Yesterday, at about 5.35 p.m., the present SoS for something or the other, Ed Miliband, was interviewed on Radio 4’s PM by Evan Davies.

What follows is a very loose transcript, and nothing except that within quotes should be considered anything other than snark on my part. My comments are interlaced.

  1. First, Ed is asked about the new small reactors.

Ed is confident that the new SM reactors will be delivered on time.
New private investment represents confidence in the gov’t and the “clean” power plan – it also shows that leccy demand is going to double by 2050.
Therefore we need wind, solar and nuclear.
A good news story and will create lots of jobs.

Jit: we want fewer jobs for the same power delivered. Then we can have more jobs doing creative things with the cheap power. I hope that’s obvious. If the SMRs are coming, then the weather-dependent generators are not worth building?

2. Evan asks about bills and when they are going to come down – why is it that the more renewables we add, the more expensive electricity is getting? The nuclear being added will not be cheap.

Ed: we have our “clean” power system plan by 2030 so 95% of power comes from “clean” sources.
“…that is the way to lower energy bills…”
These things don’t happen overnight, it takes time etc;

“…we decouple the price of electricity from gas – at the moment gas sets the price in the system, and this is a crucial process for getting bills down.”

Nuclear is more for the 2030s but also necessary to bring bills down.

Jit: as we know, the enthusiasts like to pretend that wholesale costs are the same as the cost we plebs pay. But there is a vast difference. The final bill is larded with all sorts of levies placed there by Ed and his predecessors. Plus, a large part of the reason that gas costs more wholesale is the carbon tax that he and his government have added to it. It is quite dishonest not to admit that. It also means that the renewable generators are given the equivalent carbon tax – since every generator in the bid stack gets the same price, and that price is set by gas generators paying the levy. Plus they are subsidised up to their CfD, or get given ROCs to sell.

3. So the new nuclear will be cheaper than what we are paying now?

Certainly cheaper than the alternatives, and so you need the renewables, and you need the nuclear…

Jit: this is a non sequitur, for if we have a firm delivery option, it cuts out the need for an infirm one.

4. Things people disagree with Ed about:

a) the decarbonised grid by 2030 isn’t going to happen.

Ed: I’m confident. [some blather about changing planning rules and permitting developments]
Wholesale gas prices still 75% higher than before Russia invaded Ukraine. “That is the fossil fuel penalty that people are paying.”
We have to get off the roller coaster of fossil fuels.

Jit: Rollercoasters run in a circuit, and end up back at the elevation they started. The “clean” grid by 2030 won’t happen. Is Ed’s stat accurate, and does it include his government’s carbon tax?

b) the price won’t come down, thanks to all the necessary back up we need for weather-dependent generation.

Ed: What is the alternative? To remain on fossil fuels? We are so vulnerable to global events. That’s why “clean” energy is so important. Yes, 5% of the time gas will be running on the system but the less gas you have the less volatile price is. Yes, it’s a big task but we have shown intent and delivery over the past 15 months.

Jit: At this point, Ed surrendered the goal line, but Evan, ball at his feet, failed to score. Where to begin? First, and most obvious, other countries with more fossil fuel on the grid than us have cheaper energy costs. Second, there are no examples of advanced countries that have gone down this road successfully. Third, we are making ourselves dependent on countries that are no better than the ones we are relying on for oil and gas. Fourth, our reliance on oil and gas imports could be reduced if Ed allowed our reserves to be exploited. Fifth, we are sitting on a thousand years’ supply of coal. Sixth, we have already had to overbuild the weather-dependent generators in his “clean” energy scenario. Seventh, the price we pay will vary not according to who invades whom but by the next gust of wind or cloud. Eighth, the gas generators will not sit idly by waiting for someone to call them and then gladly deliver cheap gas. They will want paying 100% of the time for power delivered (in theory) 5% of the time. Ninth, this says nothing about all the fossil fuel energy used in home heating. Up above, he deliberately used the word “energy” bills instead of “electricity” bills. Under no realistic scenario is what he is doing going to reduce the former.

  1. Ed hasn’t changed his mind – but is government getting cold feet?

Ed: not at all. The PM totally gets it, it’s in his DNA, the Chancellor sent me a lot of cash at the spending review.

