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.

Tags: , ,

28 Comments

  2. Jit,

    There may be a couple of left-field candidates from the Ministry of Defence. I have heard whispers that John Healey might be an interim leader – given his age (he is 66), he could possibly lead the party for a short while, giving the other runners and riders the opportunity to back off for now, in the knowledge that they could have a go in a few short years’ time. The other name suddenly being mentioned is junior defence minister, Al Carns. Reverting to AI, it has this to say about their views on net zero. Both have made obeisance to it to a degree, but have expressed reservations in other ways. First, John Healey:

    John Healey, as the UK’s Secretary of State for Defence in the Labour government, is currently involved in balancing national defence requirements with the government’s broader net-zero goals. His focus includes strengthening the UK’s industrial base, particularly steel, to support sustainable energy initiatives. 

     While supporting the modernization of the Armed Forces, including testing the electrification of armored patrol vehicles, he has faced scrutiny regarding whether these environmental initiatives may impact operational effectiveness. 

    Rooftop Solar Focus: Healey has advocated for placing solar panels on brownfield sites, commercial rooftops, and car parks rather than on productive agricultural land

    Community Engagement: He has expressed opposition to specific solar farm plans that do not meet local environmental standards, highlighting the need to balance net-zero infrastructure with local community impact. 

    And Al Carns:

    As of early 2026, Al Carns, the UK Armed Forces Minister, has voiced concerns that current, accelerated Net Zero targets may be incompatible with immediate military preparedness. While supporting broader national sustainability goals, he has argued that the pursuit of these targets must not compromise the operational effectiveness of the UK Armed Forces. 

    Military Readiness Conflict: Carns has warned that the Ministry of Defence’s (MoD) Net Zero strategies, particularly when aiming for high targets, have made the Armed Forces more expensive to keep operational, potentially impacting defense capacity.

    Energy Security Emphasis: While visiting a renewable energy hub in April 2026, he highlighted that Net Zero efforts should be about energy security and lowering household costs, which is crucial for overall national resilience.

    Not sure what to make of all that, but either of them might be a slightly better bet than the names you have in the frame.

    By the way, I think I’m in a small minority here (possibly a minority of one!) in thinking that Starmer is a full-on net zero fanatic, who is happy for Ed to push on and also to take the flak.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. The “right-wing” Labour Growth Group has a report out, apparently giving a guide for a Streeting agenda. It does not make reassuring reading as far as Net Zero is concerned. While rejecting Net Zero at any cost, they also repudiate the idea of a U-turn:

    The other side says the transition itself is the problem and Britain should retreat to fossil fuels, tear up contracts and let the world decarbonise without it. That would lock the country into gas‐price volatility, destroy investor credibility and leave British industry permanently uncompetitive – wrecking Britain’s energy future in pursuit of climate denial zealotry.

    This group of 100 Labour MPs are as delusional as any of them.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Jit: a brilliant article – thanks. Until yesterday my (reluctant) preference (like yours) was for Starmer to stick it out. But that’s no longer my view. Judging by the legislative programme announced by the King yesterday he and Miliband have agreed a completely mad and utterly irresponsible energy policy: the moratorium on new oil and gas extraction is to be turned by law into a permanent ban. As a result Rosebank and Jackdaw for example would not be developed and all that would be allowed would be the working out of existing fields. We’d be left with a policy that makes energy yet more expensive for consumers – a policy that would drive what’s left of our industry to extinction. It would do nothing to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and would increase our dependence on imports. As I said, completely mad and utterly irresponsible.

    So I decided that the election of Streeting might be our only hope. Your extract from the Labour Growth Group gave me pause but, in view of the proposed legislation, he still seems the best bet. However that’s probably irrelevant as it seems most Party backbenchers don’t support him.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Very handy breakdown of the positions of potential candidates, but I’d suggest that, given the number of major crises facing the country, Google/AI may be less reliable predictors on this subject than usual. A week has never been a longer time in politics, and what happened last week is not a reliable indication of what will happen next, even if announced by the King himself.

    Given Net Zero’s status as an official religion, I wouldn’t count much on stated positions, but rather look to candidates with an alternative religious position with a stronger appeal to voters than heat pumps and roof insulation. 

    Mark’s suggestion of John Healey is interesting here, since Rearmament fuelled by Russophobia has the same kind of emotional cultish appeal as Net Zero, and, given that there’s no money to do both, we might go back to doing something we were historically good at, namely making weapons. This would boost technological innovation and possibly exports, and doesn’t use up agricultural land. 

