Congratulations are in order to the knuckle draggers of Reform UK, who, with wildfires running out of control – in France, Italy, Spain and Greece in particular – have doubled down on their cynical contention that climate change is a hoax. The Tories – who strive to keep up with them – have chosen this time not only to abandon any net-zero target but to announce that their candidates in future elections will be automatically rejected if they favour this demand.
Local elections disaster
The local elections in England were a disaster for Labour. Reform gained control of 14 councils, and the Green’s 5. Labour lost control of Birmingham, Redditch, Hartlepool, Tameside, Hyndburn and Cannock Chase.
Something had to be done. Many will be astonished that in less than two months Keir Starmer would be gone, Andy Burnham would have re-entered Parliament on the back of his remarkable performance in the Makerfield by-election (formerly a stronghold of Reform UK via Brexit), and would have become both Labour Leader and Prime Minister unopposed.
Or that he would have indicated his priorities with a number of eye catching measures such as ending rough sleeping, reducing bus fares, removing VAT from electricity bills, and free 24/7 bus travel for disabled people. He has also pledged to tackle the cost of living crisis and make progress on the much-avoided issue of adult social care.
Or that less than two weeks later we would be talking about the ‘Burnham bounce’. According to The I Paper, Labour is now 5 points ahead of Reform and would be the largest party in Parliament if a general election was held now.
Reshuffle
Burnham’s cabinet reshuffle was more extensive than most expected. David Lammy, Darren Jones, Rachel Reeves and Peter Kyle were all sacked, while senior figures including Angela Rayner and Louise Haigh return to top jobs. Louise Haigh will be the FIrst secretary of state , effectively Deputy Prime Minister, overseeing the No 10 operation in London and Manchester and coordinating the Cabinet Office. Whilst the reshuffle was clearly a shift to the left the appointment of Wes Streeting as Defence Minister and John Healey as Chancellor were gestures to the right.
The rabbit out of the hat was the moving of Ed Miliband from Energy and Net-Zero to Foreign Secretary. All previous attempts to move him from Energy – and there have been several – were aimed at weakening the left and undermining the progress Miliband was making towards the energy transition and the decarbonisation of the Grid.
This time it is ,hopefully, different. Burnham has, apparently, told Miliband to use the Foreign Secretaryship to spread the word on climate change around the world – and there is little doubt that if this is the case he will do so with some gusto. Let’s hope this is true. Though of course climate is an important aspect in the Foreign Secretary’s job.
The new Energy and Net-Zero Secretary is Miatta Fahnbulleh, the impressive Labour MP for Peckham elected at the last election. She is on the left of the party and strong on climate change. She argues that net-zero should be brought forward to 2030 – which, apparently, is the position of Labour in Manchester. It is certainly my position.
Hopefully she represents continuity with Miliband’s radical approach to the climate emergency. Whether she can replace Miliband, who was a heavy-weight in terms of the climate change brief, we shall see. In any case the left were the clear winners in the reshuffle.
The die might already be cast, however, on the energy transition – and turning the clock back is difficult. In any case, far more debate is needed on the energy transition and an exit strategy from fossil fuel. Climate change and the energy transition are key to defeating Reform and the Tories, both now and at the general election. They are vulnerable on climate change, with 80% of the public of the view that it is a major factor in the current series of heat waves.
This is not the way to change the leadership of a political party, or indeed a country. It might work in this case, in the short term at least, because Starmer showed no signs of understanding the problem, let alone resolving it. It is not, however, a model to be followed. To the extent that he delivers a left-wing agenda, we should wish Burnham the best of luck – he is going to need it.
Serious problems
There are, of course, serious problems to be addressed.
Labour has a huge Parliamentary majority based on just 33.7% of the popular vote. This makes it vulnerable to the 24-hour media which favours opposition parties, and allows the right-wing to set the agenda. Negativity is piled on negativity, creating a cycle that has its own logic. The fact that Andy Burnham is the 7th PM in 10 years speaks volumes. It also makes him vulnerable to Reform UK. A voting system that recognises every vote as equal value is long overdue.
We have a voting system that was grossly undemocratic when we had a two party system but now we have a five party system, it is forcing people to vote tactically in order to get their voice heard.
Brexit is synonymous with racism and xenophobia – with one feeding off the other. Ten years after the referendum, British politics is shaped by Brexit even more than it was at the time of the vote. Bank of England analysis shows that Brexit has reduced UK GDP by 6 – 8%.
