
Ed Miliband is laying a trap for Nigel Farage
If Reform UK wins the next election, scrapping net zero is first on their list of policies. Party leader Nigel Farage believes the move could save tens of billions over the next parliament, freeing up funds for tax breaks and benefits boosts.
Labour's Ed Miliband, on the other hand, appears to be building his platform on preventing this coming to pass.
If Labour can block Reform by triumphing at the ballot box, that's all well and good. If it can't, then there are other tools.
As the New Statesman has noted, Miliband's newfound enthusiasm for community wind projects may partly be an attempt to 'future-proof' net zero, pushing things through today that will be tricky to unwind tomorrow.
Underhand, possibly, but potentially effective. And it's an approach we could well see expand to other elements of the policy in the near future.
Reform's targeted savings from the transition to net zero are already under fire. While the party believes it's possible to save £225bn over the next parliament, the Institute for Government (whose report the figures are partly based on) has argued that some of this sum constitutes private sector spending.
Just as important, however, is the question of how much of it will be easily cut.
Depending on which analysis you follow, spending over the rest of this parliament could average somewhere between £13bn and £19bn per year, with the latest Climate Change Committee Carbon Budget suggesting that anywhere between £6bn and £23bn of public funding could be needed in 2035.
Over the period to 2050, one Office for Budget Responsibility report (now a little old) estimated the net cost at £344bn to the public sector, with the downside risk at £553bn.
These are large sums. The upper end – £22bn or so each year – would be enough to fund the reversal of the winter fuel payments cuts (£1.65bn per year), raise the personal allowance by £1,250 (£11.1bn), scrap the two-child benefit cap (£3.4bn) and add another 0.2pc of GDP onto the defence budget – covering almost half the gap between Labour's distant 3pc ambition and the mooted Nato 3.5pc target.
It's also the case that these sums could be underestimated.
The Climate Change Committee's analysis shows net zero coming in at a net annual cost of 0.2pc of GDP per year over the next quarter century, or roughly £4bn per year, with the costs front-loaded and net savings towards 2050.
But underlying these figures are some very optimistic assumed cost curves for the future price of electricity capacity, including a forecast for offshore wind unit costs to fall by 39pc over the next 25 years.
Now, this might happen. But it's worth noting that the UK's 2023 auction round for renewable energy projects resulted in no bids at all for offshore wind. These auctions award 'contracts for difference', which pay producers a set rate per unit of electricity produced. If the market rate is below that price, the producer receives a subsidy. If it's above it, then they pay the difference back.
Barring a period between 2021 and 2023 when gas prices spiked over tensions and then outright war in Ukraine, these payments have tended to be large and positive: producers receive above-market-rate prices. Despite this, offshore wind was a no-go.
In the subsequent auction round, the Government raised the maximum price on offer by 66pc, with the eventual contracts awarded coming in at 58pc above the previous record low. Even this wasn't quite enough.
Ørsted's Hornsea 4 project won its funding in that round in September 2024. By March this year, it had been discontinued on the grounds of 'adverse developments relating to continued increase of supply chain costs, higher interest rates and an increase in the risk to construct and operate Hornsea 4 on the planned timeline'.
Poof! 2.4 gigawatts (GW) of planned capacity vanished into the ether, just as the plan is to boost it from 15GW to 88GW by 2040.
It's a neat illustration of one of net zero's risks. If other technologies also stall out on cost reductions, if delays to projects push the mooted benefits further back into the future, if higher interest rates raise the cost of capital, or if the costs of projects slip in typical fashion, then the costs of the transition could rise further still.
And that uncertainty makes scrapping net zero even more appealing for Reform.
A policy which they believe will cut energy bills – contracts for difference, the renewables obligation feed-in tariffs and the guarantee of origin system have added £280 to annual household costs between them, before we get to balancing payments and transmission costs – is also a way to work towards balancing the books and reducing fiscal risks. It's a win-win.
If, that is, they can pull it off. The concern will be that Labour is trying to tie their hands, setting up contracts and legal commitments well in advance of the next election that will make it extremely hard for a future government to change course.
There are early signs the party is moving in this direction, with the next auction round for renewable subsidies taking the approach of inviting bids first towards a targeted capacity, then setting a cash budget after reviewing them.
Combined with Miliband's rush to complete decarbonisation of the grid by 2030, and increasing pressure on the private sector to follow along with schemes incentivising electrification of home heating and transport, and the intention could well be to tie Reform's hands.
However, Richard Tice, deputy leader of Reform UK and the party's energy spokesman, isn't worried.
'Miliband is absolutely trying to lock us into his net zero plans,' he told me on Wednesday. 'And they're trying to tie up as many contracts as possible now to bind our hands when we win office – you can see that with the switch in renewable energy policy from cash budgets to capacity targets'.
