The world isn’t enough for Ed Miliband – he wants more (Image: Getty)
Ed Miliband is giving Andy Burnham nightmares. Nothing new there. He’s been giving most of the country nightmares for years. If Burnham thought he’d kept Miliband on a tight leash, he’s very much wrong. Instead, the agony is only going to intensify. Because once again, Miliband is exceeding his brief. It’s what he does. And he won’t let anyone rein him in. No wonder he’s been called “the most dangerous man in Britain”.
When Red Ed was Labour leader in 2013, he handed Tory MP David Cameron and US president Barack Obama a strategic nightmare, by voting down plans to bomb Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad’s chemical weapons stockpiles. This caused nightmares for the Syrian people too, including children, who continued to be blasted with chlorine barrel bombs and lethal sarin gas for five years, until Donald Trump spearheaded strikes in 2018.
Miliband had previously unleashed a world of pain on his own party, by plotting against his far more electable brother David to win the Labour leadership in 2010. He then lead Labour to humiliating defeat in the winnable 2015 general election. Worse, rule changes he masterminded helped hard-left firebrand Jeremy Corbyn seize control of the party, and lead it two more electoral routs in 2017 and 2019.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
As energy secretary, Miliband was a pain in the neck for Keir Starmer. His accelerated net zero charge went too far, too fast, and cost too much money. When Starmer tried to sideline him, Miliband refused to go. He then snubbed chancellor Rachel Reeves‘s efforts to rein him in. The net zero backlash helped sink Starmer. Then serial backstabber Miliband plotted against him, paving the way for Burnham.
Miliband expected to be made chancellor as reward. Which would have inflicted fresh horrors on the UK economy. Andy Burnham spotted the danger. Then slipped up. Now he’s unleashed a monster.
Burnham thought making Miliband foreign secretary might get him out of the country, and out of the way. He would also have the pleasure of watching Miliband writhe as he battled to restore his reputation with the Americans, having previously called their president a racist, misogynist, self-confessed groper. Some diplomat.
Miliband surprised many by seeming genuinely delighted to be appointed foreign secretary. Now we understand why.
Burnham thought he was boxing him in, but Miliband sees the job as a springboard to seizing still more power. He’s just attempted a “Whitehall land grab”, trying to take charge of Brexit reset negotiations, The Times reports. His motivation is obvious. To drive us back to the EU.
Incredibly, Miliband has already started holding meetings with counterparts in Paris and Madrid. Now Burnham has yanked his chain. Sources says it’s been made clear to Miliband that “the EU is not his job even if you might want it to be”.
Miliband has to content himself for being “responsible for the rest of the world”. But as we’ve seen, even the world isn’t enough for power-hungry Ed. He always wants more.
The monster is back in his cage for now. But it won’t be long before he’s out again, causing the usual chaos. Both for the Labour Party, and the country.
Ed Miliband Just Launched a Massive Power Grab — Andy Burnham Has Unleashed a Monster
Britain’s energy debate has taken on a new political dimension, with Ed Miliband’s plans to reshape the country’s energy system raising questions about the balance between central government, local authorities and the communities expected to live with the consequences. At the same time, Andy Burnham’s ambitions for greater regional autonomy have intensified a wider argument about how much power should be transferred away from Westminster.
Critics have described the direction of travel as a potential power grab, warning that expanding government control over energy, infrastructure and regional development could leave taxpayers and businesses facing difficult choices. Supporters argue that Britain’s energy transition requires coordinated planning, long-term investment and a system capable of delivering reliable, affordable electricity.
The question is whether these changes will produce a more efficient energy system or create new layers of bureaucracy and political accountability.
Miliband’s energy agenda and Burnham’s ambitions for regional government are not the same policy, but they touch on a common issue: who should make decisions that affect people’s homes, businesses and bills?
Ed Miliband’s Energy Strategy
As Energy Secretary, Miliband has championed a transition towards cleaner electricity, including renewable generation, expanded electricity networks and reduced dependence on fossil fuels. The government’s wider ambition has been to accelerate the development of low-carbon power while making the energy system more secure and less exposed to international fossil-fuel price shocks.
The argument behind this approach is that Britain needs substantial investment in generation, transmission infrastructure and storage to meet future electricity demand. Wind and solar power can reduce emissions, but their output varies with weather conditions. A reliable system therefore also needs networks, storage, flexible demand and dependable sources of electricity when renewable generation is insufficient.
