Labour in office – the way forward for the left in Britain
This piece was prompted by the article by Dave Kellaway entitled We Need To Talk About the Labour Party on the ACR web site 21st of November 2025. Dave is a supporter of ACR and a member of Hackney and Stoke Newington Labour Party.
Labour is indeed in trouble. Stamer’s popularity is in free-fall – due to self-inflicted wounds and unprincipled retreats. Labour has a thumping majority based on just 33.7 per cent of the popular vote. This makes it vulnerable to the 24-hour media which favours opposition parties, and allows the right-wing to set the agenda. Negativity is piled on negativity, creating a cycle that has its own logic.
As Andy Beckett in The Guardian of December 25th, trying to make sense of it, says: “In the online spaces where political opinions are increasingly formed, debatable facts, rumours, myths, outright fictions and raw emotions surge back and forth, erupt into geysers of outrage – and then subside into stagnant pools of disillusionment.”
The spectacle of Boris Johnson throwing drinks parties in Downing Street that he had banned in the rest of the country, and with spot fines being dished out by the police to Johnson and other ministers for breaking laws that they themselves had brought in, runs deep. Voters are looking, in some cases nihilistically, for someone to punish rather than who can run the country and on what principles.
The consensus on net-zero is gone. The Tories are on catch up with Reform – which is impossible. They now favour the abolition of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), an international treaty that protects fundamental human rights and freedoms in Europe.
The rise of Reform
The rise of Reform UK, led by a fascist (who calls himself a political entrepreneur), has changed the political landscape in Britain. Reform focused initially on Brexit before pivoting to a broader far right agenda around English nationalism. Despite twenty three Tory ex-MP’s have now joined Reform making it a realignment of the right in British politics, it is totally dominated by Farage in a way typical of such parties. It is a very dangerous development.
It focuses overwhelmingly on the small boats, migrant hotels, and the migrants themselves, without which it would not exist as a significant force. It mobilises people onto the streets that are prepared to promote violence, and famously, burn down hotels with asylum seekers in them.
It is also a party of climate deniers par-excellence. It has the full fundamentalist Trumpian agenda: from the claim that climate change is a hoax to abolishing infrastructure designed to counter it. It calls for the mass deportation of migrants and the abolition of the ‘Indefinite Right to Remain’ on which many asylum seekers rely.
It is currently at around 28 per cent in the polls in terms of the next general election – without tactical voting taken into account. This on the face it (with Labour next at 18 percent) would put them in government. It is a mouthpiece for both Putin and Trump’s Maga movement in Britain. Both the May elections and the next general election are already shaping up as a ‘stop the fascists’ events.
That Nigel Farage, Mr Brexit, could be in with a chance of winning the next general election is frightening. The key to this is racism and bigotry. Fellow students from Dulwich Colge have exposed his racism and antisemitism, which included creeping up behind Jewish students saying Hitler was right and mimicking gas chambers. He had the hall marks of fascism at the age of 16.
It is easy to say they are all the same, but, despite Starmer, they are not – and it is crucial that this is understood.
Internal conflict
Labour’s first year in office was characterised by two points of internal conflict. The first was between Starmer and the majority of Labour’s 410 MPs, who defeated the changes to the PIPS payments that Starmer wanted, which led to a broadly progressive budget in November – including the abolition on the two chid cap.
The other is between Kier Starmer and ED Miliband – Starmer’s secretary of State for Energy and Net Zero. Miliband had been implementing a radical energy agenda first set out by Starmer himself in his speech to the 2022 Labour Party conference in Liverpool — when the party was in opposition.
Miliband held the climate change brief under Gordon Brown and oversaw the introduction of the Climate Change Act in 2008, which contains the first legally binding framework to reach net-zero. He appears to have radicalised around the environmental agenda much like the Tory nominee Alok Sharma for president of the Glasgow COP. It is a powerful argument once confronted.