Farage backed the openly racist wing, and anti-migrant, wing of the Brexit campaign – Leave.UK – which he co-founded with Arron Banks. This was a major grassroots campaign that targeted voters angry about EU immigration. It competed with Vote Leave to become the officially recognised Leave campaign, but was ultimately unsuccessful.
The evolution of Reform UK into to an openly fascist party has changed the political landscape of Britain. Reform’s politics of English nationalism, white supremacy, and mob violence are a clear continuity with previous British fascist organisations and movements – Enoch Powell, the National Front, the British National Party, or the English Defence League in the early part of the 21st century, or Tommy Robinson today.
Farage is more successful (and dangerous) than the others because he has been able to link it to Brexit and populism and create a mass movement on the based on hatred and bigotry.
Reform calls for the mass deportation of migrants, Trump style, and the abolition of the ‘Indefinite Right to Remain’ on which many asylum seekers rely. It calls for Britain to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, Only brutal military dictatorships have withdrawn from it in the past. They say that they will use the navy to stop small boats crossings in the Channel.
Farage is now being challenged by from the right by Restore Britain, which received 3,111 votes in Makerfield. The party was created by the even more bonkers Great Yarmouth MP Rupert Lowe in February, after he left Reform and formed it. It could well split the hard-right vote and be a problem for Farage in elections – or drag Reform even further to the right. Lowe has the backing of Elon Musk, the richest person in the world.
Starmer
I am not a Starmer supporter. I did not trust him when he was a member of Jeremy Corbyn’s Shadow Cabinet, and I haven’t trusted him since. There have been damaging retreats, even if they have not changed the fundamental direction of travel.
The first U-turn, in October just three months after the election, was on airport expansion, including a third runway at Heathrow. It was defended on the basis that it would stimulate growth. It did no such thing of course but it caused outrage in the Labour Party. Sadiq Khan, the London mayor, railed against it on facebook:
“I remain opposed to a new runway at Heathrow because of the severe impact it will have in terms of noise, air pollution and meeting our targets. I remain unconvinced that you can have a new runway, delivering hundreds of thousands of additional flights every year, without a hugely detrimental impact on our environment.”
The scale of mindless invective thrown at Starmer, however, cannot be justified politically. One doorstep canvasser reported that Starmer was openly “detested”, another described the mood as one of “visceral contempt”. The Reform person on the Politics Live show on 11 May referred to the Starmer government as cockroaches.
The left should reject this mindless vilification. It is the territory of fascists who want to bring hatred and bigotry into every aspect of the political discourse. Starmer did some good things: such as in education and industrial policy – the nationalisation of rail and steel for example – as well as some profoundly stupid things, such as Mandelson’s appointment.
Starmer was also the initiator of Labour’s environmental policy with his Leader’s speech to the 2022 Party Conference in Liverpool. The left have been in denial of it ever since. We were told that it was inevitable that Starmer would capitulate, but it has not happened — at least in its main provisions. Ed Miliband has driven it forward – at least the essential elements. The left both inside and outside the party should have been fighting alongside him. His proposals included transforming Britain into a clean energy super-power and decarbonising the National Grid by 2030: both remain on course.
Starmet’s refusal to defend his policy against the right, who constantly attacked it is, however, inexcusable. He did appoint Ed Miliband as Energy and Net-Zero Secretary, who has ensured its implementation.
Rosebank and Jackdaw
No sooner was Burnham elected Prime Minister than the Tories claimed that he was about to give the green light to the Rosebank and Jackdaw gas and oil fields. Leading climate scientists, based in Manchester, urged him to think again, and the word is out that the whole thing was a Tory hoax. Since then, however, Burnham has said that he is “pragmatic” on the issue, and pragmatism is dangerous when it comes to the principles behind an energy policy.
Let’s be clear: burning fossil fuel is the problem and renewables are the answer. The threat posed by global warming is existential and remains existential. Whist some gas will be needed during the transition period – this is the nature of transition – this does not mean we should promote it and drill more wells. Drill-baby-drill equates to burn-baby-burn at this stage of the ecological crisis.
The decision was a huge victory for campaigners, and a strategic shift away from fossil fuel and towards clean energy. It sits alongside other important strategic decisions that have been made by Labour as well, including ruling out both fracking and coal mining – both deep and opencast.
The Tories and Reform UK are ideologically committed to fossil fuels so where they will stand is clear.
