morally clear that Donald Trump’s ban on transgender service in the military is wrong, but if democrats think that they will win votes over these issues then they are misguided. As sympathetic as the ordinary citizen is to the suffering of others, it takes more than the empathy that one may feel from an article or a youtube clip to vote for a political party that is also raising your taxes or restricting your social rights.

If we acknowledge that the issues championed by left wing parties are the wrong issue to win elections and political power, then intuitively one must ask why parties cover these issues. In part the answer lies in the  membership base and in part it is a feature of the social media age. Political parties draw their strength from loyal members, who contribute funds as well as time to help win elections and in exchange they are granted an input into the policy making process. Today though, members are no longer content with “an input”. Grass root activists, inspired by social justice movements like Occupy Wall Street and other online anarchist strctures, are seeking to rebuild the entire political governance of their parties. In doing so, the parties are sacrificing external clarity of message for the ostensible goal of greater internal cohesion, as all factions and members feel more engaged in the policy creation process.

In the social media age, these internal struggles play out across the public sphere and muddle the waters. Moreover, the areas of greatest acrimony and therefore greatest publicity, are not issues of inequality or climate change (where agreement is much stronger) but rather the extent of engagement with identity politics issues. These topics, ranging from the appropriate use of social pronouns (if such a thing still exists), towards use of public facilities (notably toilets) and removing statues, hold no interest to the vast majority of society but they are fought though they are an existential battle, by left wing activists across social media platforms. In the maelstrom all other issues are lost. The conservatives in the US understand this well. Breitbart, Fox and other right wing activist groups are easily able to distract the political left from delivering clear messages on inequality, healthcare and the economy by effectively trolling the political left with social politic clickbait. Milo Yiannopolous andDonald  Trump are experts at this.

Many could contest that the political left is stronger than it has been portrayed, but the success of Jeremy Corbyn in the UK and Macron in France is misleading. Macron was the ultimate example of the “lesser of many evils vote”, a product ofthe disastrous   Socialist government election process, a crippling leadership scandal in the Republican party and a desperation to keep the National Front out of power. Corbyn is even stranger. A product of the anger felt by many in the UK who suffered disproportionally from the reduction of public spending in social services and a rising anger that the system is rigged which came from the financial crisis. Such anger against elites is ironically why Corbyn and Macron share so many similarities with Trump, in that they are all populists that are riding a wave of anger against the perceived liberal, effete elite. But the perceived success of these leaders is due to electoral circumstance, not the strength of their political positions.

Jeremy Corbyn persuaded young students that their debt would be removed, while sending two contrasting visions of Brexit to Labour voters in the north and labour voters in the south. Macron did even less. It is perhaps unsurprising therefore that Macron’s popularity has dropped faster than any French president in the last 20 years. Meanwhile Labour may being riding high in the polls, but Jeremy Corbyn still polls as a “less trusted to govern” leader than Theresa May. A leader that lost an election and is expected to be removed in the next 12 months.

In politics there is a disctinction between doing the right thing because its right and doing it because it looks right. The Conservative party in the UK will never outliberal the Liberal Democrats and they will never be seen as more progressive than parties whose foundations were built on championing the rights of excluded groups in society. Similarly the Labour party and Democratic party will never win over aspirational voters, who want a better quality of life by championing social issues as their primary selling point.

The obsession with social politics issues is a problem for the political systems of western liberal democracies. If we can’t move on from it and focus on the bigger picture issues that affect the day-to-day lives of millions, citizens will start to wonder what democracy is doing for them anyway. Confused onlookers from China and Sinagpore may be asking that already.

A new governing strategy for the Conservative Party

The Conservative party today lies in tatters. A leader that has lost the support of the public and her party. A party that is seen as out of touch, ruthless and clueless by the British public and nations afar. A government that has no vision and an opponent that offers hope, change and momentum. A momentum towards a past that the Conservative party and its leaders have spent nearly 40 years fighting. Perhaps the only saving grace is that the Conservative party is not alone in its struggles.

