Starmer Admits Miliband Running Britain As Net Zero Fears Grow

Keir Starmer has effectively admitted that Ed Miliband is calling the shots on Britain’s energy policy — fuelling fears that the country is being driven by Net Zero ideology rather than economic reality.

The extraordinary moment came in Parliament when Starmer repeatedly insisted he had no power to approve new North Sea oil and gas licences, telling MPs the decision rests solely with his Energy Secretary.

Pressed by Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch over projects like Rosebank and Jackdaw — which could heat millions of homes — the Prime Minister refused to intervene, declaring: “That is a matter for the Secretary of State.”

Technically correct. Politically explosive.

Because while legislation may assign decisions to ministers, the reality of British government is simple: the Prime Minister is in charge — and can overrule or sack Cabinet members at will.

‘Red Ed’ Back In Control

The admission has reignited claims — even from within Labour — that Miliband is the real power behind the throne.

Once mocked for past political missteps, “Red Ed” has quietly rebuilt influence, commanding strong support on Labour’s backbenches and driving the government’s aggressive Net Zero agenda.

Critics warn that puts vast power in the hands of one minister overseeing the country’s entire energy system — from electricity generation to industrial supply chains.

And that, they argue, is where the real danger lies.

Net Zero Clash With Reality

Miliband’s vision of a “clean energy superpower” rests heavily on wind and solar — but opponents say the policy ignores a basic problem: when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine, Britain still needs fossil fuels.

Without reliable backup, they warn, the country risks higher bills, energy shortages, and growing dependence on imports — particularly at a time of global instability driven by conflicts such as the Iran crisis.

Even as oil prices surge, the government has ruled out expanding domestic drilling, leaving the UK exposed to volatile international markets instead of exploiting its own reserves.

A Risky Political Gamble

For Starmer, the stakes are rising fast.

By distancing himself from key energy decisions, he may be shielding himself politically — but he is also reinforcing the perception that control lies elsewhere.

And with elections looming, the question is no longer just about energy policy.

It’s about who is really running the country — and whether that direction is leading Britain toward security, or straight into an avoidable crisis.

ARTICLE COMBINED FROM VARIOUS NEWS SOURCES

11 minutes ago, Social Media said:

Even as oil prices surge, the government has ruled out expanding domestic drilling, leaving the UK exposed to volatile international markets instead of exploiting its own reserves.

Oil extracted from UK oil fields is sold at the international market price.

Increasing extraction from the UK’s oil fields would not reduce the price paid by UK customers.

The UK has energy sources that are not subjected to volatile international markets - Renewables.

Net zero reduces the UK’s exposure to volatile international markets.

Because the decision is quasi‑judicial, the PM cannot lawfully direct the Energy Secretary to approve or reject a licence.

Doing so would expose the government to judicial review and likely defeat in court.

This is reinforced by:

• Scottish court rulings that previous approvals were unlawful without proper environmental assessment. This forces the Energy Secretary to make a legally defensible decision. 

The image of Starmer holding his head in his hands is just after he's explained for the third time to Badenoch the law, yet she seemingly can't grasp it.

Miliband’s vision of a “clean energy superpower” rests heavily on wind and solar — but opponents say the policy ignores a basic problem: when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine, Britain still needs fossil fuels.

ARTICLE COMBINED FROM VARIOUS NEWS SOURCES

I'm guessing one source was the Beano or the Dandy.

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Oil extracted from UK oil fields is sold at the international market price.

Increasing extraction from the UK’s oil fields would not reduce the price paid by UK customers.

The UK has energy sources that are not subjected to volatile international markets - Renewables.

Net zero reduces the UK’s exposure to volatile international markets.

The UK government could extract oil itself for domestic use.

Thereby reducing its exposure to volatile markets and dangerous regimes.

The UK government is not an oil company. Nationalisation of the oil industry reeks of communism.