The Tories had originally agreed to both applications, but their decisions were declared illegal by the Scottish Court of Sessions, following an action brought by the anti-Rosebank campaign.
Miliband
Ed Miliband was and is the most leftwing member of Starmer’s cabinet – and also the most effective in implementing his brief. He is hated by the right for both. He told Parliament in September 2024, soon after the election, that:
“It is less than two months since the Government came into office with a mandate to fix the foundations and make Britain a clean energy superpower. The last Government left this country exposed to international fossil fuel markets. As a result, every household and business paid the price in the worst cost of living and energy bills crisis in memory; because of Britain’s particular exposure, families and businesses in our country were hit harder than others.
“The only way to provide this country with the energy security that the British people deserve is through home-grown clean energy that we control. That is the mandate on which this Government were elected, and that is what we will deliver.”
The problem with Andy Burnham is that he has still not said anything strategic about the climate emergency. It is now the end of August and the pressure will soon be on as Parliament resumes.
Taking office
When Labour took office it emerged that the Tories had been sitting on major ecological infrastructure proposals, mostly based on photovoltaic solar panels, with no intention of progressing them. Miliband promptly reversed this along with the defacto ban on onshore wind that the Tories had put in place. When announcing these projects he said the following:
“Solar power is crucial to achieving net-zero – and providing an abundant source of cleaner, cheaper energy was the mission on my desk on Monday, and I have made a decision in three days. This is the speed we are working at to achieve energy independence, cut bills for families and kick-start green economic growth.”
Renewables
It was clear from the start that Labour was going for renewables, particularly solar, as its strategic energy source – whatever they say about nuclear. Whether it is freedom from Putin or cheaper energy for consumers, the ‘dash for renewables’ make perfect sense.
Ground-mounted and roof-top solar along with plug in solar panels is the key to the crisis. It is the quickest and easiest to install. It can produce high volumes of electricity over long periods with low maintenance. Crops can still be planted and livestock can be run between the panels if needed.
Domestic “plug-in” panels can be self-installed in gardens and driveways at minimal cost with a major impact on electricity bills. The next stage, which is so called “balcony” solar panels -also plug-in – will be available soon. The prices and sales pitch can be found here.
The need for fossil fuels to cover the so called “baseload” makes no sense. Renewable energy can cover it all if the obstacles to its production at scale are removed.
The most recent scheme that Miliband authorised was the Springwell Solar Farm in Lincolnshire, which – with a capacity of 800MW – is the biggest approved solar farm in the UK. It covers seven square miles of farmland. The Telegraph reported it this way: “Ed Miliband has approved Britain’s biggest solar farm despite objections from nearby residents who have likened it to “Chernobyl” – which was the uncontrolled melt-down of a nuclear reactor. “Chernobyl” is the kind of hyperbole that these bodies rely on to keep going.
Meanwhile the cost of solar panels had dropped by 90% in the previous decade. Onshore wind has fallen by 70%, and batteries by more than 90%. We are witnessing the dawn of the solar age. (My article ‘Solar Power the Key to the Future of the Planet’ can be found here).
Miliband took full advantage of this price reduction to build an energy policy based on a rapidly expanding supply of renewables, in particular solar. He is, according to Farage and Badenoch, a net-zero fanatic who is out of control. Labour is right about this and the left should support them on it.
Agricultural land
There is still confusion about the ecological value of so-called ‘prime farmland’. So let’s say it again:
Agricultural land is notoriously biodiversity depleted. Even Google puts it this way:
“Farming reduces biodiversity primarily by converting natural ecosystems into simplified human-managed landscapes. The result is the collapse of biodiversity through chemical pollution and overuse”. Solar farms occupy less than 0.1% of the UK’s available farmland.
The Climate Change Committee (no less) estimates that meeting the net-zero target would mean solar farms would account for approximately 0.6% of UK land – this is less than the amount currently occupied by golf courses: which is between 0.5% to 2% of the UK’s total available land, with 2% in England.
Farmers readily get involved since the offers made by the energy companies are far better than from agriculture.
Nuclear energy
It is true that when the government say ‘clean’ energy they include nuclear in the definition, but whether the time scales are compatible is another matter.
In July 2025, Labour took the insane decision to fully back the Sizewell C nuclear power project in Suffolk. It is eye-wateringly expensive, and extremely dangerous. None of the problems of nuclear power have been resolved, including what to do with the waste produced , and to how to protect nuclear installations in a war zone such as Ukraine.