Labour policies
Contrary to perceived wisdom on the left, inside and outside of the Labour Party – and largely due to the impact of Ed Miliband – Labour has had (and has) a remarkably progressive policy on the energy transition which include an upgraded and decarbonised national grid by 2030, net zero by 2050, and based on an abundance of clean energy.
This had been made possible by the rapidly falling cost of renewables. Research by Our World in Data shows that the cost of solar panels has dropped by 90 per cent in the last decade. Onshore wind has fallen by 70 per cent, and batteries by more than 90 per cent. We are indeed witnessing the dawn of the solar age. (My article ‘Solar Power the Key to the Future of the Planet’ can be found here).
In Liverpool Starmer pledged to make Britain a clean energy superpower. Solar power (he said) would be tripled, offshore wind quadrupled, and the Tory de facto ban on onshore wind lifted. New licences for North Sea oil and Gas fields would be refused once Labour was in office – signalling a strategic shift away from oil and Gas and towards clean energy.
When they took office in July 2024, Labour found that the Tories had been sitting on dozens of major infrastructure projects, mostly solar and wind farms, with no intention of processing them. These include the Abingdon reservoir, designed to supply the South East with water during shortages.
Very vocal in opposition to the Abingdon reservoir is the LibDem MP for oxford West and Abingdon, Layla Moran, who called for Thames Water to be nationalised. This is a very popular demand which I agree with, but it makes no sense as a precondition to a much needed reservoir, particularly when it will still take 16 years to build once approved.
They also included the Botley West solar farm and three other large solar projects in Suffolk, Lincolnshire, and Rutland. Miliband signed them off within days. A key driver has been newbuild houses where solar panels are soon to become a legal requirement. (My article supporting the Abingdon reservoir is here, and my article on Botley West solar farm is here).
Also pending, is legislation on the use of free-standing “plug-in” solar panels for apartments and balconies that are easy to install. Miliband also wants to introduce minimum environmental standards for new houses, including low-carbon heating systems, electric vehicle charging infrastructure and better ventilation.
He told Parliament that: “Solar is one of the cheapest and most readily deployable energy sources at our disposal. We have secured a record 93 solar photovoltaic projects, the largest number of solar projects ever in an auction, unlocking 3.3 GW of new solar, which is a 20% increase on our installed capacity”.
The North Sea
The crunch came in the North Sea came with the application, by Equinor, to develop Rosebank, a major new oil field, and a smaller gas field, called Jackdaw. The Tories approved both in September 2023, but they were then ruled unlawful in January 2025 by the Scottish Court of Sessions on the grounds (no less) than the government had failed to consider the emissions from burning the oil and gas produced by the investment. When Labour decided not to challenge this ruling, Rosebank and Jackdaw were dead in the water.
It was a huge victory for campaigners, and a huge strategic shift away from fossil fuel production and towards clean energy. It sits alongside other important strategic decisions that have been made by Labour as well, including ruling out both fracking and coal mining – both deep and opencast.
Internal tension over Miliband’s role came to a head in the September 2025 reshuffle, when Starmer attempted to remove him from the energy brief. Miliband refused point-blank, and Starmer backed down — which is extremely unusual. This means that the struggle over environmental policy will continue, and key polices advocated in Liverpool preserved.
Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth
Interestingly, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have developed a joint balance sheet of Labour’s first year. They concluded that it has made a strong start. It has, they say:
- Scrapped rules that made it impossible to build wind turbines on land.
- Changed planning rules to favour renewables.
- Approved lots of new solar farms.
- Funded a record number of new clean energy projects.
- Worked to speed up grid connections, so more clean power can flow into the system.
- Launched Great British Energy – a new publicly-owned company with £8.3 billion to invest in wind, solar, and other clean energy projects.
- The government has kept its promise to stop giving out new licences for oil and gas drilling at sea – that’s a huge win.
- It also published strong environmental standards that previously-approved new oil and gas fields must meet in order to get the final go-ahead. For the first time, this will force oil companies to account for the climate impact of their product.
