Jonas Gahr Støre revealed during the party leaders’ debate on Thursday that the price under Norgespris is by no means guaranteed to remain at 40 øre. He would not answer whether it would remain at that level. That the scheme will remain in place until 2029 is certain, but not the price. He more than hinted that it would be adjusted. Støre has given himself a political bargaining chip of considerable proportions.

But the manner in which he revealed it did not reflect well on Støre. When Nina Owing asked a direct question: “Will Norgespris remain fixed at 40 øre?”, Støre replied, “My dear.” That did not go down well. It was what one would call patronising.

For what Støre said next revealed why he had used the condescending form of address: to “sugar-coat” the fact that Norgespris will not remain at 40 øre. He disguises the broken promise as “responsibility”. During the autumn budget process, we will learn what the government ultimately decides. Støre more than hinted that the price will not be 40 øre.

This probably came as a major shock to many viewers.

Consumers have believed that this was a guarantee from the government that it would protect them against large fluctuations or increases because the “input factors” change. If one wishes to look for factors driving the price upwards, there are several that can be cited. Among them is the fact that the CO2 tax is on an upward trajectory. The price of CO2 emissions is set to rise, and unless electricity is shielded, Norgespris will increase steadily.

The key word is “shielding”. Støre said on stage in Arendal that Norgespris is not shielded: he would promise nothing, and pretended that the government has to weigh the factors against one another: the market price and CO2. Since both of these arrows point upwards, Støre left little doubt that this would have consequences for setting the level of Norgespris.

What consumers thought was an agreement is suddenly no longer an agreement.

Støre would not, in fact, guarantee that the 40-øre price would remain fixed.

Consumers had believed that it would. They accepted a relatively high price in return for certainty.

Now Støre is abandoning the very linchpin of the agreement: the fixed price.

He has terminated the agreement.

To his left is MDG, which says that Norgespris costs far too much: NOK 9 billion.

The company Volue is quoted as saying that the cost to the state could reach NOK 24 billion. The implication: far too high.

The question that is not being asked is what this means for the relationship between the government and the voters. Who ultimately decides? It is taken for granted that the government may weigh competing considerations, but according to whose interests? People are beginning to realise that the government’s interests do not coincide with those of the citizens.

To stifle this doubt, Støre played the “responsibility card”. He has all the information at his disposal and says that being responsible means being strict. It is the new authoritarian style with which we have become familiar after many years of experience with Ursula von der Leyen’s style.

It follows them like a shadow that, in addition to being responsible, they are indispensable. (Støre very much wants to be re-elected in 2029.)

No one asks the question: What about the state’s revenues? Støre and Tangen brought in NOK 63 billion net in June. In a single month, the state earned almost three times the amount Volue used to frighten people.

By warning/threatening citizens that they must expect even higher electricity bills this winter, Støre is breaking the agreement that people believed he had entered into with them.

At the same time, the population must be prepared for rising interest rates.

The government enters into an alliance with the forces driving prices skywards: electricity because of the Paris Agreement; CO2 is to be priced out. That businesses are being sucked into the maelstrom, that an underclass is being pushed down, and that even the middle class is feeling the pressure gives Støre new opportunities. He has many horses to back.

He will not reduce VAT, because he claims that the large retail chains would profit from it.

He pretends to care. In reality, he himself is more cynical than any supermarket chain.

He wants to control the entire game. The goal is the power to manipulate Norway into the EU and secure a senior international position on the day he has to relinquish the reins of the Norwegian government.

That he is sacrificing the Labour Party through this process will become clear when the left is left divided and confused.

He was originally intended to do that job.

He and Ine will keep the game going until we are full members of the EU.