Miliband is in power today and, although he’s not in Number 10, he might as well be. He’s exerting far too much control over this government, just as he did under Keir Starmer. It could end just as badly for Andy Burnham as it did for Sir Keir. Or Ed’s brother David Miliband for that matter. Anyone or anything that gets too close to Miliband’s combustible orbit gets badly burned. Now it’s happening again.

Raised by Marxists, indulged by Labour and adored by Leftie activists, Miliband is Parliament’s very own Baldrick, of whom Blackadder once said, “chaos and disaster follow like a faithful hound”. His first major political intervention was to block a joint US, UK and French raid on Syrian tyrant Bashar al-Assad’s chemical weapons stockpile in 2013, which allowed murderous attacks against civilians to continue for another five years. Even Ed’s brother David said his actions had contributed to the chaos.

Undeterred and unrepentant, Miliband went on to mangle a bacon sandwich and Labour’s electoral prospects in 2015. He returned as energy secretary in 2024, having learned just one thing from all the chaos and disaster. What the world needed was more Red Ed, not less.

His first act was to block new oil and gas drilling in the North Sea, destroying jobs and tax revenues, and forcing us to import even more gas from Norway, the US and Qatar.

Miliband also threw tens of billions at pointless quangos such as Great British Energy, and carbon capture and storage technology that’s never worked anywhere. While paying wind farms billions more to produce electricity the grid cannot use. All taht did nothing to cut global warming, but left taxpayers feeling hot under the collar. Chancellor John Healey is now unwinding all he can at top speed.

The economy dodged a volley of bullets when Burnham decided not to make Miliband chancellor. He’s now inflicting chaos and disaster as foreign secretary instead. Of all jobs, this requires diplomacy and hard-headed pragmatism. Miliband is bringing his usual mix of North London posturing and virtue-signalling.

His first big act was to pacify Gaza-obsessed lefties by turning his ire on Israel. Now he’s waded into the slavery debate, embrassing the King. Two interventions, two disasters. Israel is backing Argentina’s claim to the Falklands, while Burnham is chucking taxpayers’ cash at net zero vanity projects in the Caribbean.

Miliband is also pushing our intellectually lightweight PM to go back on his word by re-running Brexit, while pushing the disastrous Chagos Islands deal and trashing our reputation in Washington. At least Hamas is happy with him.

This is only the start. Miliband sees himself as a man on a mission. What he doesn’t realise is that his destiny is to destroy everybody around him.

He did it to his brother. He did it to Keir Starmer. And now he’s doing it to Andy Burnham. If the PM isn’t careful, he’ll end up looking like Baldrick. Burnham gave a pretty good impression of him yesterday, while playing cricket. The PM needs to put Miliband in his box before it’s too late. Sadly, I fear it already is.

Ed Miliband Just Went Haywire Again – This Could Spell Curtains for Andy Burnham

British politics has once again been thrown into turmoil as tensions within the Labour Party threaten to expose divisions that could have serious consequences for some of its most prominent figures. At the centre of the latest political storm is Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, whose latest interventions have reportedly raised eyebrows and intensified concerns about the direction of the government.

But while Miliband may be attracting much of the attention, another politician could ultimately find himself facing the biggest political consequences: Andy Burnham.

The Greater Manchester mayor has become an increasingly significant figure in Labour’s wider political conversation. His popularity among sections of the electorate, his experience in government and his ability to communicate beyond Westminster have made him a potential alternative voice within a party struggling to maintain unity.

However, the growing political tensions surrounding Miliband could make Burnham’s position considerably more complicated.

Labour entered government promising stability, economic renewal and a decisive break from the political difficulties of previous administrations. Yet governing has proved far more complicated than campaigning.

Every controversial announcement, policy disagreement and public confrontation creates another opportunity for opponents to question whether the government has a coherent long-term strategy.

And energy policy has become one of the most politically sensitive areas.