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Wes Streeting has resigned. I recommend a reading of his resignation letter, 

    https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cwy21gpr1kzt

    which mentions every possible challenge facing the country except Net Zero and the rise of the Green Party.

    I also see Wes has a habit of threatening to kill people. He tweeted about starting a vigilante group to push people under trains, starting with Daily Mail journalist Jan Moir and Dutch politician Geert Wilders. Of course, that has nothing to do with his attitude to the climate crisis, unless Ed the Sandwich is on his death list.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Latest update:

    “Labour MP says he’s standing down so Andy Burnham can try to enter Parliament and ‘drive change'”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cwy21gpr1kzt

    There is a degree of arrogance here, taking the electorate for granted. This farcical psychodrama could yet have twists and turns. Will the NEC allow Burnham to stand this time? Will the constituency Labour Party accept him being foisted on them as a candidate? Will the voters of Makerfield elect him? What if Burnham resigns as Manchester Mayor, then the election for a replacement Mayor sees Labour lose?

    It strikes me that too much of this is about individuals, and not enough about the good of the country. Remember Starmer’s perfectly reasonable criticisms of the Tories then they were repeatedly putting the nation through this sort of shambles? Why is it different now Keir?

    Liked by 2 people

  9. The chatter is – or was a few hours ago – that Wes was using code for “we need Burnham” in his letter. So Burnham is PM and Wes is the intellectual Chancellor.

    That’s if Keir permits Burnham to stand, if he even has the power to refuse him (will the selection committee do his bidding?). Will Burnham win the by-election? Keir must hope not. So perhaps, if Burnham gets the nod…

    …the best thing Keir can do is go and campaign for Burnham in the Makerfield constituency.

    PS. The MP standing down, Josh Simons, was going to get his cards at the next election, come what may. The prediction was for a Reform win by a mile. Simons was accused of directing a PR company to dig up dirt on journalists he didn’t like.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. For years I thought the left’s position on the climate madness was a one-off misunderstanding, but everything about the current political crisis suggests that the Labour Party has completely taken leave of its senses. They’ve now decided to challenge their own leader by parachuting Andy Burnham into a once safe seat where Reform scored 50.5% in the recent council election, 28% ahead of Labour. Their hope is that ex-Labour voters will be so thrilled that a popular mayor of Manchester is leaving his job to satisfy his personal ambition to be PM that they will desert Reform and come back to the fold. They will be humiliated, and any attempt they make to further their insane energy policies will be swept away in three years time, if not before.

    Labour (and their supporters in the media) seem absolutely blind to the forces of political change. You don’t need to be a Marxist to see this, you just need to have read a few books of history. (Or search “Makerfield” on Twitter/X, and see what the locals are saying.) Does anyone in the Labour Party read anything except opinion polls?

    You can sum up the death of the Labour Party in four words: Palestine & grooming gangs. As an ex-party member I’ll rejoice to see them gone. And I’m not bothered by the rise of the Greens. As His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, they will turn  Climate Action back into a phenomenon of cranky moral protest, like saving the badger.  

    Liked by 2 people

  12. If I was, or were, still a Labour voter, I’d not vote for a Burnham parachuted into my constituency out of indignation about the presumptuousness of it all.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Human rights? Rwanda?

    “UK joins European deal to send rejected asylum seekers to third-country hubs

    All 46 Council of Europe members sign agreement ‘deplored’ by human rights organisations”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/may/15/uk-joins-european-deal-to-send-rejected-asylum-seekers-to-third-country-hubs

    The UK and 45 other European countries have signed an agreement that explicitly endorses plans to send unwanted asylum seekers to third country hubs.

    A political declaration from the 46 members of the Council of Europe, the body that oversees the European convention on human rights (ECHR), said states had an “undeniable sovereign right” to control their borders.

    It is understood that the UK is now seeking a deal with an unnamed third country, similar to the Italy-Albania agreement that allowed Rome to place detention centres in Albania.

    In that deal, the hubs were initially intended for asylum seekers from countries considered safe while their applications were processed. Giorgia Meloni’s government has since used them to hold people to be deported whose applications have been rejected….

    …Keir Starmer’s government has promoted setting up return hubs as a possible deterrent to irregular migration. Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, told MPs in November that the Home Office was in “active negotiations” with several countries, but no deals had been confirmed.

    The previous government’s plans to send people arriving by small boats to Rwanda, which cost £715m by 2024, was cancelled after failing to send a single person. The supreme court ruled the policy was unlawful because Rwanda was not a safe country.