Delivering this transformation involves decisions about where infrastructure should be built, how costs should be allocated and which projects should receive approval.
Those decisions can affect local landscapes, property owners, businesses and communities. Residents may support cleaner energy in principle while objecting to a particular development near their homes or questioning whether the benefits justify the disruption.
That tension is not unique to Miliband’s plans. Major infrastructure projects regularly create conflicts between national objectives and local concerns.
The government must therefore explain not only why new infrastructure is needed, but also how decisions will be made, how affected communities will be consulted and who will ultimately bear the costs.
Is Greater Government Control a Power Grab?
The phrase “power grab” is politically charged. Critics use it when they believe decision-making authority is being concentrated in the hands of ministers, central government agencies or organisations that are insufficiently accountable to the public.
In the energy sector, concerns may arise when governments change planning rules, establish new institutions, influence investment priorities or intervene more directly in how electricity is generated and supplied.
Opponents can reasonably ask whether the new arrangements will make decisions faster at the expense of local scrutiny. They may also question whether taxpayers will be exposed to financial risks if publicly supported projects become more expensive than expected.
However, government involvement does not automatically amount to an improper concentration of power. Energy networks are complex infrastructure systems, and private investment decisions alone may not deliver every connection, storage facility or long-term project needed to meet national objectives.
The important distinction is between coordination that addresses genuine problems and intervention that creates unnecessary costs or weakens accountability.
To assess Miliband’s approach fairly, the public needs specific information about the powers being introduced, the decisions they cover, the safeguards that apply and the mechanisms available to challenge poor decisions.
Without those details, the phrase “power grab” risks becoming a substitute for examining the actual policy.
Why Andy Burnham Matters to the Debate
Burnham has become a prominent advocate of giving regional leaders more influence over economic development, transport and public services. His broader argument is that decisions affecting local communities should not always be made by central government departments in London.
Supporters of devolution believe local leaders can understand regional needs more effectively and coordinate investment across transport, housing, skills and regeneration. Greater Manchester, for example, has developed a model of combined regional governance that brings together local authorities under a mayoral structure.
But devolution creates its own questions about accountability.
When powers are transferred from Westminster to regional institutions, residents need to know who is responsible for decisions and how that responsibility can be enforced. Mayors may gain greater freedom to shape local priorities, but they must also explain how spending is financed and how disagreements with constituent councils are resolved.
The concern raised by critics is that transferring power does not necessarily mean transferring it directly to ordinary residents. In some circumstances, authority may simply move from national politicians to regional leaders and executive bodies.
That is why devolution must be accompanied by transparent budgets, effective scrutiny and meaningful public consultation.
Burnham’s approach should be judged by whether it improves local decision-making and produces better outcomes, rather than by the number of powers transferred.
Energy Bills Remain the Central Concern
For households, the political argument becomes particularly important when it affects the cost of electricity and heating.
Energy bills are influenced by multiple factors, including wholesale prices, network charges, policy costs, supplier arrangements and the costs of maintaining a secure electricity system. No single government announcement can explain every change in household bills.
Renewable energy can reduce exposure to volatile fossil-fuel prices, but building new generation and upgrading electricity networks require substantial investment. The timing and allocation of those costs matter.
If infrastructure costs are spread across electricity bills, some households may face greater pressure. If costs are met through general taxation, the burden is distributed differently. Public guarantees and subsidies can also transfer risks between private investors and taxpayers.
These choices should be made transparently.
Miliband’s supporters argue that continued dependence on international gas markets leaves Britain vulnerable to sudden price increases and geopolitical shocks. Critics question whether the pace and design of the transition could create additional costs or undermine reliability if replacement capacity and networks are not delivered quickly enough.
The practical test is whether the energy system can provide reliable electricity at a cost households and businesses can afford while meeting the country’s environmental objectives.
That requires realistic timetables, transparent cost estimates and contingency planning for periods when renewable output is low.
Who Should Decide Where New Infrastructure Goes?
The expansion of Britain’s energy infrastructure creates a difficult balance between national need and local consent.
A new transmission line may be important for connecting renewable electricity to homes and businesses, but the route can affect residents, landowners and local environments. A new wind project may support national energy objectives while generating disagreement in the communities where it is proposed.
