Almost 160 years after Bismarck opined that politics is the art of the possible, the UK’s government, and other UK politicians, seem to have turned his aphorism on its head. Full of hubris, the Labour Party’s 2024 general election manifesto promised (in its second of five numbered “missions”) to “[m]ake Britain a clean energy superpower to cut bills, create jobs and deliver security with cheaper, zerocarbon electricity by 2030, accelerating to net zero.”
Also (page 31) it promised to give “certainty to manufacturers by restoring the phase-out date of 2030 for new cars with internal combustion engines…”.
On page 50, still banging on about the fantasy of making Britain a clean energy superpower [sic] they claimed that their “plan will create 650,000 jobs across the country by 2030. [My emphasis – no ifs, buts or maybes – a definite claim that it will happen].
The following page offered a little more detail regarding their “clean energy” offering:
Families and businesses will have lower bills for good, from a zero-carbon electricity system….To deliver our clean power mission, Labour will work with the private sector to double onshore wind, triple solar power, and quadruple offshore wind by 2030. We will invest in carbon capture and storage, hydrogen and marine energy, and ensure we have the long-term energy storage our country needs….We will…ban fracking for good…
More hubris. Although the UK lacks a written constitution, it is a fundamental principle of our unwritten model that Parliament is supreme. How will this Labour government bind the hands of future sovereign Parliaments? Is democracy to be ended by 2029? Mind you, it has to be said that our Prime Minister does seem to be doing his best to make life difficult for his successors – why else, as part of his Brexit re-set, has he given the EU access to UK fishing waters for twelve years when they were at this stage seeking access only for four, and allowed a clause that permits the EU to impose tariffs on the UK should a future UK government seek to deny it access to our waters for fishing before 30th June 2038?
But I digress. What else is in the manifesto? Housing – “Labour will get Britain building again, creating jobs across England, with 1.5 million new homes over the next parliament.”
We’re now around six weeks away from the first anniversary of Labour’s general election victory (on 4th July 2024) so now might be a reasonable time to take stock. It’s fair to acknowledge that any new government needs a little time to put measures in place to achieve its obectives, but as we’re probably close to 20% of the way to the next general election, and between 15 and 20% of the way towards its 2030 date for various targets, if those targets are to be hit, then real progress should be taking place by now. How’s it going?
Energy
The big one, of course, is the “clean energy superpower” plan and the proposed “decarbonisation” of the grid by 2030. This was always going to be a tall order, as Robin Guenier has pointed out. Quite apart from the practical, financial and engineering challenge associated with the “plan”, he reminded us that:
…we don’t have enough skilled technical managers, electrical, heating and other engineers, electricians, plumbers, welders, mechanics and other skilled tradespeople required to do the multitude of tasks essential to achieve Net Zero – a problem exacerbated by the Government’s plans for massively increased house building.
Despite throwing lots of money at the Sixth Allocation Round (AR6) of the Contracts for Difference project (and trumpeting its alleged success at the time), Mr Miliband doesn’t seem to be achieving the buy-in he hoped for. Earlier this month, we had an announcement from Ørsted to the effect that it has:
…decided to discontinue the Hornsea 4 project in the UK in its current form. Since the Contract for Difference (CfD) award in allocation round 6 (AR6) in September 2024, the 2,400 MW Hornsea 4 project has seen several adverse developments relating to continued increase of supply chain costs, higher interest rates, and an increase in the risk to construct and operate Hornsea 4 on the planned timeline for a project of this scale.
In combination, these developments have increased the execution risk and deteriorated the value creation of the project. Therefore, Ørsted has taken the decision to stop further spend on the project at this time and terminate the project’s supply chain contracts, meaning that Ørsted will not deliver Hornsea 4 under the CfD awarded in AR6….