The Danish road
Although Starmer ridiculed the Ruanda scheme, he agrees with the Tories (and other establishment parti on most aspects of migration policy. They both think that there are far too many migrants here and the more that are deported the better. They both refuse to defend migrants and asylum seekers and favour the most hostile environment possible.
They are both vague on safe routes that would make the small boat crossings from France unnecessary. The both favour the reopening of detention centers like Campsfield House near Oxford.
The latest mantra is to follow Danish social democracy on this. According to Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, asylum will be a temporary arrangement to be withdrawn when circumstances change. Asylum seekers can then be sent back ‘home’, including children born in this country. It is the most racist set of measures introduced in Britain in the postwar period. We are told that there will be safe routes for those wishing to seek asylum here, but the assurances given are unconvincing.
Some Labour MPs are swayed by the argument that this is the way to deal with right-wing populism, since it declined in Denmark once such a policy was adopted. The problem with this is that it plays to the tune of right wing populism and Nigel Farage. It is at best dangerous gamble.
Tommy Robinson – a vile Nazi sympathiser – recently mobilised a 150,000 people in the UK on an openly racist platform. It was the biggest such mobilization in British history. Robinson and Reform maintain tactical organisational separation. But their politics are basically the same. Robinson is welcomed by Trump to the White House and his legal costs are being paid by Elon Musk.
Labour’s 2024 manifesto
Most of Starmer’s Liverpool speech went into the 2024 election manifesto, with the exception of the £28bn, which was soon dropped – something that was made easier by the falling cost of renewables.
It was by far the most consequential manifesto that Labour has ever had in terms of carbon reduction and the energy transition — including 2019. It calls for net-zero by 2050 and the decarbonisation of the national grid by 2030. Details can be found in the “Clean Power 2030 Action Plan” published by the government in December 2024. It opens with the following statement:
“The electricity network is a critical enabler for delivering clean power by 2030 and accelerating towards net zero. To ensure we have the necessary network in place, we need to speed up both the build of new network infrastructure and fundamentally reform the grid connections process. Measures to accelerate infrastructure build are covered in the ‘Networks and Connections’ chapter of this Action Plan.”
Only China, Denmark, Canada, and New Zealand have matched the British Labour government on grid upgrade. According to Australia’s Climate Council 11 countries are ‘leading the charge’ on national grid updating with the UK at the top of the list.
China
The BBC programme Future Planet had in-depth information about the ultra-high voltage grid that the Chinese are installing. China is already producing (it says) more clean energy than any other country. Now it is rolling out an ultra-high-voltage grid to match.
Whatever you think about China’s state capitalist ideology and autocratic rule, the huge contribution it is making to the clean energy transition is undeniable. China produces around 80% of the world’s photovoltaic panels and batteries, and 70% of its electric vehicles.
China’s national grid is enormous. It is operated by two main corporations, the State Grid Corporation of China, and China’s Southern Power Grid. It is undergoing massive investment programme to modernize in order to carry large amounts of renewable energy like solar and wind that China is now producing.
China is also way ahead on the production of computer chips necessary for the green transition, as well as the mining of the rare earth minerals needed in the manufacture of everything from mobile phones to solar panels and TVs sets, electric cars and bikes.
Starmer policy retreats
There have also been damaging retreats. The first (in October just three months after the election) was on airport expansion, including a third runway at Heathrow. It was defended on the basis that it would stimulate growth. It caused outrage in the Labour Party. Sadiq Khan, the London mayor, railed against it on face book:
“I remain opposed to a new runway at Heathrow because of the severe impact it will have in terms of noise, air pollution and meeting our targets. I remain unconvinced that you can have a new runway, delivering hundreds of thousands of additional flights every year, without a hugely detrimental impact on our environment.”
Feargal Sharkey, the Irish punk singer of the Undertones, now a ferocious environmental activist campaigning to clean up Britain’s polluted rivers and waterways, and also the president of SERA Labour’s environmental campaign. He is strongly opposed to Heathrow expansion on the basis of its impact on climate change.