    The EU has voted to allow the possibility of return hubs, with Denmark, Austria, Greece, Germany and the Netherlands involved in talks. Discussions have reportedly centred on 11 countries – Rwanda, Ghana, Senegal, Tunisia, Libya, Mauritania, Egypt, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Armenia and Ethiopia. Montenegro has denied reports that it is considering housing refused asylum seekers….

    Am I alone in wondering if for Starmer cosying up to the EU is more important than anything else, even if it makes him look ridiculous?

    Liked by 3 people

  16. While a Labour leadership contest has not yet been triggered under the terms of the Labour Party’s constitution, it seems clear that there will be a leadership election before this year is over. Starmer thus finds himself in the position of a lame duck Prime Minister, less than two years into his Premiership (not that he ever seemed to have much authority over his backbenchers, their rebelliousness being responsible for many of his myriad U-turns).

    Still, there are many twists and turns ahead. Everyone seems to assume that Burnham is a shoo-in as Labour’s candidate for the Makerfield by-election, and he probably is, but perhaps the local CLP will surprise us all and choose their own candidate. More significant is the prospect of the local electorate declining to be used as the Labour Party’s patsies, and electing a candidate from a different political party. If that happens, I assume Burnham’s aspirations to lead the country will be finished. It would be a bad look for him to try again somewhere else, and if he isn’t leader before the next general election, then I can’t see him being PM, since the chances of Labour winning the next general election look slim indeed, especially if their leader going into it isn’t Burnham.

    Then there’s the fact that the alternatives who have so far indicated that they might stand are, IMO (and possibly in the opinion of Labour MPs and party members) so awful, that Starmer might win a leadership election if he’s not up against Burnham. How low has the Labour Party fallen?

    Sadly, I don’t think any of this makes any difference to the mad net zero crusade that is likely to march on unabated for the next three years.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. “Streeting suggests NI cut and North Sea drilling”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy42z03r18xo

    …In an interview with the Sunday Times, he also said some new North Sea drilling for oil and gas should be allowed as it would raise more tax….

    …Streeting, meanwhile, has also sought to differentiate himself from Sir Keir over the issue of whether new drilling for oil and gas should be allowed in the North Sea.

    Labour’s 2024 manifesto said “we will not issue new licences to explore new fields because they will not take a penny off bills, cannot make us energy secure, and will only accelerate the worsening climate crisis”.

    The Conservatives and Reform UK have been pressuring Sir Keir to approve more drilling, saying it is “reckless” that the country is not making use of its own resources at a time when the Iran war has sent energy prices higher.

    The Energy Secretary Ed Miliband has been considering whether to allow drilling in two fields, Jackdaw and Rosebank, where applications had already been submitted before Labour took office and so, it could be argued, are not ‘new’ projects.

    Streeting indicated to the Sunday Times he is in favour of new licences and the government should approve them. “Yes. I think that’s probably where Ed will get to. When he makes a decision, I’d be surprised if that wasn’t the case”.

    “The granting of those licences will not necessarily translate into cheaper bills, but it will translate into higher tax receipts,” he added.

    Sir Keir’s clear view is that oil and gas will continue to be extracted from the North Sea and used in the UK whatever happens with these licences.

    But, to have cheaper bills and secure energy supplies in future, he says the country needs to transition towards renewable sources including solar and wind power backed by nuclear generation.

    Like

  18. “Chris Mason: Healey’s resignation is a devastating critique of Starmer’s government”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm20vznj2p2o

    …But now this. An already politically weakened prime minister weakened further.We now know from Healey’s resignation letter he saw the deal reached on Monday afternoon – with a view to it being published within a few days – and concluded it was nowhere near good enough.The big picture is how does the government, or its successor, wrestle with the colossal trade offs that come with a desire for a massive increase in defence spending?Where do cuts fall elsewhere, what does it mean for borrowing, what does it mean for taxes?…

    …And Sir Keir has to face up to the reality that yet another minister who has served in his government has departed with a broadside that amounts to deep-seated frustration as the inability of his administration to deliver what it promised it would.

    Like

  19. Rachel from Accounts has criticised Healey, basically accusing him of wanting to take money from “schools and hospitals” in order to pay for his defence spending. Besides being an outrageous slur, it’s a barefaced lie: there are plenty of areas where money for defence could be freed up by making cuts, e.g. Net Zero, welfare spending and accommodation and support for illegal immigrants, just for a start.

