Ed Miliband embroiled in 'hypocrisy' row as Energy Secretary refuses to reveal how many domestic flights he has taken
Ministers asserted the Doncaster North MP would not reveal information regarding flights he had taken within the UK since he joined the cabinet last June.
Claire Coutinho, shadow energy secretary, said the refusal inferred there was 'one rule' for Miliband, and 'another for everyone else'.
The Conservative MP previously urged Miliband to release details on his domestic UK flights since Labour's loveless landslide in the last general election.
However, Michael Shanks said, on the Labour MPs behalf, that 'details of internal domestic flights are not published.'
It comes as Labour significantly hiked air passenger duty, adding hundreds of pounds to British family holidays.
Ms Coutinho told The Telegraph: 'As Ed Miliband sticks a holiday tax of up to £400 on a family of four, it does seem the height of hypocrisy that he won't reveal his own flights, which are funded by the taxpayer.
'People expect transparency and fairness from their politicians, but when it comes to the most stringent net zero costs, it's one rule for him and another for everyone else.'
The Energy Secretary's position does align with others in Westminster departments, which do not publish 'granular' details concerning ministers travel.
The Government told the publication it was 'the practice of successive administration' including Conservatives, not to release details of ministers movements.
Mr Miliband, who heads the Government's net zero policies, has previously been vocal regarding his opposition to domestic flights, urging Brits to cut down on them.
While he was Shadow Business Secretary, he called for the last Government to encourage Brits to travel by train and buses rather than taking to the skies.
When queried on if domestic flights he should be banned, he said they shouldn't be banished 'completely, but as much as we possible can.'
In 2021, he told the BBC: 'Fairness and giving people alternatives is an absolutely key part of making this transition happen.'
Last April, it was revealed his department has spent £44,000 more than the Conservative ministers on domestic air travel between last July and December.
In his first half-a-year in office, the Energy Secretary also spent £62,712 on international travel, the Taxpayers' Alliance reported.
His Conservative predecessor, Ms Coutinho spent £6,155 in her first six-months in the role, according to The Telegraph.
It comes after one of the government's climate advisers was accused of 'rank hypocrisy' after they reportedly racked up 40,000 air miles in a year by jetting to environmental conferences
Nigel Topping is one of six members of the Climate Change Committee, which advises Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
In February, the committee backed a 'frequent flier levy' to help reach Net Zero. This would see Britons who take the most flights, or fly the furthest distances, taxed more.
According to The Telegraph, Mr Topping attended conferences in Barbados, Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, the Netherlands and the US in the last 12 months.
An analysis by the newspaper claimed he accrued 11 times more air miles in the last year than the average Briton.
It also claimed that Mr Topping's carbon footprint from flights alone was about 40 per cent more than the average Briton produces in total in a year.
Mr Miliband himself was also criticised after it was revealed he had notched up at least 44,600 air miles since he became Energy Secretary last July.
It meant he was responsible for at least 54.2 tons of carbon emissions in nine months – more than 12 times the annual emissions of the average Briton.
The Daily Mail has approached Ed Miliband, the Labour Party
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
43 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Brexit solution to UK economy misery shunned, Nicola Sturgeon in focus
All sorts of potential moves have been floated in the media, with inheritance tax among the topics in focus last week. UK economic challenges have fuelled speculation that Labour will have to raise taxes and/or rein in spending to meet its fiscal rules, which are not that different from the strictures of the Tories. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research declared earlier this month: 'The Government is not on track to meet its 'stability rule', with our forecast suggesting a current deficit of £41.2 billion in the fiscal year 2029-30.' It remains somewhat baffling that Labour, given its lead in the polls ahead of the summer 2024 general election, felt it had to tie its hands so tightly with such fiscal rules. Surely the case could have been made for loosening the purse strings, to a sensible degree, and attempting to boost growth and thereby provide a fillip to tax revenues. Chancellor Rachel Reeves, writing in The Guardian last week, described the talk about tax increases as 'speculation'. She talked about the Labour Government's aim of boosting the productive capacity of the economy by allocating investment for infrastructure projects and reforming planning rules. Ms Reeves declared: 'If renewal is our mission and productivity is our challenge, then investment and reform are our tools.' It seems that 'productivity' is the buzzword of the moment. You hear it all over the corporate world, in myriad sectors, and on occasions it seems management of companies are trying to drive their measure of 'productivity' in ways which are counter-productive and lose sight of the bigger picture. At least the talk of infrastructure investment makes sense in the context of productivity. That said, when it comes to productivity, Labour might want to think about