  1. What about the lost argument in Teesside? (Hydrogen plant or data centre? Ed wanted the former, but the PM went for the latter.)

I haven’t lost the argument. This is a planning decision. AI is really important and so are our plans for CCS.

Jit: A sceptical interviewer might have asked at this point, why are we doing CCS? It has a huge cost and no measurable benefits. The technology has never worked at scale.

  1. Ed’s role in government. Right wing papers don’t like him.

(Some assorted blather.)

What’s going wrong in government?

Ed: Governments have these moments and we have to focus on delivery, etc.

  1. Come May, and terrible election losses to Reform, is Shakira Starmer going to dance off the stage?

Ed: No.

  1. Where is the government going?

Ed: People wanted change and voted for us, and we have plenty of results to show already.

Jit: You can say that again.

  1. The PM tried to move you and you said no.

The PM and I are both very happy that I am carrying on with my job of delivering the “clean” energy transition.

/Message ends.

Tags: , , ,

17 Comments

  1. Thanks for saving me the pain. I was driving home yesterday listening to PM when Miliband came on. I knew I should listen, but I couldn’t bear it and switched the radio off.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Hi Jit,

    100% Love your snark !!!

    — It totally describes the “Real Truth” behind the Nonsense still being presented to us.

    — In a Great Entertaining manner, I should add !!!

    Like

  4. I default to hearing a plummy BBC Home Service voice from the 40s saying something like, “… and thank you Minister. But before you head off to your next important engagement, is there anything else that you would like to tell our listeners what your government is doing for them and our country”

    Liked by 1 person

  5. I like Evan Davies. He’s a bright guy, he speaks very clearly, he’s a transcriber’s dream, and he regularly asks astute questions. Given his intelligence and business nous, I can’t believe that he didn’t know he had an open goal. One can only assume he didn’t take advantage of the opportunity either because he is fully signed up to the narrative or because his job depends on him being fully signed up to the narrative.

    You can see why they won’t allow sceptics on the BBC any more. A halfway clued-up person of average intelligence could have made Miliband uncomfortable. Jit would have ripped him to shreds.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. One thing that interests me is the absence of any reference to the original purpose of all this: the desperate need to observe scientific warnings that GHG emissions must be cut to save the planet from an existential threat. Is that still the overriding consideration or has it given way to a plan to reduce UK consumers’ gas and electricity bills?

    Liked by 1 person

  7. I very much doubt if Miliband will ever get anywhere near 95% grid decarbonisation by any honest reckoning. According to Dukes 2025, UK 2024 fossil fuel electricity generation was 95 TWh (30%) of the total electricity demand of 319 TWh. That excludes the supply from cheating plant biomass which (Table 6.4) contributed 31% of total renewables electricity supply, more than offshore wind and solar PV combined. This is designated as renewable by the cheating Green Blob but ought to be counted as fossil fuel as it creates higher CO2 emissions than the coal it replaced.

    In my simplistic visualisation, the current 30% fossil fuel share could be about the lowest Miliband will achieve.

    Miliband may succeed in increasing wind and solar capacity but we will then be faced with rationing (rolling blackouts) unless he increases essential dispatchable thermal capacity roughly pro rata to provide the extra grid balancing and backup, helpfully represented in this CarbonBrief graph: https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Fossil-fuels-fell-to-a-record-low-2.4-of-British-electricity-on-15-April-2024-2-1024×726.png.

    He will be probably be reluctant to expand “polluting” gas but he might cheat further by expanding plant biomass. The lead times on new power stations now stretch into the 2030s and Kathryn Porter has suggested that, to keep the lights on, going for coal would be quicker than gas.

    Liked by 3 people

  8. Robin, They seem to have given up on their old “saving the planet” mantra. Their most usual, and absurd, justification is that they have to do it to achieve their self-imposed legally-binding CO2 reduction targets.

    Like

  9. Pingback: News Round-Up – The Daily Sceptic

  10. Doug, Robin,

    The ‘clean’ power mantra as espoused by Miliband when Labour came to power was ‘Homegrown clean power will reduce our dependence upon expensive gas supplied by dictators, therefore enhance our energy security, plus it will knock £300 off our bills, whilst tackling the climate crisis’.