Central government can help coordinate projects that cross regional boundaries. Local authorities can provide knowledge of local conditions and community priorities. Independent regulators can assess technical and economic questions, while public consultation can identify concerns that might otherwise be overlooked.
No single level of government possesses all the information needed to make every decision well.
The strongest arrangements are likely to be those that clearly allocate responsibilities, require decisions to be justified and give affected communities a meaningful opportunity to challenge proposals.
If ministers override local objections, they should explain why the national interest requires that decision. If projects are delayed, authorities should explain the consequences and consider whether better consultation or alternative designs could resolve the dispute.
The objective should be effective decision-making, not simply concentrating authority in one place.
The Financial Risks of Major Energy Projects
Large infrastructure programmes can bring economic benefits, but they also expose governments and investors to financial risks.
Construction costs may rise, projects may encounter delays and technological assumptions may change. Interest rates, supply-chain pressures and shortages of skilled workers can all affect the final price.
Public support may sometimes be necessary to encourage investment in infrastructure that would not otherwise be delivered at the required scale. But public guarantees and subsidies should be assessed carefully because they can transfer financial risks to taxpayers.
The government should publish clear information about project costs, expected benefits and the circumstances under which additional public money might be required.
It should also explain how competing priorities will be balanced. Energy infrastructure may be essential, but households also depend on investment in healthcare, transport, education and other public services.
A programme that delivers long-term benefits can still be poorly managed if it ignores affordability in the short term.
That is why scrutiny matters even when the underlying objective enjoys broad support.
Devolution and the Accountability Gap
Burnham’s wider agenda raises a related question: what happens when regional leaders gain more power over spending and infrastructure?
Supporters argue that devolution can make government more responsive. Local leaders may be better placed to identify transport bottlenecks, coordinate housing development and direct investment towards areas that have struggled to attract economic opportunities.
Yet regional government can also become difficult for residents to navigate when responsibilities are divided between councils, mayors, national departments and specialist agencies.
If a project fails, the public should be able to identify who made the decision. If costs rise, there should be clear responsibility for explaining why. And if residents disagree with a policy, they should have effective democratic routes through which to challenge it.
Devolution should not become a system in which every institution can blame another.
The same principle applies to national energy policy. Ministers should remain accountable for the choices they make, even when delivery is delegated to regulators, network operators or regional bodies.
The question is not whether Britain needs central coordination or local autonomy. It is how to combine the two without creating confusion over responsibility.
A Political Clash Over Britain’s Future
The debate surrounding Miliband and Burnham reflects a broader disagreement about the role of government in shaping the economy.
One side emphasises national coordination, public investment and the need to overcome barriers that markets may not resolve quickly enough. The other stresses the risks of centralised decision-making, rising costs and reduced freedom for individuals, businesses and local communities.
Both sets of concerns deserve examination.
Markets can provide investment and innovation, but they do not automatically resolve every infrastructure problem. Government can coordinate long-term development, but it can also make expensive mistakes or underestimate local objections.
The relevant questions are practical: what problem is a policy intended to solve, what powers are necessary to solve it, what safeguards prevent abuse and how will success be measured?
Those questions matter more than political labels.
The Final Test Is What Happens to the Public
Miliband’s energy strategy and Burnham’s support for greater regional autonomy raise important questions about how Britain should govern major changes to its economy and infrastructure.
The accusation of a “massive power grab” captures critics’ concerns about expanding state influence, but it does not settle whether individual measures are justified. That requires examining the legislation, financial commitments, decision-making arrangements and safeguards involved.
For households, the priorities are straightforward: reliable energy, manageable bills, effective public services and confidence that decisions are being made in the public interest.
For businesses, predictable rules and dependable infrastructure are essential to investment and employment. For communities, consultation and accountability matter when national projects affect local lives.
Miliband’s plans should therefore be judged by their costs, reliability and measurable results. Burnham’s devolution agenda should be assessed by whether it brings decisions closer to communities without making responsibility less clear.
Britain faces genuine challenges in modernising its energy system and improving regional economic opportunities. Meeting those challenges will require government action, private investment and public scrutiny.
The crucial issue is not whether ministers or mayors should possess more power in the abstract. It is whether the powers they receive are necessary, proportionate and subject to effective democratic accountability.
That is the debate the public needs: not simply who controls the system, but whether the system delivers reliable services, fair costs and decisions that people can understand and challenge.