Most surprising, however, is an open letter issued by Ken Penton and Lisa Trickett the co-chairs of SERA, to Starmer himself. It was the first time that this ultra-loyalist body has criticised the Labour leadership in this way—and on growth, which is close to a religion in Labour leadership circles. (My article on this can at the time be found here)
This was followed, in July, by the insane decision to fully back the Sizewell C nuclear power project. It is eye-wateringly expensive, and extremely dangerous. None of the problems of nuclear power have been resolved, including what to do with the waste, and to how to protect nuclear installations in a war zone such as Ukraine.
Starmer also doubled down on Carbon Capture and Storage, which is equally insane, given that 20 years of research has shown simply does not work at the scale that would be required. It simply raises the question: why produce the emissions in the first place?
Ed Miliband has supported all of these retreats, of course, but the contradictions in his position remain. The operational date for Sizewell 2 is 2045, and, in reality, quite a bit later. Even the first “Small Modular Reactors” to be located on Anglesey are not expected to be on line until 2036 – which means in reality 2040. By that time the battle over emissions will be won or lost.
The Green Party
Zack Polanski’s victory in the Green Party leadership election, could hardly be more welcome. He has radicalised the Green Party, doubled its membership, and opened up a discussion that is long overdue.
His contention, however, that Labour is only marginally better than the Tories – or even than Reform – is not only ludicrous but counter-productive when it comes to electoral tactics.
Polanski’s position, which ranges from “I am here to build the Green Party” to being in favour of “some form of electoral alliance with Labour and Your Paty might be possible” is far too passive. It would be a disaster if the green vote let the fascists into government. Avoiding this means either an electoral pact with Labour to keep Farage out — or a change in the electoral system to proportional representation before the election.
There is likely to be some form of electoral arrangement between the right-wing parties, the Tories and Reform, and there must be the same between the progressive parties — Labour, the Greens, the Liberal Democrats, and YP if it exists then, plus the SNP and Plaid. This should happen for the May elections, and then again for the general election.
Polanski is also – I gather from his YouTube appearances – opposed to solar farms on the basis that they destroy biodiversity when constructed on agricultural land. This is a big mistake. In my article on the Botley West I quote Chris Goodall, who is an ecological journalist and a member the Green Party, who on his blog Carbon Commentary reminds us that:
“Intensely farmed agricultural land has truly awful levels of biodiversity. Large, over-cultivated fields with few hedgerows are always terrible for nature. Unfortunately, much of the land that Botley West will use has been farmed excessively and will benefit from a switch to hosting solar panels; ploughing will stop as will the use of fertilisers and pesticides.” Goodall is right.
In any case the amount of land needed to meet net-zero by 2050 in Britain is only between 0.04 and 0.06 per cent of available land – less than is currently in use for golf courses.
Green Party members and branches, however, are heavily involved in opposition to major renewable energy projects across the country, particularly solar which is a problem that Zac Polanski needs to address. (My article supporting the Botley West solar is here.)
Exit strategy
Zac Polanski offers no exit strategy from fossil fuel other than to denounce the biggest polluters for being the biggest polluters and stopping the existing subsidies to them. This is all well and good, but what happens next? To close them down without an alternative in place is to invite opposition in defence of jobs.
The most effective way to cut carbon emissions – whist respecting social justice – is via carbon taxes, i.e. making fossil fuels more expensive than renewables as a part of a wider policy to transfer wealth from the rich to the poor. The best way of achieving this is via a fee-and-dividend scheme along the lines proposed by the renowned climate scientist James Hansen in his 2012 book Storms of My Grandchildren, where he sets his proposal out in detail.
Not in my backyard
Nimbyism is a massive problem. It is impossible to build new public strategic infrastructure in Britain – from water supply, to on-shore and off shore wind, or ground mounted solar – without organised challenges most of which are imbued with the politics of nimbyism.
A prime example is the upgrading of the national grid, the Great Grid Up-grade as it is officially known. This is a £35b project to modernise and expand the grid in order to connect multiple clean energy sources to it. It involves new substations, overhead lines, and under-sea cables, as well a new state-of-the-art control centre to manage an increasingly complex network.