Today we see in America, in France, in Italy and across the Western World, that the old political systems and their parties are collapsing. Some are being replaced by new liberal structures. Many are not. During the Cold War the terms of debate were clear and the enemy was clearer. With the end of the Cold War, liberal parties rejoiced in their hard one victory. But they got complacent. They ignored the people and they forgot that Liberalism is not a finite end in and of itself. Rather, it is a mechanism for helping those who govern to make choices for the future. But there was no plan for the future. No dream end game or envisaged utopia. In short, they forgot the most human of all things. They forgot that people need hope of a brighter and better tomorrow.

The problem of the Conservative party today is less the methods by which it governs, than it is about the vision and ideology which it has governed by. In 2010 the British public understood that sacrifices needed to be made under the banner of “Austerity”, but what no-one understood was what was supposed to come after Austerity. What was the reward at the end of the march? It is on this charge that the Conservatives failed to win a majority in 2010 and it is for this reason why the party is so rudderless today.

More than anything what Conservatives of all colours need to show is humility. We underestimated the deep sense of injustice and inequality within society and we did too little to address it. We let our overwhelming desire to replace New Labour cloud our vision of what our party stood for and its principles. As a party we lost track of the fundamental tenants of Liberalism, that a belief in the inherent good of human nature and freedom, requires us to do good to others with that freedom. The free market, if it ever can be said to exist, is not a thing of emotions. The free market is a mechanism that allocates resources to where their perceived value is highest. It does not exercise compassion, fairness, tolerance or diversity. It does not support those who fall or offer a hand to those who need a boost to get started. If Conservatism is to return to its values and principles it must start by recognising that the free market may create wealth but it is people who distribute it. If the wealth creators in society do not see the value in distributing wealth and in helping those less fortunate, then the system will not fix the problem. It was never designed to do so.

Despite her many failings as a leadership figure, Theresa May knew this. As did David Cameron’s team, with their talk of the “Big Society” and Ian Duncan-Smith’s work on benefit reform. Like many problems, it seems less an issue that the sickness hasn’t been diagnosed than a question of how to solve the ailment. It is precisely the failure of the Conservatives to find an answer, while Jeremy Corbyn does offer a solution, that may be the hammer blow for Britain. But all is not lost and the party that led us through our darkest hours in WW2, the financial crash of 1979, the Falklands war in 1992 and one of the strongest G7 recoveries after 2010 is not finished yet.

The Conservative party needs to start by being brave and being honest. It needs a full public confession and admission that it got things wrong. When you have wronged a friend, you do not explain to them your reasoning for why you behaved wrong before you apologise. You apologise first. The British public want and need that apology first.

Further, we need to recognise that if there is no single leader in the Conservative party today that can represent the party as a united body, then we should govern as a party and present ourselves to the people as a party. The Conservatives may not represent the nation perfectly, but there are MPs that represent women, ethnic minorities, different religious groups and sexual orientations. They need to be heard and they need to be seen. Rather than worrying about threats to the leadership, the Tory party needs to show that it is a party that is focused on delivering a better life and better opportunities for the people of the UK before the personal career interests of its own members.

Today the Conservative party must answer two questions: firstly, how would a Conservative government make the country happier and wealthier for all. Secondly the party must explain why Liberalism must be the guiding set of principles to achieve that end and not Socialism.  In the UK we have the ability to choose where our children study, where we want to live, for whom we want to work, the type of car we want to buy and how we want to allocate our pay check across these things at the end of each month. That is the freedom of choice which Liberalism gives us. The freedom to make decisions, both good and bad. But it also requires us to be responsible for the failures which we create ourselves.

The world is not fair, nor equal and in the absence of intervention these market failures will not be improved. Liberalism in the 21st century must begin with this realisation that the public will no longer accept the trade-off of total freedom of choice in exchange for personal accountability of all outcomes. Instead, people believe there are some things that they will always need help to protect themselves against. Modern psychology seems to agree. Study after study shows that life in poverty reduces the most intelligent people into making seemingly irrational decisions, as people are forced to make decisions to live day by day. The ability to plan for the future is a luxury for those starving today. Society needs a basic safety net of human decency and when over 2,000 food banks exist in one of the world’s richest nations, we can safely say that the basic net is not being provided. A new compassionate Liberalism needs to start by understanding that for people to make rational choices they have to be in a position to think rationally.