This morning, the BBC website told me that “Major solar farm proposal on pause ‘indefinitely’”. No explanation is given by the developer (a subsidiary of a Spanish company – such is the ownership of the UK’s energy infrastructure these days), whose website simply says that the project team has taken the decision to pause development of the project indefinitely. It was to have covered 675 acres, and was opposed by the local authority, but given that it was claimed that it would – actually, could, intermittently, and not a lot in the winter – “power more than 40,000 homes” it’s the sort of news that Mr Miliband can do without. Coming on the back of the Hornsea 4 failure, his objective is starting to look increasingly unachievable. Why the sudden “indefinite pause” for the solar project? In the absence of an explanation from the developer, we can only speculate. Perhaps it has something to do with the recent blackout in Iberia, which some people say was linked to over-reliance on solar energy there. Perhaps it (and the earlier decision by Ørsted with regard to Hornsea 4) is simply an attempt to pile the pressure on Mr Miliband to cough up still more cash (and possibly extend the state guarantee from 15 to 20 years) when it comes to Allocation Round 7 (AR7) later this year. When politicians insist on achieving the unachievable within a short time frame, they certainly offer a hostage to fortune. In this case Mr Miliband’s solution may have to be to offer a very large carrot. In other areas, the government appears to prefer to wield a very large stick.
Zero Emissions Vehicle Mandate
Jit’s article and the comments under it should be read to understand exactly what is going on here. Meanwhile, as existing targets for sales of EVs continue to be missed, the government in its embarrassment chose to blame Trump tariffs when announcing a relaxation of electric vehicle (EV) sales targets early last month. The BBC reported thus:
Currently, 28% of new cars sold in the UK this year must be electric, a target that will rise each year until 2030.
But manufacturers will now be given more freedom in how they meet their yearly targets – meaning if they don’t sell enough EVs in one year, they can make up for it by selling more the next year, for example.
In addition, the fine of £15,000 per vehicle sold that does not meet the latest emissions standards will be cut to £12,000.
I haven’t noticed the government amending those amended targets once it announced its more recent trade deal with the USA. It will be very interesting indeed to see its response next year, the year after, and the year after that, as we approach the end of the Parliament and the 2030 cut-off date, while EV sales will (I assume) continue to fall far short of target.
Housing
Remember the pre-election manifesto pledge to build 1.5 million homes during the current Parliament? Not all is well there either. This morning the Guardian reported that “ministers have admitted [the commitment to build 1.5 million new homes] is a challenging target.” I take issue with that – it’s not a target, it’s a manifesto commitment (“will” is the word the manifesto used). If ministers are already referring to it as a target instead, then I think we can take that as an early acknowledgement that it’s a commitment that’s not going to be honoured. So desperate is the government that (if the Guardian article is to be believed):
Developers face tens of thousands of pounds in fines if they slow down housebuilding under new powers being granted to councils…Under government proposals, housebuilders will need to commit to a timeframe for construction before they are granted planning permission, and deliver annual reports on their progress. Those who repeatedly fail to build or sit on land could be fined with a “delayed homes penalty” or blocked from future planning permission by councils….The prospective fines would be based on lost council tax revenue and could be imposed by councils on developers who fall at least 10% behind schedule without good reason. As a result, a developer who is failing to build 50 homes that would each raise £1,500 in annual council tax could face a £75,000 fine….
Heat Pumps
The Government has been a little smarter here, and has studiously avoided committing to any set number of heat pump installations in any given year or by a particular date, although as the Climate Change Committee says:
The Government projects 600,000 heat pump installations per year by 2028, up from around 35,000 last year.
It’s difficult to see how that level of heat pump installations can be achieved in that timescale. Even pv magazine (which is enthusiastic about this sort of thing) has reported that despite increased subsidies (a reversion to the carrot, rather than the stick) and despite a “record” start to the year, installations remain well short of the target:
Strong installation figures for March 2025 helped set a first-quarter record of 15,758 certified heat pump installations, beating the previous first-quarter record of 14,211 set in 2022. [Wow – up by 1,547 per quarter over three years]. March 2022 remains the busiest period for UK heat pump installations to date, with 7,775 certified installations recorded as consumers rushed to beat a subsidy scheme deadline.