But just as Labour can play games with contracts and commitments, so too can Reform.
'We'll claw the public's money back by charging a windfall tax equal to the subsidy awarded, and bar producers from charging that tax back to the consumer,' Tice said.
'Wind farms that need promises of huge public subsidies to finish construction won't be economically viable. And battery storage systems will be outright banned on health and safety grounds; they are dangerous and toxic.'
The result is a battle of pre-commitments. Miliband appears to be urging the private sector to pile in on net zero plans, waving the prospect of taxpayer funds at potential partners, and finding ways to make legally binding agreements that will be hard to unpick.
Reform, however, isn't planning to unpick them, but to instead follow Miliband's example in the North Sea: restrict operating conditions, tax profits, and drive the value of projects to zero.
The effect is to introduce considerable political risk into net zero projects, but potentially also to tempt Labour into finding ways to hand out funds upfront.
All eyes on this space: whether Reform's pledges can succeed in scaring off the renewables sector could determine its ability to win the next election.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


BBC News
28 minutes ago
- BBC News
Forest Primary's mechanical elephant being fixed for summer fete
A mechanical elephant at Forest Primary School in Guernsey will be fixed ahead of their annual summer fete. Jumbo was built in 1953 for the old zoo and was then given to the school in the 1970s. However, it broke down last year and the school's Parent Teacher Association (PTA) has been looking for someone to fix it. John Mallows, a local engineer, stepped up and will be fixing the elephant ahead of the summer fete on 20 June. The PTA has also received around 12 other offers, including one offer of financial sponsorship to keep Jumbo Penny, member of the Forest School PTA, said: "I think it is incredibly important that we try and get him repaired so that he can be enjoyed by the children for future generations. "We would like to keep him running for as long as we can."


Reuters
30 minutes ago
- Reuters
UK government to set out $3 trillion make-or-break spending plan
LONDON, June 6 (Reuters) - British finance minister Rachel Reeves will divvy up more than 2 trillion pounds ($2.7 trillion) of public money between her ministerial colleagues on Wednesday, making choices that will define what the year-old Labour government can achieve in the next four years. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Reeves will have to pick between the demands of the public health service - which absorbs around 40% of day-to-day departmental spending - increased defence commitments and other priorities including policing, energy infrastructure, transport and housing. "There are good things I have had to say no to," Reeves told reporters on Wednesday at an event to promote 16 billion pounds of regional public transport investment that will form part of next week's package. Labour has said that growth is its top priority and that its decisions led Britain to be the fastest-growing country in the Group of Seven in the first quarter of 2025. But the IMF expects UK growth to lag behind the United States and Canada in years to come and be only slightly faster than the euro zone. The review comes at a tricky time for the government, which won a sweeping parliamentary majority in July 2024 but has since seen its popularity slide, falling behind Brexit campaigner Nigel Farage's right-wing Reform Party in local council elections in England last month. Following that, citing improved public finances and growth, the government decided to at least partially restore heating subsidies for pensioners, which it removed from millions shortly after the election, damaging its popularity. Reeves set out the contours of next week's spending plans at her first budget in October, so there should be no big surprises for financial markets overall, although individual sectors may have winners and losers. "Unless Rachel Reeves comes out and says 'I am changing the spending envelope', the market should be broadly ambivalent," Deutsche Bank's chief UK economist, Sanjay Raja, said. Day-to-day spending on public services is due to rise by an average of 1.2% a year on top of inflation between 2026-27 and 2028-29, while capital budgets will increase by an average of 1.3% in real terms through to 2029-30, according to estimates from the Institute for Fiscal Studies think tank. Both rates of growth are much slower than in the current financial year, when investment spending is set to jump by 11.6% and current spending rises by 2.5%. The spending increases are unlikely to be shared out equally. Capital-intensive plans to raise defence spending to 2.5% of gross domestic product, announced by Starmer in February, mean other departments will see no real-terms increase in the pace of investment after this year, the IFS estimates. For day-to-day spending, increasing the health budget by 2 percentage points more than the average - as was typical when Labour was last in power before 2010 - would mean real-terms cuts of 1% a year for other departments, the IFS said. The opposition Conservative Party said Reeves' spending since taking office was likely to increase debt interest costs by 80 billion pounds by the time of the next election in 2029. "We can expect her to trumpet all of the additional projects and programmes she is funding - without mentioning the fact it is all being paid for from borrowing," Conservative finance spokesperson Mel Stride said. Labour lawmakers with an interest in departments where spending might be squeezed are nervous. Florence Eshalomi, who chairs parliament's committee on housing and local government, has written to Reeves saying allocations in the spending review needed to match the government's ambitions to build 1.5 million homes