Yet organised opposition is routinely mounted often by Tory, LibDem or Green Party MPs or councillors, both the new grid and the renewable energy projects themselves.
There must be proper public scrutiny of such projects, of course. But there must also be a way of eventually going ahead if that is what the majority want – particularly where nationally-important infrastructure is concerned otherwise we will have no planet to live on. (My article supporting Abingdon the reservoir can be found here)
The Botley West Solar Farm – on Blenheim Palace land and investment – will be the biggest such project in Europe. The public consultation is finished and the final decision will be taken sometime this year. It has a capacity of 840 KWs and would generate enough electricity for the whole of Oxfordshire or a city the size of Leeds. Yet it has been opposed at every stage by the local authorities involved and in particular by the Lib Dems and the Greens that are strong in the countryside.
The Greens say that whist they are not opposed to solar power in principle but everywhere is the wrong place and it is too big. Meanwhile we have a climate emergency.
Planning and Infrastructure bill
The Planning and Infrastructure bill, which had its first reading in March last year, and is currently in the House of Lords, is key to the upgrading of the national grid by 2030, and meeting net zero by 2050. It introduces the concept of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) and is designed to make it possible to take decisions on the 150 such projects proposed before the end of this Parliament.
The left is opposed to the bill – to the extent that it is aware of it. Yet its defeat would make the clean energy transition (in Britain) impossible in a time scale that meets would meet the needs of either the planet or its inhabitants.
George Monbiot, who speaks for a big section of the left on ecological issues, writing in the Guardian of April 24th 2025 described the bill as “Labour’s great nature sellout”. It would be, he said, the “worst assault on England’s ecosystems in living memory” and he goes on “the kind of anti-scientific, pro-corporate scrubbing of expertise we see in Donald Trump’s US”. Just as the US is captured by a billionaire death cult”, he says, “our government is opening the door to the same forces”.
His conclusion – that Labour is worse than the Tories when it comes to the environment – is brain-deadism. The Tories are climate deniers whist Labour has the ambition of decarbonised national grid by 2030 and reaching net zero by 2050 – even if it is doing so by internal conflict. It was ever thus.
Conclusions
The energy transition, once carried through, of course, is irreversible. If Labour is able to say at the next general election that the national grid is now upgraded and carbon free and that the economy is now running on clean and renewable energy, and is no longer vulnerable to the price of gas on internation markets the case will be very strong to vote Labour.
The left — and the far-left in particular — have a blind spot when it comes to Labour’s environmental policy from Starmer’s Liverpool speech to the work that Ed Miliband is doing, which is important both domestically and internationally when it comes to leading by example.
Those who say Labour are no different to the Tories, or even Reform UK, should think again. In fact there has seldom been more clear water between left and right in British politics than today, despite the retreats which have taken place. We should not in any case define Labour just by the retreats of its leaders, but what it has to offer in terms of the of the future of the climate emergency and indeed the planet.
The problem is that the Labour leadership routinely refuse to defend their own policy particularly when it comes to the environment. This was even the case with Starmer’s 50 minute new year interview with Lara Kuenssberg where Starmer only made a couple of passing references to the environment and Labour policy in that regard.
Labour’s energy policy is – even when the retreats are taken into account – still superior to that of any of its rivals, including the Green Party, when it comes to decarbonisation, the energy transition, and the upgrading of the national grid to make it possible.
The task for the left is not to become uncritical cheerleaders for Starmer, but to recognise that Miliband’s work creates terrain on which we can fight: building the movements capable of holding Labour to its commitments when the pressure from capital and the right intensifies, as it inevitably will.
Meanwhile we have to keep the fascists out. Whilst making the case for electoral reform we need to build a coalition of progressive forces that can stop Farage and Reform UK in their tracks both at the May 7th elections, when over 5,000 local council seats will be up for grabs and there will be elections to the Welsh Senedd and the Scottish Parliament on the same day.
We then have to repeat it at the general election which most likely be held in 2029.
Alan Thornett 18 January 2026