The positive start to 2025 reflects a ramping up [sic] of heat pump installations in the United Kingdom, with nine of the top 10 months for certified installations occurring between May 2024 and March 2025. MCS recorded a total of 58,176 heat pump installations in 2024, a new annual record….
…Despite more generous subsidy support than comparable European markets, the pace of heat pump deployment is well below the level required to hit UK government targets. A report from the UK National Audit Office released March 2024 found uptake of the BUS subsidy had been lower than expected, and warned the government’s target of 600,000 installations per year by 2028 was “based on optimistic assumptions.”…
You can say that again. Bear in mind that the government target is hopeless in terms of achieving net zero by 2050 (with around 28 million homes in the country, at the rate of 600,000 installations a year, it’s difficult to see us all with heat pumps before 2070; but at the current rate of installation, I think we’re looking at 2450CE).
Scottish (and Northern Ireland) Government targets
In Scotland, of course, SNP politicians have long been guilty of hubris, especially when sharing power with Green politicians. Hence, when the UK set a legally binding net zero target for 2050, Scotland just had to go one better and have a 2045 target date. Three months ago, the Guardian reported that “Top officials and climate policy experts believe delays in cutting emissions make it improbable 2045 target will be met”. At the same time, the BBC reported:
Unused and wasted renewable energy will cause Northern Ireland to miss its 2030 power emissions target by more than 20%, a consultancy firm says.
The forecast, from Cornwall Insight, says a reduction of around 50% is likely, rather than the 73% aim.
It adds that almost 40% of wind energy generated in Northern Ireland in December 2024 went unused due to restrictions in the power grid.
And it expects emissions to rise in the near term, due to increasing demand and the slow expansion of renewable generation....
Energy Prices
The Labour Party manifesto, contrary to popular belief, didn’t commit to cut electricity prices by £300 per annum, though it’s fair to hold the government to that target, given that it’s a claim that was made repeatedly during the general election campaign. The manifesto, however, did promise “lower energy bills” and to “cut energy bills for good”. And, on page 50, explicitly in the context of energy policy, it did say that “We will save families hundreds of pounds on their bills, not just in the short term, but for good.” It’s not unreasonable, therefore, to expect energy bills to come down. And yet, as Jit tells us, referring to “the July-September 2024 tariff cap of £1568…the bill…needed to go down to £1268 to fulfil the promise. The present £1720 means that an additional £452 savings are necessary to achieve it.” It’s not going well. And nor will it, as the massive capital costs of, and associated with, renewables, continue to be added to our bills. I shudder to think what will happen if Mr Miliband decides he needs to throw even more money at AR7 later this year to get the foreign subsidy-sucking renewable energy companies, on whom he is completely reliant, back on board. So much for energy security.
Conclusion
There was a time when politicians (who often failed) legislated to try to make our lives better. They acted in the here and now, and generally didn’t try to tie their successors’ hands, nor did they usually believe that they had the power to achieve the unachievable by impossible dates. King Canute, when he had his throne placed on the beach and ordered the incoming tide to turn back, was seeking to ensure that sycophantic courtiers understood that that he wasn’t all-powerful. I suspect that the current crop of politicians fundamentally misunderstood his message.
Climate Scepticism 
That’s quite a list of problems. I believe Starmer has others as well, such as:
Opinion polls showing Labour in 4th place, just ahead of the other main party in our 2 party system;
Involvement in 3 undeclared wars (Ukraine, Palestine, Yemen) with another (Iran) on the horizon;
Film of him sharing a joke with a couple of coke addicts in a train somewhere in Europe;
Plus being terrorised by a gang of pyromanic East European male models.
With all that on his plate, I wonder how much time he has to spend worrying that his heat pump policy is three centuries behind schedule?
LikeLike
Those manifestos! So often they leave a trail of broken ass-sure-ances.
LikeLike
Geoff,
Yes, lots of problems, and I should perhaps have discussed the promise of 650,000 new green jobs too. It’s a bit early to tell, but it seems clear that the required rate of job creation to hit that target (an extra 130,000 jobs per annum for five years) is nowhere near being achieved (quite the reverse). The most recent ONS data (released on 13th May 2025) says that in the first quarter of 2025 unemployment increased by 0.2%.