Miliband has placed clean energy at the heart of Labour’s economic and environmental ambitions. His approach involves accelerating renewable energy development, reducing dependence on fossil fuels and transforming the country’s electricity system.

Supporters argue that this is essential for Britain’s future.

They believe that investing in renewable infrastructure could create jobs, strengthen energy security and reduce the country’s exposure to unpredictable international fuel markets.

However, critics have questioned whether the government’s ambitions are realistic, particularly when households continue to struggle with the cost of living.

For millions of families, the immediate concern is not what Britain’s energy system might look like in ten years.

It is how much their next electricity bill will cost.

This difference between long-term political ambitions and everyday financial pressures has become a major challenge for Labour.

Miliband’s determination to pursue his energy agenda could therefore become a political liability if voters begin to associate the government’s approach with higher costs, uncertainty or unrealistic promises.

The opposition has already recognised the opportunity.

Conservative politicians and Reform UK figures have repeatedly attempted to portray Labour’s environmental policies as disconnected from the concerns of ordinary working people.

Their argument is straightforward: the government should prioritise affordable energy, economic growth and household finances before pursuing ambitious environmental targets.

Whether that criticism is entirely fair is another question.

Nevertheless, politics is not simply about whether a policy is technically defensible. It is also about whether voters believe it will improve their lives.

And this is where Miliband’s position becomes particularly important.

If Labour struggles to convince the public that its energy strategy is delivering tangible benefits, the political consequences could extend well beyond the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.

They could affect the government’s entire reputation.

For Andy Burnham, this creates an uncomfortable situation.

Burnham has spent years developing a political identity that combines traditional Labour values with a strong emphasis on regional investment, public services and economic opportunity.

As mayor of Greater Manchester, he has regularly presented himself as someone who understands the pressures facing communities outside Westminster.

That reputation has helped him maintain a national profile.

It has also made him an increasingly discussed figure whenever questions emerge about Labour’s leadership and future direction.

However, Burnham must be careful.

Being popular outside Westminster does not automatically translate into political influence inside the Labour Party.

The relationship between the Greater Manchester mayor and the government is particularly complicated because Burnham occupies a position that is both influential and politically exposed.

He can criticise government decisions and present alternative approaches, but he must also demonstrate that he remains committed to Labour’s overall programme.

If he appears too supportive of controversial policies, he risks damaging his reputation among voters who expect him to challenge Westminster.

If he becomes too openly critical, he risks creating the impression that he is positioning himself against the party leadership.

Neither option is particularly comfortable.

Miliband’s latest political difficulties could therefore place Burnham in an increasingly difficult position.

The problem is that Labour’s internal divisions are not necessarily limited to disagreements over energy policy.

They reflect a much wider debate about the party’s identity, its economic priorities and the kind of government it wants to become.

Some Labour figures believe the party must remain firmly committed to its green transformation agenda.

Others are concerned that the government risks alienating working-class voters if environmental policies are perceived as expensive or disconnected from everyday life.

There are also growing questions about whether Labour has successfully translated its election victory into a convincing governing strategy.

The party promised change.

But voters increasingly judge governments by results rather than promises.

For Burnham, the challenge is to establish himself as a credible voice in this debate without appearing opportunistic.

His political strength has traditionally come from his ability to speak about issues that matter to communities across northern England.

Transport, housing, employment, public services and regional inequality have all played important roles in his political identity.

These are areas where he can potentially distinguish himself from politicians whose reputations are closely associated with Westminster policy arguments.

However, energy costs affect precisely the same communities Burnham wants to represent.

Factories, small businesses and households all depend on affordable and reliable electricity.

If Labour’s energy strategy becomes a major source of public frustration, Burnham may find it increasingly difficult to avoid questions about whether he supports the government’s direction.

That could become especially problematic if political opponents succeed in making energy policy a defining issue before the next general election.

Reform UK, in particular, will be looking for opportunities to exploit dissatisfaction.

