Ed Miliband, Starmer & energy policy: a curious political tale

15 years ago now: could do with updating

We’ve recently looked at the fairly extensive list of energy policies Labour brings into office: deeply implausible at best, outright impossible at worst.  We know it’s Ed Miliband’s doing, Starmer having invited him to pick up where he left off in 2010 when his fairly pivotal Energy Act 2008 didn’t save Labour at the polls.  Mili is of course an ex leader of the Labour Party, losing fairly ignominiously in 2015 (- though it’s hard to see who could have done much better).

It’s somewhat unusual, but by no means unprecedented, for former party leaders to row in behind a successor with sufficient humility and unthreatening purpose that they are invited to bring their experience to the table & take up office again at a subordinate level.  Of course, other ex leaders are not wanted at all, and variously just piss off to make money and/or snipe from the sidelines.  (We may need to write about Tony Blair in this context quite soon.) 

To get the obvious out of the way: overall, I have little time for his politics and in particular his lazy, slapdash energy policy.  But over the past 2 years I have been very impressed with his loyalty, which is the point of this post. 

Mili put together his fairly detailed energy strategy for release at Conference in ’22, at which time the numbers presented were at least arguable, even if they’re now hopelessly wrong.  The plan came complete with a costing: he needed £28bn a year.  This number, too, could be defended, given that it didn’t mean “total cost of plan” (which would be much more), it meant “incremental Treasury cash”, a very different thing.  The balance would be made up mostly by subsidies levied on all our energy bills, and private capital.

Labour ran with this for more than a year, to some acclaim from Green quarters (and Red) – which is far from being any kind of ratification but it is germane for what followed.  Reeves then abruptly pulled the rug out, leaving him with perhaps £7bn, perhaps £10bn – barely enough even for the Warm Homes bit of the plan.   Cue outrage on the Green/Red flank: and many people would say Mili had every reason to chuck in the towel (& maybe even become a heavyweight totem for that wing of politics, which is his natural positioning anyway).  But he didn’t, and has loyally stuck with Team Starmer, not breathing a word of dismay; indeed, making a very brave and positive face of it all.

I am strongly inclined to find this admirable.  There are too many egos in politics who stomp off in disgust in such circumstances, disloyally briefing to any journo they can nobble on the outrage they’ve just suffered and the stupidity of the decision.  The temptations are great: & what has Mili got to lose?  But that’s not how he’s behaved.  

But surely, he can’t be expected to front for a policy when he’s not going to get the resources he knows are required?   I don’t see it that way.  I’m a soldier at heart, and the rule is:  loyalty downwards before a decision; loyalty upwards after a decision.  Show me the commander who went in to battle having been granted all the resources he believed necessary.  Not unheard of, but very rare.  That’s life: soldier on & make the best of it.

Only “inclined” to find this admirable?  Well, there are one or two other factors in play.  I’m told by Labour insiders that Mili is not at all in the Starmer inner circle, and stands the risk of being axed at any time.  (We’ve just seen what happened to Thornberry.)  Right now, for choice, anyone in Labour would want to retain a seat nearish to the top table – with the chance of being a hero to the Green/Reds if he just hangs in there (they know he’s not to blame for Reeves’ strictures).   The 2008 Act is unfinished business for him.  He must now surely see Net Zero as his life’s work & legacy – nobody would want to be remembered in terms of the Graun piece Anon gave us the link for, or ignominious bacon-buttie embarrassment – and really, really wants to be on board in what he must imagine to be the crucial years.  So there’s a degree of self-interest at work, albeit measured in prestige rather than career considerations per se.

Overall, an interesting little political drama.  I shall unfailing strive to illuminate the nonsenses in his plans, at the same time as holding him in at least some degree of regard.

ND