On Tuesday, something unexpected crossed my mind—could Sir Keir Starmer actually have a spark of common sense? This thought began after observing a recent decision that could signal a more pragmatic approach from the Labour leader.
While the increase in defense spending is far from sufficient, and while Prime Minister Sunak certainly adjusted the figures to make the increase look more impressive than it truly is, Starmer’s willingness to tap into the aid budget to fund defense shows a shift toward pragmatism.
This is a bold move, especially when considering the opposition it might face from certain Labour MPs and the powerful aid lobby.
Still, Starmer seems to recognize that the defense of his own country’s citizens should outweigh the international aid priorities, which is a promising sign of common sense at play.
The Growing Strain of Net Zero Policies on the Economy
Another area where some pragmatism seems to be creeping into government thinking is the push for Net Zero.
While Energy Secretary Ed Miliband remains steadfast in his climate-change zealotry, advocating for increasingly restrictive policies, it appears that a few ministers are beginning to see the economic dangers of pushing forward with such aggressive environmental goals.
One such example is Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander, who is expected to approve a major expansion of Gatwick airport, allowing for an extra 100,000 flights annually by the end of the decade.
Although this will likely lead to higher carbon emissions, especially in the short term, it also signifies a recognition that economic growth is essential—and perhaps can’t coexist with the extreme environmental measures Miliband supports.
The Growing Divide on Energy Costs and Economic Growth
While Miliband continues to push for net-zero measures, including banning new gas exploration in the North Sea, the economic consequences of these decisions are starting to become more apparent.
The UK’s energy bills are already among the highest in the world, with businesses paying some of the steepest electricity rates in any developed country.
This issue was highlighted in a recent open letter by billionaire Jim Ratcliffe, who criticized government policies for driving up energy prices and imposing crippling carbon tax bills on industries.
Ratcliffe’s frustration is understandable, considering that energy costs are a major burden on both households and businesses.
Energy prices are expected to rise by another £111 starting in April, making it even more difficult for the government to meet its pledge to lower household bills by £300 by 2030.
There’s little sign that Miliband’s policies will deliver on this promise.
His insistence on focusing on wind and solar power, while opposing new gas exploration in the North Sea, is a large part of the problem.
With much of the country still reliant on gas for heating, the move to eliminate gas exploration is both impractical and harmful to the UK’s energy security.
Miliband’s Opposition to Gas Exploration and the Need for a Balanced Approach
While Miliband’s ultimate aim is to reduce the country’s reliance on fossil fuels, his policies are actually making matters worse.
The North Sea still holds vast amounts of gas, and a massive field under Lincolnshire could supply the country’s needs for a decade.
Yet, Miliband’s refusal to allow any new exploration means the UK continues to depend on gas imports, which could drive up energy prices further.
To make matters worse, Miliband has just approved plans to permanently shut down the UK’s remaining fracking sites.
This shortsighted approach limits the country’s ability to secure its energy future and keep prices down.
Miliband’s ideal solution seems to be to push for the adoption of heat pumps, a more expensive alternative to gas boilers.
However, heat pumps are not yet cost-effective for many households, and Miliband’s rhetoric about moving away from gas altogether appears disconnected from the reality of what’s required to maintain energy security.
The Disconnect Between Policy and Global Energy Realities
What’s particularly baffling is that, globally, many countries are continuing to rely on gas, with Shell predicting a 60% increase in global gas consumption by 2040.
Countries like China and India are burning vast amounts of coal to fuel their economies, while many European nations, including the UK, are going in the opposite direction.
The UK has already done more than most large economies to decarbonize, yet the zeal for further reductions seems likely to hurt the country’s economic prospects.
Miliband and the Climate Change Committee’s strict stance on gas, alongside unrealistic demands for a rapid transition to electric cars and reduced flight emissions, could lead the UK to adopt policies that will make everyone poorer—unless the government recalibrates its approach.
Will Sir Keir Starmer Step Up to Stop Miliband’s Destructive Path?
The big question now is whether Sir Keir Starmer will intervene to prevent Ed Miliband from continuing down this dangerous path.
Miliband, who once mentored Starmer, remains a powerful figure in the Labour Party.
However, his relentless pursuit of policies that appear to prioritize environmental dogma over economic practicality could be a significant political liability.
Upcoming decisions on oil projects like the Jackdaw and Rosebank fields, blocked by a Scottish judge, will test whether Starmer is willing to stand up to Miliband’s extreme views or whether he will let them undermine the party’s electoral future.
As we saw with defense spending, Starmer may be able to make the right decisions when necessary.
However, in the case of energy policy, he will need to ensure that pragmatism prevails over ideology, and that Britain’s energy future is shaped by reality rather than unrealistic goals.
The next few months will be crucial in determining whether the UK can balance its environmental ambitions with the economic stability it needs to thrive.