    Like

  20. Funnily enough, there has been speculation that the easiest fat to trim to pay for defence would come from Ed Miliband’s Net Zero project – there’s probably enough being squandered there to pay for another division or two.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. Yes, but Mad Ed has threatened to resign if a single penny is taken from his dream Clean Power Plan and Rachel from Accounts has threatened to ‘cwy, and cwy and cwy’ – so much that Starmer would have to sack her. And then Starmer himself would have to resign without fulfilling the powerful electoral mandate for change which the British people supposedly gave him at the last election.

    Like

  22. The Telegraph this morning has the headline: “Miliband’s push to be Burnham chancellor.”

    Makerfield seems to be going Burnham’s way, in part thanks to Restore voters. Funny how one domino falls and strikes another: Rupert Lowe could be indirectly responsible for giving us Chancellor Miliband.

    Like

  23. Rupert Lowe could be indirectly responsible for giving us Chancellor Miliband.

    I am neither a Reform nor a Restore supporter, but I’m not sure I could ever forgive anyone who inflicted Miliband on us as Chancellor.

    Like

  24. Mark, Jit,

    We can apply the reductio ad absurdum postulate here and forever hold it against Farage for giving us Boris Johnson as PM, because he stood down Brexit Party candidates in Tory seats at the 2019 GE, thus gifting the Conservatives a huge majority which they didn’t deserve and which they abused horribly.

    Then, when the damage was done, by Johnson, Sunak, Patel, Hunt, Hancock etc., a dripping wet Sunak called an unnecessarily early GE and basically handed power to Starmer’s wrecking ball government which, obligingly, started swinging the wrecking ball faster and harder at UK PLC. You can blame Starmer’s huge ‘loveless majority’ on Farage too. By standing Reform candidates in the election, he ‘split the vote on the right.’ Many Tories lost their seats because people voted Reform, allowing the Labour candidate to be elected by default. Such was the case here in NW Cumbria.

    But in the process of wrecking the country, Starmer himself became so despised that the spectre of Burnham as PM arose. Burnham, who will probably wreck the country even faster and harder than Starmer. Difficult to believe I know. And then it was Farage again who sacked Lowe and fitted him up on false criminal charges. Hence the rise of Restore, hence the appearance of a Restore candidate contesting Makerfield, not to inflict Burnham as PM and Miliband as Chancellor upon the country, but simply because that’s what genuine, democratically inspired political parties do; they put forward candidates to be elected and wholeheartedly campaign for them to be elected, because they believe in what they are doing.

    So if you’re looking for someone to blame for the utter mess made of this country since 2019, then try looking in the direction of Farage, not Lowe. The Brexit Party had a real chance of winning many seats at the 2019 GE, maybe enough even to form a governing coalition with the Tories. Farage blew it. Farage blew it again by getting rid of Lowe in the most despicable manner possible. He also sacked the ever popular Ben Habib. Farage ‘split the vote’ in the 2024 GE, inflicting a Starmer government with an unassailable majority upon us. Now Reform supporters are whining about Lowe (and Habib – who is campaigning also on behalf of Restore) causing them to lose Makerfield, thus inflicting Burnham on the country. Hmm, I don’t think so.

    Like

  25. It would be interesting to know whether the Greens and Lib Dems are soft pedalling in Makerfield. Are they tacitly supporting Burnham? When it all shakes out next week, I expect there to have been quite a bit of tactical voting.

    Single transferable vote would solve these problems, although it would extend the time required for counting.

    Like

  26. Has any political party, ever, rallied an army of over a thousand ‘green’ (not experienced veteran) volunteer campaigners to knock on doors in a by election constituency? Lowe’s Restore Party just did. Quite remarkable really. Will voters in Makerfield heed their words?

    Like

  27. According to the Times, Miliband (Chancellor-in-waiting) is, or at least was, refusing to take Starmer’s calls. According to other reports (and reading down, it’s also mentioned in the Times article), when Defence Sec John Healey was considering handing in his red box, No. 10 was more worried about Miliband going. There is a lot of fat to trim off Miliband’s budget, which could be used to fund defence – most obviously, the colossal waste of money on carbon capture and storage.

    Has there ever been such a weak PM?

    Fire the guy and see what happens, that’s my advice.

    Liked by 1 person

  28. Starmer is a prisoner of his back-benchers, because he is a profoundly weak Prime Minister. He has never been able to deliver his agenda (whatever that is) because he showed weakness the first time his back-benchers bared their teeth. It doesn’t help at all that many Labour back-benchers are net zero potty and think Miliband is the best thing since sliced bread.

    Like

Leave a comment