My A level in economics is almost half a century old, and half-forgotten (at least) but I remember enough to know that increasing the cost of energy and re-imposing a tax on jobs (the national insurance increase) is not going to help. The latter is only just starting to make itself felt, so the situation will get worse before it gets better (if it ever does).
LikeLiked by 2 people
At any occasion when a choice had to be made, they (almost without exception) picked wrong. The winter fuel allowance was political poison and anyone could see it. This – the first of many wrong turns – had the whiff of vindictiveness about it: the people losing out were not Labour voters, in the main, and the amount raised was trivial in the grand scheme of things.
The most recent, the sellout to Europe of fishing towns that had the temerity to vote for Brexit, is further evidence of such vindictiveness. It’s coupled with diplomatic stupidity and that makes for a toxic combination.
The country wanted a divorce before the honeymoon was over. Unfortunately, the way these things work, we have to wait up to five years for that.
Regarding housing, these fines will not speed things up. Developers do not want a glut of new properties, because that eats into their margins.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Surely, the solution is obvious. We need a war footing!
LikeLike
Jit,
The hallmark of this Labour government will be its vindictiveness, manifesting as the pursuit of political vendettas against its opponents and disfavoured social groups via policy-making across the full spectrum of policy.
We see it with immigration, with housing, with Net Zero policies, with the EU ‘reset’, with the farm tax and the pensioner winter fuel allowance, with taxation in general, with the Chagos Islands giveaway, with two-tier justice and more.
This Labour government is essentially malign and aggressively anti-British.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jit / Jaime, I am intrigued by your arguments. Where does this vindictiveness come from? Is it vindictiveness for its own sake? Or is it driven by aligning British policies with those of other organisations (e.g. WEF or UN/WHO, etc.)? Or are the causes elsewhere? Please expand if you have insights, because understanding how and why British policy (and Western policy more generally) has become so divorced from the needs and desires of ordinary people is of great interest and importance. Thank you. Regards, John C.
LikeLike
As I’ve said here before, I think Jaime’s wrong about this. It’s my view that the Government’s seemingly evil (or vindictive) policies are in fact driven by a desire to do what it genuinely considers is best for Britain – larded with a strong element of ignorance, misunderstanding and/or foolishness. Consider for example Net Zero and immigration. These irresponsible policies have been pursued by both the Conservative and Labour governments. Note: ‘vindictive’ means having a strong, often unreasoning desire for revenge. On whom do the Tories and Labour wish to inflict revenge – and for what? It makes no sense.
The Chagos deal is an interesting example. Starmer has implemented it, not because he wishes to inflict damage or revenge on the UK, but because he believes strongly in the overriding importance of a ‘rules-based international order’ (including for example international agreements on human rights) and in the importance of support for multilateral institutions such as the United Nations, NATO and EU. He believes that firm adherence to all this will restore credibility in Britain’s role on the world stage and therefore be very much to our advantage. Of course in today’s world, where most countries don’t give a damn about these things, this attitude is extremely foolish, naïve and dangerous. But it’s not vindictive.
PS: I agree however with Jit that there might have been a ‘whiff of vindictiveness’ in the winter fuel payment decision – although in my opinion it was mainly simply stupid.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin, thank you for your comments, which I understand. I am trying to find the differences between your arguments and those of Jaime.
As I understand it, your arguments are primarily based around what might be termed foreign policy issues (apart from your P.S. about the winter fuel payment). By contrast Jaime has touched on both foreign policy and domestic policy issues.
If we accept (perhaps temporarily) for the sake of discussion that your arguments hold for foreign policy issues, how are we to understand the decisions on domestic issues such as (from Jaime’s list) housing, farm tax, taxation in general, two-tier justice and the winter fuel payment?
