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: , ,

60 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

  29. According to the Mail, “Keir Starmer is braced for Ed Miliband to resign NEXT WEEK as part of Cabinet coup if PM refuses to make way for Burnham coronation.”

    Well, every cloud has a silver lining. Perhaps we could keep Starmer and get rid of Miliband after all? It seems the least-worst option for the next three years.

    Liked by 1 person

  30. On the front page of the Sunday Times, “Reeves to lose job if Burnham becomes PM.” So much so obvious. The sub-heading goes, “Row rages about chancellor’s successor as key union rejects Miliband over net zero.”

    Sharon Graham of Unite the union does not want Miliband because of his recklessness about Net Zero.

    Reading the press, the Labour ministers come across as a bunch of children, lightweights turning on the guy who got them their jobs, but incapable of mustering a PM amongst them, therefore turning to Burnham. Hopefully there won’t be a coronation. The public does need to know what Burnham stands for, other than spending even more cash than the current lot.

    Liked by 2 people

  31. Andrew Neill on X:

    Sharon Graham, general secretary of Unite, Britain’s biggest trade union: “It is no secret that I disagree with Ed Miliband on almost every issue relating to a workers’ transition. Ed only seems to be interested in one side of the equation, rushing Britain to net zero with almost no thought for jobs, skills and national security.” Couldn’t put it better myself.

    I could put it better:

    Miliband definitely does have thought for jobs, skills and national security . . . . . . which consists entirely of a conscious, calculated, deliberate disdain and contempt for any which exist outside of his hallucinatory ‘Green superpower economy’. National security necessarily and permanently exists outside of that economy.

    Liked by 2 people

  33. Well, that may depend if there are any challengers, or if Mr. Burnham takes the throne by default. No doubt it will quickly become clear who has bagsied which role in the cabinet. We won’t be seeing the back of M. Miliband, that seems clear, nor Net Zero.

    Wes and Angela and even Al Carns have given up on a challenge, to judge from reports. Who is left who could realistically muster a contest?

    Like

  34. It’s looking like a coronation, but there’s many a slip twixt cup and lip, so we’ll see. In the meantime I see that some Starmer “loyalists” wasted no time in being photographed with the “king of the north” on his arrival at Westminster.

    Personally I wish Burnham well. He has the chance to be a new broom. For now I shall give him the benefit of the doubt. He will go up in my opinion, and earn my best wishes, if he removes certain characters from the Cabinet, if he rows back on Net Zero, and if he calls a general election (I see tweets emerging from the dying days of the last Tory government when Burnham was calling for a general election when the Tories kept changing their leader/our PM).

    Like

  35. Andy Burnham was last night facing demands to rule out appointing Ed Miliband as Chancellor.

    Senior figures from the world of business joined forces with even Burnham-backing Labour MPs to warn that the Energy Secretary would wreak havoc if he was put in charge of the economy.

    Further down the article…..

    Former Pizza Express entrepreneur Hugh Osmond told the Daily Mail: ‘The two fundamental major costs of almost every product you can buy are labour and energy. Reeves has f***** one and Miliband the other.’

    However, there are also voices supporting the choice of Ed, in being able to outfox the mandarins, or something. Daily Mail link.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. The green blob is rallying round to defend net zero under a Burnham premiership:

    “Make Ed Miliband chancellor, ex-chief Treasury adviser tells Andy Burnham

    Nicholas Stern joins growing number backing Miliband, saying he has vision and experience to revive economy”

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/jul/05/make-ed-miliband-chancellor-ex-chief-treasury-adviser-nicholas-stern-tells-andy-burnham

    Ex- chief Treasury adviser, yes, but also the author of the Stern Review:

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmtreasy/231/231.pdf

    The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review is a landmark study that was released on 30 October 2006 by Her Majesty’s Treasury of the UK Government. It has become one of the most influential reports on climate change ever produced, helping to create national and international momentum for a global deal on climate change.

    The Review was led by Nicholas Stern, then Head of the UK Government Economic Service and now Chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and IG Patel Professor of Economics and Government at LSE.

    Use your preferred discount rates, and apparently you can justify pretty much any amount of expenditure on futile attempts to prevent climate change. Needless to say, Mr Stern is now Lord Stern (technically Baron Stern of Brentford) as well as being (per Wikipedia) chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics (LSE) and also chair of the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (CCCEP) at Leeds University and LSE.