The Conservatives have always been called the “nasty party” because they have never been afraid to let people fail. But the biggest problem has been that not enough are succeeding. A Conservative party that can breathe life into the promise of Liberalism, with an understanding that no society can be called rich when its poorest must rely on charity to eat, has a chance to turn the tables on the false promises of Labour today.

Make no mistake, today Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party is a populist one and it will not be beaten by patronising it or dismissing its central arguments alone. Instead the Conservatives must show the British public once again that they are the only adults in political room that can deliver a better Britain for all. Showing more humility, compassion and humanity would be a welcome place to start.

Exploring the commercial viability of integrated DER solutions in NY state 2016-17

Over nine months ago, myself and three fantastic colleagues Max Stadler, Fujia Zhang and Xitong (Kathy) Gao began work on researching distributed energy resource solutions for higher education institutions in New York state. The project was a collaboration between Johns Hopkins SAIS ERE department and Power Capital, a UK based Energy Consultancy.

Many wonderful people have supported our efforts and listened to the team drone on about this project. So as a small thank you, I have included a final version of our report here. It is available to be read, but the intellectual property remains with myself, Max, Xitong and Fujia so please contact us if you wish to use the content first.

Our project examined whether a new energy services compnay model was viable for the New York market and what sorts of market/regulatory pressures ar affecting these customers. We believe it is the firts report of its kind on this segment and market.

It has been a pleasure to work with such an exciting group of people on such a wonderful project. I hope others also find it of interest.

Exploring the commercial viability of integrated DER solutions in NY state 2016-17

Why is it so difficult to be a Conservative?

The election today represents a reversion to the mean for British politics. For the first time since 1992, the voters of the UK face a clear choice between Labour and Conservatives. For many this is unsettling. My generation grew up with the Centre Ground. A place where limited ideologies existed and variations between the parties were driven more by local issues and individual biases than existential differences in party governing ideologies. This is how the awfully phrased “millennials” think of politics. A choice between technocratic governments with different faces. Until today.

Today ideology is back, and as I have written before, this has been a shot in the arm for the health of UK democracy. The Brexit referendum marked the first nationwide turnout above 70% in 30 years and repeated polling suggests that the 18-24yr old turnout will be a record 60% or better. But with ideology and passion comes clear winners and clear losers. In part that is why this election is so much harder than those before. There is a trade-off and whoever wins the election will change the face of Britain.

I grew up hearing the phrase that “if you don’t vote for labour when you are young you have no heart and if you don’t vote conservative when you are older, you have no brain”. The polls seem to reflect this adage. Only 17% of 18-24yr olds are due to vote Conservative today, yet over 40% of 65+ voters will vote Conservative. So today I am in a minority in my nation and my generation. As I was for Brexit. So why be the contrarian? Why stand against your own generation and be different? Surely, they can’t all be wrong? And with all of these thoughts comes the question, why would anyone be a Conservative at all?

The charges against the Conservative party are steep. Consistent cuts to mental health, hospitals, schools and police for nearly 7 years, a Brexit campaign fought with no plan B and a leadership election straight after when leadership was most needed. A party that tacitly supports foxhunting, that supports nuclear weapons that could kill millions. A party that cuts taxes on businesses while reducing welfare to those most in need. A decade of lost wage growth and declining real incomes and a boom in food banks. Surely, my generation asks, it is time for something different.

Today stands Jeremy Corbyn as that “different”. An insider of parliament for 30yrs, yet an outsider in his party for most of them. An avowed pacifist, active human rights campaigner and strong defender of minorities. Especially immigrants and religious communities. A brand of politics where all are equal. A deal for the nation – a new social compact for the people. Sounds appealing doesn’t it?