I find the latter quite the most bizarre of decisions given that Labour’s roots lie in the protection of ordinary people, which even your characterisation as “ignorance, misunderstanding and/or foolishness” does not, for me, excuse because, surely, even the most tone deaf, cloth eared Labour supporter has been steeped in labour lore which in time became Labour lore.
I am, for the moment, puzzled and so would be very pleased to hear your further thoughts. Regards, John C.
LikeLike
I’ve got nothing to add at present. My attention is wholly taken up with the dreadful events in Liverpool.
LikeLike
Apropos the ongoing discussion between Jaime and Robin, interestingly, George Monbiot appears to think that the Labour Government hates us:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/may/27/smash-britain-two-party-system-election-labour-reform
LikeLike
I feel that Mr Monbiot has taken rather too many years to wake up to what has been evident for years, namely that the various wings of the uniparty are not and have not been working in the national interest as broadly defined. The concerns of the uniparty have, it seems to me, been largely elsewhere.
So where were you, George, when all this was happening under your nose?
Or am I being unfair to an eco-hack? Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
I seriously doubt that. Starmer is close friends with Philippe Sands, who brokered the deal. Starmer claims not to have spoken to Sands since becoming PM, but Starmer lies every time he opens his mouth. Sands positively delights in humiliating Britain and depriving Britain of its power and influence and of its remaining territories. His motivation apparently stems from a desire to punish Britain for the sins of empire. That is vindictive.
https://www.gbnews.com/politics/chagos-deal-keir-starmer-torn-apart-lawyer-exposed-hailing-humiliation-britain
Given the close friendship between Starmer and Sands and given that it is inconceivable that they have not discussed the Chagos deal many times prior to Starmer dishonestly signing it, the principal or sole motivation for handing over Chagos almost certainly involves the ideologically driven desire to humiliate and to punish Britain for its colonial past. Certainly, there is nothing of benefit to Britain in this deal, certainly not an elevation of its status on the world stage; it’s all cost and international humiliation is chief amongst those costs.
LikeLike
I am far from convinced by the GB News analysis, but I confess that the Chaos Islands deal has baffled me from the start. I am no fan of the British Empire and have no problems at all with the remaining fragments of empire being returned to their original inhabitants, but that’s not what’s happening here. I don’t understand the unseemly rush (it was one of the first things this government tried to do)to give the islands to a state that seems to be closely aligned to China. I don’t understand why the deal apparently makes no provision for the Chagossians to return home. And I certainly don’t understand why the government has signed a deal that will cost the UK a lot of money – Starmer does seem to be rather good at that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime, you overlooked my further comment about Starmer:
And re the Chagos deal it’s also an attitude that, far from being to our advantage, is internationally humiliating. But it’s not vindictive.
LikeLike
Further to the above I thought this speech yesterday by the the Attorney General (Lord Harmer) interesting and relevant.
LikeLike
Robin,
Although I think it’s a storm in a tea cup and is just about party politics as usual, Lord Hermer’s speech is now big news.
“Minister regrets ‘clumsy’ reference to Nazi Germany”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0gye0wq8lo
I assume your finger slipped on the keyboard when you called him Lord Harmer, but some might think the reference is appropriate…
LikeLike
Starmer the Harmer’s AG pick Hermer has been forced to apologise for his use of ‘clumsy words’ that he regrets using. But we all know that he chose those words very specifically and meant exactly what he said. He only regrets the huge and very public outcry his carefully chosen vindictive insults have caused.
LikeLike
Jaime, I am inclined to agree with you. MY first thought when I heard the news on the radio was that someone as intelligent as Lord Hermer doesn’t make a speech without having first carefully considered his words and the precise use of language. Perhaps he intended to create a storm. Perhaps he thought his words would just slip through, effectively becoming part of the language of debate (or, more precisely, perhaps he hoped that it would help to close down debate). I don’t know what he intended. But I very much doubt that he didn’t think about the words he used.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Spectator had an excellent article yesterday by Richard Ekins Professor of Law and Constitutional Government at Oxford headed Lord Hermer is preposterously wrong about international law.
Well worth reading.
LikeLike