    What has transpired is that our bills are still going up, even though gas is plentiful and now as cheap as it was a decade ago, and the ‘climate crisis’ still rages on despite our best efforts – which are not matched by the major polluters like China, India, USA, Russia, Middle East etc. The BBC and the government are acutely aware of this and they are even aware of the slow motion collapse of the ‘necessity’ argument for Net Zero which is built on the House of Cards which is the Settled Science; this in the form of the latest US DoE Climate Report, which undermines the foundations of alarmist climate science. So all there is left to focus on is the attempt to bring down bills which are crushing the economy, and hence they’re throwing every last ounce of misinformation propaganda they can at that.

    Liked by 3 people

  11. Evan Davies may have dropped the ball on occasion, but at least he exists, and has arguments to hand. Here in France there is the same problem of soaring energy prices and no journalist willing to interview the Minister responsible, or capable of doing so. (Actually there isn’t a minister at the moment, since we’re in one of our twice yearly government crises.) Being informed of the facts of energy policy (or anything else) is not a requirement for being a journalist here.

    With no democratic discussion of policy, the only way of opposing high energy prices (and everything else) is street demonstrations to force their parliamentarians to vote the government out. It’s a bit feudal, but I wonder if it might not be more efficient in the long run, since it allows the engineers and planners who run the country to do the necessary to keep the lights on, without government ideology getting in the way.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. “Is Ed Miliband finally seeing sense on energy policy?”

    He plans to override local opposition to nuclear waste dumps and may be considering allowing a few new or new-ish oil fields to open in the North Sea.

    David Rose in UnHerd.

    Meanwhile, the tension between survival and Net Zero is reaching the point at which the string is about to snap. The announcement about Gatwick seems to indicate that – despite all the blather about how green it’s going to be – even our government understand that their promises are vapid.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. “Ed Miliband looking into more North Sea drilling despite Labour pledge

    Exclusive: Energy secretary examining ways to allow oil and gas exploration without breaking manifesto promise”

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/sep/25/ed-miliband-looking-into-more-north-sea-drilling-despite-labour-pledge

    Ed Miliband is planning to encourage drilling in the North Sea despite a manifesto promise not to grant new licences on new parts of the British sea bed.

    The energy secretary is looking at ways in which the government can allow companies to look for and produce more oil and gas without breaking Labour’s pre-election pledge not to issue new licences on new fields.

    The plans, which will be announced in the coming months as part of a wider strategy for the North Sea, come amid pressure on one side from climate activists to stop all drilling, and on the other from Donald Trump to “drill, baby, drill”.

    A government spokesperson said: “The strategy will set out how the government intends to meet its manifesto commitments to ensure no new licenses to explore new fields and maintaining existing fields for their lifetime.” They said the government would meet its manifesto commitments “in full”.

    Miliband has been working on proposals for the North Sea for months as the government looks for ways to maximise the lives of existing oil and gas fields without allowing completely new exploration….

    Like

  14. I’ve just realised I made a transcription error on my above comment. UK 2024 fossil fuel electricity generation was actually 90.5 TWh, not 95 TWh. This reduces its percentage of total demand from 30% to 28%, still nowhere near the 2050 target of 5%. Sorry about that.

    Like

  15. Miliband falls back on pushing the usual buttons, since he can’t win a rational debate about net zero:

    “Labour must fight rightwing billionaires undermining net zero, says Ed Miliband

    Exclusive: Energy secretary will hit out at the Tory and Reform ‘culture war’ and unveil target of 400,000 new jobs in clean energy”

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/sep/29/labour-must-fight-right-wing-billionaires-undermining-net-zero-ed-miliband

    It’s worth a read to see just how delusional and shabby all this is from Miliband. He seems to have a huge blind spot about the multinationals and billionaires lobbying for and benefiting from net zero. Also, as Jit regularly points out, more jobs (especially well-paid jobs) in “green” energy just make energy more expensive, thereby reducing the number of productive jobs in the economy, reducing the number of jobs available for people who make things. What we want is cheap energy from a lean, efficient and reliable system. Miliband is delivering the opposite of that.

    Liked by 3 people

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.