It is difficult to be a Conservative because at its core, Conservatism is about faith. Not religious, though for some it may be. Rather, Conservatism is about faith in people. To be a Conservative means placing your faith that individuals excel when given the freedom to act and the opportunities to improve their own lives. Being a Conservative means holding a belief that it is not the State that can help an individual to find the drive, passion and bravery to excel in their lives. It is people themselves.

This election is about ideology and for many of my generation the wrong conclusions have been drawn. Conservatism is not about every man and woman for themselves, a free market gone wild. Rather, Conservatism is a belief that people know what matters to them more in their own lives than the state does and that people are better able to decide how to use scarce resources to improve their lives than the State.

In the UK today deep inequality and poverty exist. The question is how do we make them better. It is easy to talk about incomes and to compare ourselves to wages in Europe. This is deeply misleading. There is a reason why people from Europe have been desperate to come to the UK, USA and Germany. That reason is jobs. The UK Unemployment rate hovers around 5% and at around 11% for specifically the 18-24yr old range. In France those figures are around 11% and 20%. In Greece, they are nearer 25% and 40%. This is Conservatism in action. A belief that State intervention in job markets and in regulating businesses heavily, will more often tend to privilege a few rather than helping the many. This is the effect of Unionisation across Europe. Lower jobs and fewer opportunities for young people, to protect the few who have succeeded.

If you want to remove inequality and poverty you need to start with jobs. You also need to start by realising the nature of inequality. Today in the western world inequality is different to the 1980s and before. If you look at the houses of millionaires in London, the Home Counties and other leading cities across the UK and you’ll notice something quickly, many are no longer owned by Brits. The rich across the world are not defined by their nationalities. They move freely between nations depending on where they enjoy the highest quality of life for themselves, their families and their careers. London is a symptom of this, but no different to New York, San Francisco, Hong Kong or Geneva. The wealth that this group enjoys cannot be amended by new national taxes or by restrictions on investment. They simply move, as many did from France under President Hollande. No one from the France became richer since then and no-one in the UK will become richer after Labour’s tax raids either.

It is difficult to be a Conservative because people belief that Conservatives lack compassion. It seems brutal, shocking, barbaric and wrong to let people fail, communities fail and businesses fail, while allowing old beliefs and prejudices to exist. In the mindset of Labour and Socialism, this is why Conservatism is so deeply unpopular in public discourse. It is also why Conservatism and right-wing ideologies are so unpopular in the arts. Bands, dance troupes, painters, poets, writers, singers, all rely and draw from a deep community of people who broadly seek to expose the flaws in the world and to dream of better futures. Critiques of the past and a desire for a new idealist future is what drives concepts like Socialism, Futurism and Idealism. The present is awful, but the future can be better. Who doesn’t want a better future? Who is perfectly happy with the present? Often very few.

In the election today these ideas were barely discussed. The campaign focused on personal histories and efforts to show who would be better to handle Terrorism and Brexit. For many, myself included, our votes will have been cast without much enthusiasm. But our votes do matter and will have consequences. I voted Conservatives today because while Theresa May is our PM today, the Conservative party itself is over 100 years old. The belief that individuals can and should be trusted, supported and given the freedom to make a better life for themselves, rather than a patronising, paternalistic hand of the State determining the terms and conditions of our future, remains the core reason behind why I remain a proud Conservative.

Sometimes the right decisions are the most difficult ones. It is easy to be led by the heart and seduced by dreams of a better utopia. But life is about making tough choices and when it comes to determining who governs our nation in its period of deep transition, I put my faith in a party whose ideology is driven by trust in people. Being a Conservative isn’t easy, but it remains the right choice.

May’s masterclass in politics

It may have been long overdue (like the pun there?), but the UK Prime Minister’s decision to call a general election this morning was a piece of political masterclass and a bold, calculated gamble.

By calling a general election Theresa May is attempting to resolve several major headaches at once, assuming that she is successful: Firstly, the move creates political certainty in the UK at a time where it is sorely needed. Secondly, the move will end questions around the Theresa May’s political support within the party itself and lastly it will strengthen the UK’s negotiating hand with the EU.