doing something meaningful to stop the Brexit damage if it wants to deliver a meaningful boost here. Sadly, its red lines of refusing to take the UK back into the European Union or single market mean that Ms Reeves and her Labour colleagues cannot take advantage of the huge economic benefits a return to the bloc would bring. Such a return would certainly ease the pressure on the public finances. Read more Office for Budget Responsibility chairman Richard Hughes said in spring 2023 of Brexit's effect: 'We think that in the long run it reduces our overall output by around 4% compared with had we remained in the EU.' Labour, however, continues to turn its back on the big win, for fear it seems of upsetting pro-Brexit types who polls show are diminishing in number. This becomes ever more frustrating as the UK economic misery continues, with no sign of anything that is going to provide a significant boost to growth or living standards. There was mixed news on the economy north of the Border last week in a closely watched survey. Scotland's private sector economy slipped back into reverse in July but was relatively resilient on the employment front in a UK context, according to the latest growth tracker survey from Royal Bank of Scotland. The survey showed a fall in the overall output of private sector services and manufacturing after two consecutive months of growth. Read more Scotland was placed 11th out of the 12 UK nations and regions in July in terms of the month on month change in its business activity. Seven English regions achieved rises in business activity, with London posting the strongest increase. The other five nations and regions covered by the survey saw declines. Scotland was second out of the 12 UK nations and regions in the employment league table behind Northern Ireland, which was the only one to see an overall rise in private sector staffing. The decline in employment in Scotland was slight compared with the falls recorded in the other 10 nations and regions of the UK to post drops in staffing. Meanwhile, the survey showed the first increase in outstanding business in Scotland for more than a year, something which was viewed by Royal Bank as a positive sign in terms of the employment outlook. Drops in outstanding business occurred in the other 11 nations and regions, which the bank declared was a "sign of underutilised capacity" across the rest of the UK. Nicola Sturgeon was firmly in focus last week in the wake of publication of her memoir, Frankly. There was much in the way of negativity about the former first minister in the reaction to the book, fuelled in large part by politicking and emotion it seemed. My column in The Herald on Friday observed: 'Perhaps the best overall assessment of Ms Sturgeon's time in charge is to be gleaned from examining the foreign direct investment numbers over the period in which she was first minister.' Ms Sturgeon was first minister from November 2014 to March 2023. The column noted that accountancy firm EY, publishing figures for 2024 earlier in the summer, highlighted the fact that Scotland has been second only to London in terms of the number of FDI projects won in every year since 2015. The column concluded: 'Those who would claim that Ms Sturgeon achieved nothing, or was somehow detrimental to business and the economy, should reflect on this, once the emotion subsides a bit.'
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Why a plebiscite election won't deliver Scottish independence
This week, let's take a look at what is being canvassed as the principal alternative to that strategy. This is generally described as the plebiscite election strategy. This argues that we should make the vote at the election the vote about Scotland's independence. If, when we add up all the votes for pro-independence parties it comes to 50%+1, then we take that as a mandate to start negotiations with the UK. There was quite a lot wrong with this idea when Nicola Sturgeon toyed with it in 2021 and there's a lot wrong with it now. And that's even assuming it might be possible to get all the parties involved to agree. READ MORE: Rachel Reeves failed to raise Grangemouth with refinery owner days before closure To be clear, I'm not against trying to get a majority of the electorate to vote for parties that support independence. Indeed, there's no reason why that shouldn't in part be a consequence of the SNP trying to win a majority. These objectives are not contradictory. The first problem is getting acceptance from the people taking part in the election that it is a vote on deciding independence. We don't need everyone to agree, but we do need a majority to buy into the idea. This proposition will be hotly contested. Elections are about many things. Asking people to set aside concerns about everything else and focus on Scotland's constitutional future will be a big ask. We should remember that while there may be a majority telling pollsters they want Scotland to be independent, many of them are not that strongly attached to the idea. Their support is based on a belief that things couldn't be any worse. There are also not insignificant numbers who vote Labour or Liberal Democrat but who also believe in Scotland becoming independent. They would vote Yes in a referendum, but that doesn't mean they will abandon their allegiance to a party they identify with at the 2026 election. Smart Unionists will say we can come back to a decision on indy later. For now, let's fix the health service, the housing crisis, energy costs, whatever. We know the best way to fix all of these things is to have the powers that come with independence. But that is not where many of the electorate are. So, no matter how much pro-independence parties were