    There is an amusing paragraph in Wikipedia:

    There has been a mixed reaction to the Stern Review from economists. Several economists have been critical of the review, for example, a paper by Byatt et al. (2006) describes the review as “deeply flawed”. Some have supported the Review, while others have argued that Stern’s conclusions are reasonable, even if the method by which he reached them is incorrect. The Stern Review team has responded to criticisms of the review in several papers. Stern has also gone on to say that he underestimated the risks of climate change in the Stern Review.

    Why does that last sentence not surprise me?

    But back to the Guardian article:

    …Miliband would also be a respected figure on the world stage, said Stern, after many years attending climate crisis conferences, where the UK was a leader….

    …Josh Ryan-Collins, a professor of economics and finance at University College London’s Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose, said interpretations of Miliband’s support for net zero as a costly mistake were misguided. “The problem is not ambitious climate policy per se, but the absence of willingness from the Treasury to mobilise resources to support affected workers and regions,” Ryan-Collins said.

    He added that Miliband as chancellor would make the case for green investment as “the only way to stabilise the UK economy in the long term and create the decent, well-paid jobs that the poorer regions of the country desperately need”.

    Liked by 1 person

  39. I should add that the new PM should tread carefully. With only 3 years until an election must be called, there may be an inclination in a new administration to postpone painful choices. But for a country spending £110 billion annually on interest payments on existing borrowing (84% of total borrowing is interest payments), waiting is a dangerous game, and borrowing more is a dangerous game, and appointing a chancellor with a reputation for burning money (CCS) might just tip us over the edge.

    Liked by 2 people

  40. “The case for Mr Miliband is not merely that he is more progressive than the alternatives. It is that he understands fiscal, industrial and climate policy as well as having the clout to challenge Whitehall’s veto while deftly navigating markets. A government that wants to reshape the country needs a powerful finance minister whose instincts are to repurpose the Treasury, not just reassure it.”

    Oh dear.

    PS – notice the link to Sun 28 Jun article – Ed Miliband as chancellor would benefit every part of the UK – and the bond markets | Josh Ryan-Collins | The Guardian

    Will just quote the 1st bit –

    “It should have been a great week for Ed Miliband and his mission to decarbonise the UK economy. Western Europe has experienced one of its worst ever heatwaves, providing powerful evidence of the need to transition away from fossil-fuel-driven energy production to reduce the carbon emissions that are contributing to global heating.”

    Wonder why this springs to mind – I’m a Believer, Song by The Monkees Bing Videos

    Like

  41. In MIliband’s favour (but sadly not to the UK’s benefit, given his agenda) Miliband does indeed seem to be one of the more “effective” Ministers. He is driving through change at a rapid pace (though not sufficiently rapidly to meet CCA/CCC targets). Is this because he is very organised and successful in getting what he wants? Or is it because he is meeting few obstacles since the green blob, well embedded in the civil service, is suuportive rather than obstructive?

    How all this would play out if he becomes Chancellor, I don’t know, but given the harm I believe he is doing the country while he is at DESNZ, I don’t think it will end well if he gets the top Treasury job.

    Liked by 1 person

  42. “Who is the frontrunner to be the UK’s next chancellor?”

    Apparently it’s not Ed, but Shabana Mahmood.

    Kathleen Brooks, research director at XTB, said the markets were already rallying in relief to reports that Mahmood would become chancellor, with the pound up about 1% against the US dollar this week.

    Under Miliband, a line I didn’t think I would see in a BBC article:

    Some see Miliband as an inflation risk, believing his drive for net zero as energy secretary as partly responsible for the UK’s high energy prices compared to other countries.

    Net Zero scepticism is now mainstream?

    Liked by 2 people

  43. Jit, according to the Guardian (which, of course, wants Ed Miliband because of his net zero enthusiasm):

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jul/16/shabana-mahmood-future-chancellor

    …The energy secretary, Ed Miliband, was for several weeks seen as the most likely candidate to succeed Rachel Reeves but, after a brutal briefing battle and a backlash from big business, the home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, appears to have emerged as the frontrunner….