If the Conservatives win (especially by an increased margin), then Theresa May will have a clear mandate for her Brexit negotiation strategy. This will give investors, businesses and political leaders a greater sense of what the UK will choose to prioritise and a clearer idea of which figures will manage the UK’s transition from a full EU member state to an independent nation. Assuming that the PM will stay for a full five-year term, the Conservatives would govern until 2022, giving them the ability to handle the transition after Brexit as well and a chance to resolve any outstanding issues with EU members, the WTO and Scotland.

The surprise election is also likely to be popular with the Conservative political base, partly because the opposition are so weak. Labour remains extremely divided between its core factions, while the Lib Dems will have a mountain to climb to recover even the 40 seats it previously held before 2015. The SNP can only lose from their current position and Northern Ireland has been in deadlock since the last regional government collapsed. In 2015 UKIP won 3.9 million votes, today the country has voted to leave and they have no credible or popular leader. All of this explains why the polls suggest a clear Conservative lead, and even though polls have been consistently unreliable in the last 18 months, few polls have predicted a winning margin of this magnitude that has been overturned in such a short time period.

The reason why winning an election is important however is that it is the key to ensuring party unity. The Conservative party is famous for its political backstabbing and without an election win under her belt, the PM would have been vulnerable to challengers if the EU negotiations turn ugly. Incidentally there are even rumours that the election will help to neutralise the Conservative political right, by forcing the PM to adopt a less aggressive position to win the election. If the Conservatives wish to keep seats in London and the South West, they will need to win over unhappy remain voters and soft Brexit voters. With a mandate to govern secured on a hard Brexit, with very flexible immigration and extremely close ties to the EU, the PM will neutralise the Tory right and move the negotiations towards a less confrontational position.

The UK has had a number of challenges in getting the EU to agree on even basic terms for Brexit. The UK gave notice that they would invoke Article 50 at the end of March, but the EU has focused on the “negotiating framework” for the Brexit discussions. This focus has been both strategically and tactically driven. Strategically, by agreeing the framework for talks in advance the EU can already try and dictate the terms of the UK’s exit. Tactically, the major EU decision making member states either have elections, just had elections or have elections due in the next five months (The Netherlands, France and Germany), so delaying the main issues until after September avoids discussing the issues during elections.

The EU commission had assumed that after the EU’s major elections, its leaders would have fresh electoral mandates and solidarity across the block. This would have put the PM at a considerable disadvantage, as the EU could have decided to target politically sensitive areas like agricultural tariffs or financial service access to secure concessions. This threat has now been taken off the table. Even if the EU makes threats against these sectors, it will take years for the full effects to come through and politically speaking, the EU has lost its ability to alter who it will be negotiating with on the UK side of the table.

This is a move that carries risks though. Firstly, Labour may be more resilient than expected and the Lib Dems may well recover the 40 seats that they lost. If such an outcome occurs, the UK would have a hung parliament and the UK would enter a constitutional crisis. It is unlikely that the Conservatives could form a viable coalition at this time, but it is also unclear whether an SNP/Labour/Lib Dem coalition would be any better. This being the case, there is a chance that the UK might have a second election within a few months of the new one in June. Needless to say, Theresa May would be extremely damaged as a leader if the Conservative party did not retain an overall majority, while any further Labour party losses would trigger another bout of in-fighting over the need for  new leader to replace Corbyn.

The last piece of this story is that an election on which party will govern during and after Brexit, is also a tacit election on the Brexit process itself. If the Lib Dems did the unthinkable and gained north of 60 seats, with minimal Labour losses, the UK could very well have a crisis about the declaration of article 50 itself. More realistically however, the end of a conservative majority would likely lead to the UK seeking to remain as a member of the Single Market. Such a move would send political shockwaves through the UK and EU political system (assuming the EU even allowed it) and would leave the UK bitterly divided, in a far more dramatic way than it has been since the vote itself. Still, the election is the last chance that the British public will have to go out and vote on what relationship the UK will have with the EU.

If you haven’t registered to vote, then go out and do so. This may be one of the defining moments of British politics in the 21st century.