At the time of writing, Keir Starmer is still the PM. He seems to be taking advantage of the Employment Rights Act, after the implementation of which neither he, nor anyone else in Britain, can be fired. Nevertheless, he is in fact finished. He’s in rather a worse state than Miracle Mike was after losing his head (the latter lasted 18 months post-decapitation).

When Starmer does accept the inevitable, there are number of contenders for the pinnacle of politics. I got to wondering how the promotion of each of them would affect the thing we are interested in here – namely, the UK’s suicidal trajectory towards face-planting into Net Zero.

The status quo might benefit those of us who are opposed to this course of action. What? But Starmer is gung-ho for Net Zero! Well, maybe. That’s a debate to be had. But he is also gung-ho about process – he’s going to be buried in a coffin with a brass plaque engraved with the word “PROCESS,” and his epitaph is going to read, “He faithfully followed the quasi-judicial process to its logical conclusion.”

What this means, is that the business of politics is somewhat throttled by red tape, and the suicidal slope towards Net Zero is relatively shallow. From my perspective, and maybe yours, Dear Reader, I would like to delay as much damage as I can, before we get our next, and potentially final, chance to swerve, in about 3 years. “There is a lot of ruin in a nation,” as a great man once said. But less ruin is better. So my fear is that one or more of the competitors for the hot seat might worsen things markedly vis-à-vis the UK’s climate policy (I’m delighted to see Notepad just accented that for me). Who are they?

Most people list three contenders, also some add a fourth. The first three are Wes “Faithful” Streeting, Angela “Estuarina” Rayner, and Andy “Eyebrows” Burnham. The sometime fourth is my dread, and his name is Ed “Sandwich” Miliband. I thought what I would do, for my interest, and maybe yours, is to look at what these four have had to say about Net Zero, and therefore prepare for the worst. Keep a weather eye, that sort of thing.

I don’t need to say anything about Ed (odds: about 3/1). He has kept very quiet when all around him was tumult. There is basically no worse option climate-policy wise for the UK than Ed, unless Greta “How Dare You!” Thunberg were to take over the show, or at least, the old version of Greta, the Greta Thunberg who was not yet bored by climate. You can though read what Spiked has to say about him here.

What about the other three? Here are the results of a web search on their positions, mostly according to Google’s hive mind:

Wes (odds: about 4/1): He supports Net Zero (of course; otherwise he’d have to resign as a minister, surely?) BUT says the AI, he favours:

Pragmatism Over Idealism: Streeting has warned the Labour Party against trying to “out-green the Greens”. He advocates for decoupling the argument for decarbonisation from volatile government finances, ensuring that green initiatives do not impose unrealistic fiscal burdens.

However, he has apparently called for a multi-departmental approach to climate mirroring that for Covid (gawd ‘elp us), but he was much younger then. Right?

Angela (odds: about 9/2): The AI says she favours a “Jobs-first” transition. This is somewhat like somehow having a miraculous version of Net Zero, one with none of the downsides.

Coming from a trade union background, Rayner is vocal about ensuring the shift to net zero does not abandon industrial communities. Her focus is on securing unionised, high-skilled green jobs in manufacturing, wind energy, and home retrofitting rather than imposing top-down environmental restrictions that could threaten local livelihoods.

But because of her Employment Rights Act, and because Net Zero makes energy so expensive, and because of Rachel Reeves’s jobs tax, the manufacturing for all this infrastructure is going to be done in a galaxy far, far away. (ASTERISK: yes, we were well along the road to destruction thanks to the previous Conservative government, who SUDDENLY REALISED WHAT THEY HAD BEEN DOING WRONG THE DAY THEY GOT THEIR ASSES HANDED TO THEM IN AN ELECTION.) We will though be able to retrofit insulation, and then get paid to remove it later, when everything goes mouldy.

Andy (odds: about 2/1): Well, says the AI, he is trying to faceplant Manchester (2038) before the UK as a whole hits the wall (the small print may say that this relates to the local authority’s carbon dioxide emissions, and not theirs and those of everyone else in that great city). He does though want to make it easy on us:

No “Punishing” the Public: Following an intense backlash over a proposed Clean Air Zone vehicle charge, Burnham explicitly declared that he will “not punish people to net zero.” He insists that the green transition must be driven by incentives, improved infrastructure, and public buy-in, rather than regressive penalties or taxation on ordinary citizens.

He also sees international backsliding as a great opportunity for the UK to “become a global leader in green industries.” Alas, no. Besides which, if the other countries are backsliding, then we’re not going to have much of a market, right?

Conclusion

As mad as it may seem, my preference would be for Starmer to stick it out. As noted, he is pushing the UK towards oblivion, but his obsession with process is at least slowing our descent. My prediction, meanwhile, is that Ed will come out of the corner, like one of those long-legged spiders that spin a sheet web the size of a table, and seize his chance, once one of the others (Wes) has set things in motion.

If so, what there will be left of us in 3 years, I do not know.