Labour also doubled down on Carbon Capture and Storage, which is equally indefensible, given that 20 years of research has shown that it does not work at the scale required. The simple question it raises is why not stop producing the emissions in the first place?
Ed Miliband has supported all these measures, of course, but the contradictions in his position remain. The operational date for Sizewell 2 is 2045, and -inevitably – it will probably be quite a bit later. Even the first “Small Modular Reactors” to be located on Anglesey are not expected to be on line until 2036 – which means in reality 2040. By that time the battle over the energy transition will be won or lost.
It is not hyperbole to say that unless the planet can be saved nothing can be saved. Not long ago there was cross-party consensus that climate change is an existential threat That is long gone, however, with the rise of Reform UK and the scramble of the Tories to keep up with them.
National Grid upgrade
Clear proof that Labour – with Miliband at Energy – was serious about achieving Net-Zero can be judged by the urgency they have given to upgrading the National Grid. The biggest since privatisation in the 1990s. The upgrade is still less than 50% complete, however, and the most difficult bits are still to come.
It is a response not only to the need for a high-voltage transit system, but to the decarbonisation of the grid by 2050, and to an, at least, 50% increase in electricity usage by 2050. They also face AI developers trying make grid connection.
The Labour manifesto put it this way:
“The National Grid has become the single biggest obstacle to the deployment of cheap, clean power generation and the electrification of industry. With Grid connection dates not being offered until the late 2030s, important business and infrastructure investment is being stalled or lost overseas. Labour will work with industry to upgrade our national transmission infrastructure and rewire Britain”.
National Grid planners are also clear about the scale of the task they face. They put it this way:
“The UK electricity grid was originally built to connect electricity generated from coal fired power stations from the North, the Midlands, and South Wales. At the same time, as the UK moves away from fossil fuels towards increased clean energy, the demand for electricity is expected to increase by 50% by 2035 and double by 2050” – and more if AI warehouses and hubs are not effectively regulated.
“The UK has committed to connecting 40GW of offshore wind to the electricity grid by 2030, making 50GW in total to meet government targets. That’s nearly enough to power every home in Britain and is equivalent to taking 5.2 million petrol or diesel cars off the road, or the carbon absorption of 509 million trees over one year.”
As I have said before: “Only Denmark, Canada and New Zealand, are matching the British grid upgrade.” According to Australia’s Climate Council just 11 countries are ‘leading the charge’ on National Grid updating was with the UK at the top of the list. We can add China to this list, of course, but it is so far ahead of the other countries on most things ecological that it need special treatment.
Nimbyism
Britain is one of the least biodiverse countries in the world. We do not have the luxury to allow nimbyism to continue to block measures that are vital to the future of the planet. Consultation is important, but delaying tactics are not acceptable.
It is virtually impossible to build new strategic infrastructure in Britain – from water supply to electricity supply to house building – without organised opposition – most of which is based on nimbyism.
The governmental answer to this is the Planning and Infrastructure bill, which received royal ascent on 18 December 2025, which makes it easier for the government to take decisions on major developments. The left is opposed to it. Yet its defeat would make the clean energy transition in Britain impossible on a time scale that would meet the needs of either the planet or its inhabitants. This is the case both with electricity infrastructure and land for house building.
The Green Party opposes major parts of the Act, arguing that it compromised environmental protections while failing to guarantee genuinely affordable housing.
George Monbiot, who speaks for a big section of the left on ecological issues, writing in the Guardian of 24 April 2025 described the bill as “Labour’s great nature sellout”. It would be, he said, the “worst assault on England’s ecosystems in living memory” and he goes on “the kind of anti-scientific, pro-corporate scrubbing of expertise we see in Donald Trump’s US”. Just as the US is captured by a billionaire death cult”, he says, “our government is opening the door to the same forces”.
His conclusion – that Labour is worse than the Tories, and even Reform, when it comes to the environment. It is brain-deadism on stilts.
There has to be a collective dialogue of course; but there have to be conclusions as well. The Abingdon reservoir – a strategic reserve -has been discussed for 30 years and members of the most significant opposition grouping is The Group Against Reservoir Development are just as opposed now as they were 30 years ago. And their objections are the same – they don’t want a reservoir near them regardless of the needs of the majority.