The party has attempted to position itself as an alternative for voters who feel ignored by the traditional political establishment.

Its message frequently focuses on immigration, taxation, public spending and the cost of living.

Energy policy provides another potential battleground.

If Reform can persuade voters that Labour is prioritising ideological commitments over household affordability, it could strengthen its appeal among disillusioned sections of the electorate.

The Conservatives will also seek to use the issue to rebuild their political credibility.

For Labour, the danger is that criticism from opposition parties could combine with internal disagreements to create a much larger political problem.

And Burnham could become caught in the middle.

There is another important dimension to this developing situation.

Burnham’s national ambitions, whether openly acknowledged or not, mean that almost every major disagreement within Labour is viewed through the question of who might benefit from a future leadership challenge.

Even when Burnham is not directly involved, speculation about his position can become part of the political story.

That creates additional pressure.

A politician who wants to remain influential must avoid looking as though he is waiting for the government to fail.

At the same time, someone with national ambitions cannot afford to remain completely silent when major political questions are being debated.

The balance is difficult.

Miliband, meanwhile, has his own political calculations to consider.

He has invested considerable personal and political capital in Labour’s energy transformation programme.

Abandoning its central objectives would risk undermining his credibility and creating uncertainty among businesses that have been encouraged to invest in the transition.

But refusing to acknowledge genuine public concerns could be equally damaging.

The government needs to demonstrate that environmental ambitions and economic affordability are not competing priorities.

It must show that renewable investment can deliver practical benefits, including reliable electricity, new employment opportunities and lower exposure to volatile international energy prices.

Without that evidence, the political debate will continue to be dominated by arguments about promises, targets and costs.

And this is precisely the kind of situation that opposition parties want.

The broader question is whether Labour can manage its competing priorities without allowing disagreements to develop into an open political confrontation.

Burnham’s future could depend partly on the answer.

If the government succeeds in delivering economic improvements while maintaining public confidence in its energy strategy, the mayor may find that his opportunities for national influence become more limited.

A successful government has less need for alternative leadership narratives.

However, if Labour continues to face criticism over living costs, economic performance and policy decisions, the political environment could change dramatically.

Burnham could then find himself under increasing pressure to explain what he would do differently.

That does not mean a leadership challenge is inevitable.

Political speculation should not be confused with an actual decision by party members or MPs.

But the possibility of future changes in Labour’s internal balance of power is difficult to ignore.

The party’s greatest challenge may ultimately be maintaining public confidence while managing its own competing ambitions.

For Miliband, the immediate task is to convince voters that his energy programme is practical, affordable and capable of delivering results.

For Burnham, it is to maintain his political credibility without becoming entangled in a damaging internal struggle.

Both men face difficult choices.

And the consequences could extend far beyond their individual careers.

The Labour government cannot afford to let every policy disagreement become another public demonstration of division.

It needs a clear message, consistent leadership and evidence that its decisions are improving people’s lives.

Otherwise, the opposition will continue to exploit every mistake.

Ultimately, the biggest danger for Andy Burnham may not be Ed Miliband himself.

It may be the possibility that Labour’s wider political problems leave him with no easy position to occupy.

If he defends the government’s controversial decisions, he could damage the independent image that has helped make him popular.

If he distances himself, he could intensify speculation about his ambitions and create fresh tensions with colleagues.

Either way, the political calculations are becoming increasingly complicated.

Miliband’s latest controversy may dominate the headlines for now, but the questions it raises about Labour’s priorities could have a much longer lifespan.

And if the government fails to resolve those questions, Burnham may discover that the road to national political influence is considerably more difficult than it first appeared.

The coming months will reveal whether Labour can turn its ambitious programme into visible achievements or whether internal disagreements and public frustration will continue to undermine its authority.

For now, one thing is clear: the political pressure is growing, and neither Miliband nor Burnham can afford to underestimate what comes next.