by 2029, as set out in the manifesto it was elected to deliver. "We appreciate the many challenges, but this is a key mission for the government," Eshalomi told Reuters, adding government needed to "do something differently" to ease the housing crisis and couldn't rely solely on the private sector. Chris Curtis, who chairs a group of Labour parliamentarians focused on boosting economic growth, said the government could not focus solely on short-term problems. "Those demanding 'jam today' are ignoring the reality that without growth, public services and living standards will stagnate further. We've got to make tough choices now, or we'll soon be facing impossible ones," he said. Businesses and investors are also keen to see how Reeves makes her sums add up. Tax rises are not an option as Reeves has said she only intends to change tax policy once a year, and she has barely any room to borrow more without breaking what she has often said is an "ironclad" commitment to new fiscal rules. The review is "zero-based" meaning in principle some whole areas of public spending can be cut. In practice, savings are more likely through a mix of reducing the number of civil servants, squeezing public-sector pay or vaguer efficiency savings, said Raoul Ruparel, director of Boston Consulting Group's Centre for Growth. But if the spending plans imply some government departments will have to make efficiency gains on a scale not seen in recent years, then future tax rises become more likely. "It's a very difficult path to navigate," said Deutsche Bank's Raja, who expects Reeves will have to announce 10-15 billion pounds of tax rises in her next annual budget in the autumn. "Tax rises are inevitable," he said. ($1 = 0.7381 pounds)


Telegraph
34 minutes ago
- Telegraph
How the ground war won it for Labour
It was the ground war 'wot won it' for Labour in the Hamilton, Stonehouse and Larkhall by-election, thanks to the hundreds of foot soldiers drafted in to pound the pavements in support of their candidate. And Davy Russell, the well-liked candidate in question, proved to be a tremendous bonus in a contest fought on old-fashioned terms and in which the media – especially the broadcasters – failed to set the agenda. His win will put a smile on the face of Scottish Labour and end the gloom of the last six months, in which the huge gains in last July's general election have disappeared and have even possibly been reversed by the SNP. Scottish Labour still has masses to do – but in this part of what used to be a traditional heartland, it showed it is up for a fight in next May's Scottish Parliament election. It can't just sit back and enjoy Reform UK hammering the Scottish Tories – Nigel Farage's party is taking lots of votes off Labour too. In this contest, Labour strategists highlighted what they claimed were Reform's 'dog whistle' tactics on race and its suggestion that the Barnett formula, which helps pay for Scotland's public services, might be scrapped. Mr Farage dismissed these claims as smears, but his critics believe that they helped 'crash his own campaign' and convince traditional Labour supporters to stay loyal. The result was a shock for the SNP, but the party can blame it on its tactics – the stupid talking up of Reform's chances and sending Nicola Sturgeon to canvass in the constituency where her policies caused a decline. There is no comfort in this result for the Scottish Tories. They scraped home with 6 per cent of the vote, just enough to save their deposit. It's difficult to know where they go from here – except perhaps to hope that the early signs of a civil war inside Reform will continue to fester. One overriding aspect of this campaign has been that Scottish Labour won in spite of, and not because of, its relationship with UK Labour and Sir Keir Starmer's Government. Too many of the Government's policies have proved hugely unpopular with the voters, as Sir Keir seems to have recognised. He was only 10 miles from Hamilton five days ago, launching his new defence policy in Glasgow. However, he wisely stayed away from the by-election campaign and nobody seems to have noticed. On a significant, but lighter, note I reckon that if ground wars clinched the Labour victory, 'star wars' played a part, too. In an area where not everyone supports Glasgow Rangers Football Club – although they tend to keep quiet about the fact – and where light blue and orange are favourite colours, Labour won tributes from just about the two biggest personalities you could imagine. Sir Alex Ferguson may have been manager of a hugely successful Manchester United, but in this constituency it's the fact that he had played for the 'Gers' that makes him a star. And the honours list for Graeme Souness includes 54 Scottish international caps and numerous other accolades – the most important in these parts, being a no-nonsense former player-manager of Rangers. Sir Alex was fulsome in his praise for Labour's candidate. He said that the surprise winner in this fiercely-fought local election was 'a man of integrity, determination, and deep commitment to his community'. He might have added, but didn't, that Mr Russell was also an occasional stand-in for the King, serving as a deputy lord lieutenant for Lanarkshire. But when it comes to Mr Souness, who was reputed to have never avoided a tackle, he didn't ignore Mr Farage in his support of Mr Russell. Resorting to that well-known Scottish insult, which is one short of calling someone a 'liar', he said the Reform leader was a 'chancer' who didn't care about Scotland. Yes, I know that my old friend Sir John Curtice could produce a long list of stats to provide a better explanation of Labour's win, but who's to say that, with a majority of just over 600 between first and second and less than 1500 votes between the first three, that personalities such as Sir Alex and Mr Souness didn't sway the voters. After all, few opponents argued successfully with them in their playing days.