    …The emergence of Mahmood has reassured some bosses, several of whom privately said they were concerned about Miliband’s reputation as being more left-leaning, as well as his strong backing for Britain’s net zero ambitions. Miliband has held firm on the UK’s decarbonisation targets as other countries have rowed back.

    The targets are seen by climate scientists and the government’s Climate Change Committee as a crucial contribution to preventing damaging global heating but Burnham has nevertheless come under pressure to ditch them by people who claim they hinder job creation and threaten Britain’s struggling industrial base.

    “I suspect there is relief,” said a public affairs boss at a large British manufacturer who is in the latter camp. “I can’t see how it would work” with Miliband at the Treasury because of his “personal ambitions in terms of net zero”, the boss said….

    …the pound rallied on reports that Mahmood had beaten Milband to No 11, while government borrowing costs dipped as markets assumed less radical policies or less high levels of borrowing…..

    All of which might suggest, despite determined attempts by net zero-supporting think tanks, pressure groups, media outlets, politicians, academics and others, that people in the real world who understand how the economy works are indeed net zero sceptics.

    Liked by 2 people

  44. This is the EU Emissions Trading Scheme that Starmer was keen for the UK to join as part of his EU/Brexit re-set. I wonder what Burnham will do?

    “EU proposes slowing down cuts to carbon emissions for businesses”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgv0zd497zo

    The European Union has unveiled proposals that would slow cuts to businesses’ greenhouse gas emissions limits, as part of a major climate policy overhaul.

    The reforms would relax the rules of the bloc’s emissions trading system (ETS) to give businesses more time to reduce their carbon output than previously planned.

    The changes would mean some industries could obtain emission allowances until 2038 instead of 2034, if they commit to investing in decarbonisation efforts….

    …”We are adopting a more business-friendly and, may I say so, savvy approach,” said EU climate commissioner Wopke Hoekstra….

    …The ETS, which was introduced in 2005, is the EU’s main tool for curbing greenhouse gases.

    But it has come under criticism from a number of member states, with Italy in particular condemning the trading scheme as a de facto tax that has helped keep energy prices artificially high….

    Liked by 1 person

  45. Yet more evidence of a growing Net Zero scepticism. The haters presumably have their fingers in their ears.

    Like

  46. So, Miliband has been sent from DESNZ to the Foreign Office. I think that may be a shrewd move. The man was dangerous at DESNZ, IMO, but for some reason thta eludes me he’s popular with the Labour membership and with many back benchers. It would have been too bold a move to sack him, so shifting him to the foreign office where he might not be able to do much harm might be seen as a harmless promotion. I think it’s probably good that John Reid has been made Chancellor – I would have been seriously concerned if Miliband had got that job.

    Now we wait to see who goes to DESNZ.

    Liked by 1 person

  47. John Healey (not Reid) has been made Chancellor. In my opinion a shrewd move. So far Burnham’s appointments (especially Miliband to FO) look sensible.

    Like

  48. Oops. I meant to say John Healey. I must have had a rush of blood to the head. In talking about John Reid I’m showing my age! 😦

    Like

  49. Oh dear. Miattah Fahnbulleh has moved to DESNZ. Here’s her form on net zero:

    “Ex-Energy Minister And Burnham Ally Says Tony Blair Is Wrong About Net Zero”

    https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/exenergy-minister-burnham-supporter-says-tony-blair-wrong-net-zero

    …Fahnbulleh, who served as minister for energy consumers between 2024 and 2025, told PoliticsHome that Blair’s views on net zero were “wrong”. She said that while her own children “won’t forgive me if I duck our responsibility to respond to climate change”, it was also important that the UK make the most of the “massive opportunity” around a clean energy transition.

    “There is a global industry that is building up around the green transition around renewables,” she said.

    “China is at the absolute forefront of that. Why the hell would we not want a piece of that? Why would we not want to be on the front foot?”

    She added it would be “strategically mad” not to focus on this as a way to reindustrialise and revive parts of the country.

    Fahnbulleh said that while the cost of energy is a “genuine problem”, it is “clearly a function of our dependence on global fossil fuel markets”.

    “The way you solve that problem isn’t by pretending it doesn’t exist or burying your head in the sand,” she said.

    “It’s by doing what we’re doing and making the push to clean power.”….

    She sounds worryingly like another true believer a la Miliband.