to tell people that is what this election is about, our opponents will shout till they are blue in the face that it isn't. And then, should we fail to get more than 50% of the votes, they will shamelessly tell us that it was about precisely that. You'll have had your referendum. Again. But the main problem with the plebiscite referendum is that it works only in the minds of its believers. They claim if a majority vote for pro-indy parties in the election, independence will then happen. Why? Kenny MacAskill said in this paper last week: 'Starmer and his Cabinet have already said no to a second referendum and nothing will change that.' If that is true, a plebiscite election won't change that. The majority of the electorate will have the same problem as the majority of MSPs. They will be ignored by a Westminster Government which takes the view that Scotland's status is a matter for it, not the people who live here. Robin McAlpine offered some insight last week. He is half right when he talks about the process following the creation of a majority and not the other way round. Most countries became independent when it was the will of most of the people, referenda only formalised what had happened on the ground. He is wrong, though, to suggest the political process is unimportant and that the campaign needs to be taken out of it. In fact, there is a dynamic relationship between the two. The missing ingredient from McAlpine's analysis is the substantial chunk of people who believe in independence but see no way of it happening. For them the link between independence and voting in elections has been broken. READ MORE: For Women Scotland launches legal action against Scottish ministers on gender policy This isn't just the SNP's problem. The support for SNP, Greens and Alba combined is still 10% below support for independence. Neither a plebiscite election nor indeed a referendum proper, is going to offer a way forward until we change that. In reality, John Swinney and Kenny MacAskill have the same problem – a critical number of independence supporters don't believe that voting for them achieves it. At least one of them doesn't pretend otherwise. So, we need a strategy for what could happen with the right election result, how could that be used to advance Scotland's autonomy. And that brings us back to asserting the right of the people and getting past the Supreme Court judgment of autumn 2023. And that requires the mobilisation of the people into a force for change. That is an expressly political task. It's not just a matter of winning elections. But winning elections is a part of it.
Daily Record
an hour ago
- Daily Record
Scots MP blasts Nicola Sturgeon for refusing to say she was wrong on gender reform in book
Joani Reid said the former first minister's "deranged gender reform bill... would have endangered thousands of women." A Scottish Labour MP has blasted Nicola Sturgeon for failing to "admit she was wrong" about gender reform in her book. Joani Reid said the former first minister's "deranged gender reform bill... would have endangered thousands of women." She also blasted Sturgeon's memoir - which was released last week - as "self-serving" with "all the same narcissistic traits, arrogance and moral superiority we saw from her in government." East Kilbride and Strathaven MP Reid told the Record: "It's hard to think of a fall from grace so spectacular - Nicola Sturgeon was once hailed across the UK, including by people who should have known better, as some sort of progressive beacon. It all went to her head and she got drunk on her own hype. "Her deranged 'gender reform' bill would have allowed creepy men pretending to be women access to our toilets and female-only spaces. She ignored legal and expert warnings and anyone raising common sense safety issues was branded as bigots. "It was a crazy plan that would have endangered thousands of women. Fortunately, it was outside the powers of the Scottish Government, but they spent a fortune getting humiliated in the Supreme Court and yet she still can't admit she was wrong. "This self-serving, self-regarding memoir is full of petty score-settling and reveals all the same narcissistic traits, arrogance and moral superiority we saw from her in government. "Scotland needed a leader who would protect our rights, not sacrifice them on the altar of political vanity. Beyond the gimmicks and woke virtue signalling, she achieved little of substance during her eight years at the helm, and it all caught up with her in the end." Sturgeon's memoir, Frankly, was officially released on Thursday. Copies of it were on sale in Waterstones shops earlier in the week. In it, she accused JK Rowling of helping create a a "toxic" climate around Scotland's gender reform debate. The MSP said the Harry Potter author's decision to wear a T-shirt branding her a 'destroyer of women's rights' marked the point at which "rational debate" on the issue became "impossible" and "any hope of finding common ground disappeared". Sturgeon's Government passed a bill which would have made it possible for trans people to change gender without a medical diagnosis. But the bill was stopped from becoming law by Tory Scotland Secretary Alister Jack, who said it breached UK Equalities law. At the same time, there was public outrage after convicted double rapist Isla Bryson - who identified as female - was initially sent to a women's prison. Sturgeon then refused to say if Bryson was a man or woman, but said last week that male rapists should "probably" lose the right to choose their gender. Earlier this year there was a landmark ruling where the Supreme Court said that the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex. The SNP was approached for comment.