Oil is extracted from the North Sea by multinational firms such as Shell, BP, based on licences issued by the UK government. Forcing these producers to sell only to the UK at below market prices will likely trigger a trade war with countries such as the United States, with the US, rightly, pointing out that the UK government is giving an unfair advantage to its industry, disadvantaging US companies from competing. So that will be another 10% in tariffs. North Sea oil has already been heavily extracted, so now its more expensive to extract. A licence awarded that based on the deal that the oil company can only sell to the UK at less than the market rate will result in the licences not being taken up.

Only a filthy communist who doesn't understand capitalism would suggest an oil company should lose money out of some patriotic fervour. And communists often pretend to be something else.

Sure no nuclear as the leftist wokes were fussing about..... so they will open up those power plants running on Coal like Germany or those running on fuel. Great for the environment...

2 hours ago, MIke B Bad said:

Miliband’s vision of a “clean energy superpower” rests heavily on wind and solar — but opponents say the policy ignores a basic problem: when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine, Britain still needs fossil fuels.

ARTICLE COMBINED FROM VARIOUS NEWS SOURCES

I'm guessing one source was the Beano or the Dandy.

Certainly not a balanced range of sources about a complex issue (the energy policy rather than the powers of the minister).

The secretary of State for Energy does have a slightly different role to other members of cabinet, in that he or she has statutory powers, including the awarding of licences, through the 1998 Petroleum Act. The Prime Minister, for obvious reasons, cannot interfere in that act. The Prime Minister is not a President or King. He is First Among Equals. So there is collective cabinet responsibility. Milliband's policies are in line with Labour's manifesto, for better or worse, and they won the election.

Politically, in the HoC, only two viewpoints matter; that of the government, and that of His Majesty's Official Opposition. The Hot Air from the rest matters not a jot. Farage, for instance, is of no more importance than the seperatist Scottish MPs or the reformed terrorists from Sein Fein,

The Conservatives have currently a different policy from the government. A few years ago, not so different. But 2 years is a complete age in politics.

Badenoch at times is very good, and at other times is staggeringly bad. On this occasion, she asked the wrong question, when she asked the PM is he would "approve the licences for Rosebank and Jackdaw gas fields in the North Sea".

Starmer, the lawyer, answered correctly, in that he doesn't have that power. The whole point of the 1998 Petroleum Act was to vest statutory powers in the Energy Secretary. The Bill was introduced n 1997 by the Blair government, with no opposition from the Shadow Cabinet.

The US government these days is run by Presidential Executive Orders; everything is seemingly signed off by the President. The Prime Minister doesn't have the same role.

It was Parliament who, in 1998, awarded the statutory powers to the Secretary of State over licences, not the Prime Minister. In the British system, ministers are responsible to Parliament and the Prime Minister. Ultimately, a minister needs to command the confidence of the Commons to keep their job.

Badenoch's question wasn't quite the gotcha that the Daily Fail/Sun/GBN thinks it is.

Badenoch has served in cabinet before, so you would think she knows how the British constitution works. So when she asked the question, she already knew what the answer was.

If the PM had responded that he personally makes the decision over the award of every oil licence, I suspect the Opposition would also call for his head, accusing him of unconstitutional behaviour and acting illegally. This is typical PMQs. If the PM did that, then the oil companies, the ones who didn't get the licence (through some competitive process) would take the government to court, and likely win, and be awarded damages. It would likely mean the Minister resigns in protests, probably followed by other ministers, triggering a constitutional crisis. A Commons Vote of Confidence would ensue. It will NOT trigger a general election. In fact, it is considered so illegal, for a PM to override statutory powers, that its never happened.

Dim witted foreigners think the Prime Minister is the same as a President.

6 hours ago, MIke B Bad said:

Because the decision is quasi‑judicial, the PM cannot lawfully direct the Energy Secretary to approve or reject a licence.

The PM can appoint a new Energy Secretary though in a cabinet reshuffle.

His failure to do so is very telling.