It is not nimbyist, of course, to oppose, for example, one of the many AI data centers or hubs – not least because of the vast amounts of electricity needed to power them and water needed for their cooling systems must be collectively discussed. They should be banned, for example, from taking electricity from the Grid or using drinking grade water for their cooling systems.
It is certainly nimbyist, however, to oppose the construction of a new reservoir ,such as at Abingdon, when demand for domestic water has risen dramatically in the South East of England where there has not been a reservoir built since privatisation in the 1990s, and the construction time is 16 years.
Who are the blockers
It is also nimbyist to oppose the infrastructural changes that are crucial to the decarbonisation of the Grid by 2030, or to achieve Net-Zero by 2050, or indeed to halt the destruction of the planet. It is nimbyist to oppose changes which are vital to the continuation of human life on planet earth as we know it. (My article on the solar revolution can be found here)
All options become possible once the Grid is remodelled and upgraded and only Labour is proposing to do it in a time scale consistent with the future of the planet and its inhabitants. Those who stand in the way of Grid modernisation are in effect opponents of the energy transition. They are, as Miliband says, “the blockers”.
The upgrade is opposed by every opposition party in England — Reform UK and the Tories plus the Greens and the Liberal Democrats. They are not only backing these so called defence campaigns but they are providing them with foot soldiers as well.
The Countryside Alliance, as well as supporting hunting and shooting of wild animals, plays a coordinating roll in opposition to the Grid upgrade. They claim that it will have a massive impact on local environments. They call for cables to be installed underground despite it being 5 or 10 times more expensive – and infinitely more in terms of ongoing maintenance. Overhead line faults can typically be located and repaired in hours or days, whereas underground and subsea cable faults take very much longer to deal with.
The Suffolk Preservation Society and the Suffolk Energy Action Solutions were set up they say to “battle the National Grid’s plans to turn the Suffolk Coast into an onshore energy hub.” They support offshore wind but strongly oppose onshore delivery via pylons.
The Essex, Suffolk, and Norfolk Pylon Action Group have gathered over 40,000 signatures opposing the 112-mile Norwich-to-Tilbury overhead power line project. In Scotland opposition groups have expanded into an active network of community-led coalitions.
The Greens
It is good that the Greens have a new radical leader, have swung to the left, and have become an important and potentially progressive force in British politics. But with success comes responsibility. There is little point in having a radicalised Green Party if the practical upshot is providing the foot soldiers for campaigns that are dedicated to blocking new infrastructure which is needed to provide the basics of life to the majority of people as well as, ultimately, to save the planet.
In many of the campaigns, Green Party members are the most active and vociferous when it comes to opposition to the Grid upgrade.
Zack Polanski, meanwhile, continues to characterise Labour as no better than either the Tories or even Reform. This is an indefensible position to hold. In fact the gap between right and left, in British politics, is greater today than at any time since the Wilson governments of the 1960s.
Conclusion
Labour’s energy policy is – even when the retreats are taken into account – still superior to that of its rivals, including the Green Party, when it comes to practical changes like decarbonisation of the electricity Grid and progress towards the energy transition.
The most effective way to cut carbon emissions – whist respecting social justice – is via carbon taxes, i.e. making fossil fuels more expensive than renewables as a part of a wider policy to transfer wealth from the rich to the poor.
The task for the left is not to become uncritical cheerleaders for Burnham, but to recognise that the arrival of Burnham and Miliband’s work creates terrain on which we can fight: building the movements capable of holding Labour to its commitments when the pressure from capital and the right intensifies, as it inevitably will.
We have to keep the fascists out of government whilst making the case for electoral reform. We need to build a coalition of progressive forces that can stop Farage and Reform UK by the time of the general election
To denounce the biggest polluters for being the biggest polluters and stopping the existing subsidies to them is all well and good, but what happens next? To close them down without an alternative in place is to invite opposition in defence of jobs under very difficult conditions.
The energy transition, once carried through, of course, is irreversible. If Labour is able to say at the next general election that the national grid is now upgraded and carbon free and that the economy is now running on clean and renewable energy, and is no longer vulnerable to the price of gas on internation markets the case will be very strong to vote Labour.
The left — and the far-left in particular — have a blind spot when it comes to Labour’s environmental policy from Starmer’s Liverpool speech to the work that Ed Miliband is doing, which is important both domestically and internationally when it comes to leading by example.
This article was written at the end of August and sent to us for publication on 5 September, A companion piece on Scotland and Wales will be published later in the week.