    Like

  50. Not a big move for Fahnbulleh. She was Miliband’s under secretary before she resigned over the winter fuel payment withdrawal.

    Like

  51. Yes Robin, I suppose to that extent it makes a degree of sense. The big question is whether she is more pragmatic than Miliband, or whether she is a net zero fanatic just like her former boss. Burnham has a problem with his backbenchers, many of whom are indeed net zero fanatics. So I suppose, assuming Burnham isn’t a net zero fanatic (an assumption – I just don’t know), weaning the Labour Party off net zero has to be done carefully and probably slowly. Time will tell.

    Like

  52. I notivce that the first big policy announcement is to cut VAT on electricity bills. No mention of VAT on gas bills. Why only electricity bills and not gas bills? I fear that tells us quite a lot. Perhaps the electrification process is to carry on regardless, and the calls from net zero fanatics to make gas relatively more expensive than electricity, with a view to encouraging take-up of heat pumps etc, have been heeded. Watch this space.

    Like

  53. Asked why they have gone with electricity and not gas, Reynolds says the decision will make a “substantial difference”, adding it will make the “biggest difference to people that we can make”.

    BBC live link, go to 7:51.

    Like

  54. Fahnbulleh has only been in Parliament for 2 years. She’s another PPE graduate with no experience of the real world – afaics – having spent all her time in think tanks and the like. Not encouraging.

    Liked by 1 person

  56. “Why Net Zero opponents fear we’ve gone from Mad Miliband to Miatta, even madder than Miliband!”

    So far, the omens are not good. The Mail has raked through some of Fahnbulleh’s demands prior to attaining high office (presumably when “think” tanking):

    And when it comes to Net Zero, Miatta is just as radical – if not more so – than her old boss. In 2019, she proposed spending a staggering 5 per cent of GDP on green infrastructure, the equivalent of £140billion a year, and more than the entirety of Britain’s defence spending.

    In November 2021, she called on the then-Tory government to spend £30billion a year on Net Zero. She also demanded that Britain fulfil its ‘decade-old promise to mobilise £74billion of climate finance from rich nations to help the global south with the impacts of climate change’.

    Liked by 1 person

  57. My suspicion is that she will be a sock-puppet for Miliband. He is such a fanatic that it’s hard to believe he will just stand back and occupy himself with foreign affairs. Given her inexperience there will probably a lot of behind-the-scenes guidance and “support”.

    Liked by 1 person

  59. I suppose only time will tell whether Miatta Fanhbulleh is a zealot or a pragmatist now that she is confronted with the task of being Secretary for State. A footnote to her Wikipedia biography leads to a two year old article in the Observer (on the Guardian website):

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/07/five-new-labour-mps-westminster-economist-soldier

    She became an economist and has experience in government at the Cabinet Office. She went on to advise Ed Miliband during his Labour leadership and led the New Economics Foundation thinktank until last year. The group is seen as sitting on Labour’s left. Fahnbulleh has pushed hard for serious action on the climate crisis and has advocated more urgency in the UK’s response. She is likely to be the big brain of the party’s soft left.

    Like

  60. Well, the Guardian seems confident that Fahnbulleh is the sort of person it wants to be in charge of DESNZ:

    “Who is Miatta Fahnbulleh, the radical-thinking new UK energy secretary?

    Selection of economist formerly at helm of green thinktank marks continuation of decarbonising Miliband era”

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jul/23/who-is-miatta-fahnbulleh-the-radical-thinking-new-uk-energy-secretary

    …Far from being a departure from the commitment to transition away from fossil fuels to clean energy, Fahnbulleh’s appointment is a continuation of the Miliband era, which drew rightwing attacks for his mission to decarbonise the UK’s power sector by 2030.

    From 2017 to the end of 2023, Fahnbulleh led a policy thinktank widely considered the bible for radical economic thinking through the prism of climate, social justice and the environment.

    The New Economics Foundation (NEF) coined the phrase “Green new deal” for a suite of policies to tackle the 2008 financial crisis, climate breakdown and soaring energy prices. As head of the NEF, Fahnbulleh was at the pinnacle of designing economic policies operating strictly within environmental limits and with social justice at their core….

    …As she treads her new path, Fahnbulleh will have to dodge accusations from the right of being a net zero zealot, and lobbying from parts of her own party and some trade unions to open up new North Sea drilling….

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment