Maurice Cousins is the campaigner director at Net Zero Watch
Britain has some of the highest industrial electricity prices in the developed world. If we want to raise living standards, attract investment, rebuild our industrial base and restore some confidence in the country’s economic future, bringing down the cost of energy has to be Westminster’s top priority.
It was therefore encouraging to see the centre-right think tank Onward recently publish a serious attempt to address nearly two decades of bad energy policymaking.
The report was written by Ed Hezlet, a highly respected energy analyst, and includes detailed independent modelling by Transira Energy of the full system costs of continuing along the current policy direction. It then considers what might happen under an alternative system that places greater weight on affordability and firm power. Onward argues that their Alternative Power Plan could save consumers £320 billion over 20 years, or the equivalent of £540 per household per year.
Following the launch, the report attracted considerable attention in the media, not least because it was endorsed by the Conservatives’ leadership team of Kemi Badenoch, Claire Coutinho and Andrew Bowie. Inevitably, it also attracted criticism from the usual quarters, including the renewable energy lobby and climate campaigners.
But it was the response from senior Reform Party figures and some of their supporters online that interested me most, because it raises a wider question for the right-of-centre. At what point do we stop arguing about who was responsible for Net Zero and start arguing about how Britain gets out of the mess we are now in?
Richard Tice, the deputy leader of Reform and the party’s energy spokesperson, has made two objections to the announcement.
The first is that Onward’s proposals do not go far enough. There is a fair argument here. Indeed, Onward itself says that its plan is “not an idealised view of the world” and that more work is needed on electricity market reform and infrastructure costs if Britain is going to bring its energy prices properly into line with international competitors.
But the second objection from Tice is different. It is that the Conservatives created this problem and therefore have no credibility in proposing solutions to it now.
There is certainly truth in the first part of that charge. Between 2010-2024, Conservative governments made serious mistakes on energy. There is no point rewriting recent history or pretending that decisions taken by successive Conservative governments played no part in the position Britain finds itself in today. Indeed, both Coutinho and Badenoch have said they take responsibility for this as a party and that they are prepared to hold their hands up. This makes a rather refreshing change from the usual buckpassing within Westminster.
However, if you are an energy realist and supporter of economic freedom, freezing the debate at the level of historical blame does not settle the policy question we face right now.
With the benefit of hindsight, I think there is a deeper truth that those of us who have consistently opposed the old cross-party consensus must acknowledge. Net Zero was a collective political failure. Many words have been written about the ideological capture behind the agenda, the unbalanced media debate and the failure of policymakers to confront the full evidential picture, particularly on system costs and domestic energy security. This left voters with an incomplete picture of the energy system and obscured the economic and security costs of Britain going “further and faster” than other countries on decarbonisation.
However, far less has been discussed about the role played by indifference and distraction, including amongst those who are now among Net Zero’s strongest critics.
Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party manifesto in 2019 did not mention Net Zero, nor was abandoning it made a condition of the party’s decision to stand aside in Conservative-held seats. Farage refused to take part during Channel 4’s climate change debate. And senior figures who have subsequently joined Reform as MPs, including Suella Braverman and Robert Jenrick, enthusiastically supported the policy framework between 2019-2024.
Certainly, Brexit and Corbynism dominated political attention at the time, but I still find it shocking how decisions with profound long-term consequences for Britain’s energy system and national security passed with remarkably little scrutiny.
There is also a further problem with turning this into an argument about individuals.
In 2019, Badenoch was one of just two MPs to raise objections when the Net Zero target was introduced (Coutinho was not yet an MP). She campaigned against “unilateral economic disarmament” in her first tilt at the leadership in 2022.
Yes, as Energy Secretary, Coutinho later spoke positively about Net Zero and expanding renewables, but along with Rishi Sunak she started the process of unwinding the cross-party consensus in 2023. And she has since explained that she did not then have the full comparative analysis that demanded from officials showing the full system costs that are available now. Since the election, she has been one of the most effective Parliamentarians on this issue. Anyone who has spoken to her or listened to her speeches does not doubt her sincerity.
But for me there is a more important principle of British parliamentary democracy at stake here. In our system, reasoned political debate relies on our political class being willing to revise their conclusions when new facts emerge, better arguments are made or circumstances change. Our parliamentary system thrives off scrutiny, challenge and correction.
It does not serve national interest when politicians – whether Conservative, Reform or Labour – feel trapped by every single position they have ever taken. Indeed, if changing your mind is always treated as a display of weakness or hypocrisy, the incentive is to defend bad policy long after the evidence has turned against it.
Moreover, it would also be a very strange standard to impose on modern politicians. Some of Britain’s greatest political figures, including Winston Churchill, Keith Joseph and Margaret Thatcher, revised major positions throughout their careers. In Churchill’s case, some of those changes followed numerous disastrous errors of judgement – including the Dardanelles campaign during World War 1, his decision to return Britain to the Gold Standard and his complacency about imperial defence in East Asia while Chancellor in the 1920s.
The proper question, therefore, for all politicians who are determined to fix our country is not whether every statement they have ever made is consistent with what they say today. It is whether the argument they are advancing is sound.
We are already halfway through this Parliament and Labour is implementing its disastrous energy and climate agenda at pace. Investment decisions, contracts and infrastructure commitments are being made as we speak. Reversing all of this will be no easy task.
That is why the national policy argument must move rapidly on to solutions. Continuing to litigate which opposition politician bears the greatest historical responsibility for Net Zero risks distracting from what the present Government is doing and, more importantly, denies voters the serious competition of ideas desperately needed to produce better policy. The only winners from keeping the debate frozen at the level of historical blame – whether now or during an election campaign – are the greedy rent-seekers and green ideologues who benefit from the status quo.
As Tony Benn once said, “issues not personalities” are what matter in politics. Britain is entering the 2030s with expensive energy, weak industrial capacity and growing demands on the electricity system. We do so against a backdrop of renewed great power competition and the AI revolution. By the next election, voters will need more than another argument about who was to blame. They will need credible plans for what comes next. The pressure should now be on both the Conservatives and Reform to produce them.
Maurice Cousins is the campaigner director at Net Zero Watch
Britain has some of the highest industrial electricity prices in the developed world. If we want to raise living standards, attract investment, rebuild our industrial base and restore some confidence in the country’s economic future, bringing down the cost of energy has to be Westminster’s top priority.
It was therefore encouraging to see the centre-right think tank Onward recently publish a serious attempt to address nearly two decades of bad energy policymaking.
The report was written by Ed Hezlet, a highly respected energy analyst, and includes detailed independent modelling by Transira Energy of the full system costs of continuing along the current policy direction. It then considers what might happen under an alternative system that places greater weight on affordability and firm power. Onward argues that their Alternative Power Plan could save consumers £320 billion over 20 years, or the equivalent of £540 per household per year.
Following the launch, the report attracted considerable attention in the media, not least because it was endorsed by the Conservatives’ leadership team of Kemi Badenoch, Claire Coutinho and Andrew Bowie. Inevitably, it also attracted criticism from the usual quarters, including the renewable energy lobby and climate campaigners.
But it was the response from senior Reform Party figures and some of their supporters online that interested me most, because it raises a wider question for the right-of-centre. At what point do we stop arguing about who was responsible for Net Zero and start arguing about how Britain gets out of the mess we are now in?
Richard Tice, the deputy leader of Reform and the party’s energy spokesperson, has made two objections to the announcement.
The first is that Onward’s proposals do not go far enough. There is a fair argument here. Indeed, Onward itself says that its plan is “not an idealised view of the world” and that more work is needed on electricity market reform and infrastructure costs if Britain is going to bring its energy prices properly into line with international competitors.
But the second objection from Tice is different. It is that the Conservatives created this problem and therefore have no credibility in proposing solutions to it now.
There is certainly truth in the first part of that charge. Between 2010-2024, Conservative governments made serious mistakes on energy. There is no point rewriting recent history or pretending that decisions taken by successive Conservative governments played no part in the position Britain finds itself in today. Indeed, both Coutinho and Badenoch have said they take responsibility for this as a party and that they are prepared to hold their hands up. This makes a rather refreshing change from the usual buckpassing within Westminster.
However, if you are an energy realist and supporter of economic freedom, freezing the debate at the level of historical blame does not settle the policy question we face right now.
With the benefit of hindsight, I think there is a deeper truth that those of us who have consistently opposed the old cross-party consensus must acknowledge. Net Zero was a collective political failure. Many words have been written about the ideological capture behind the agenda, the unbalanced media debate and the failure of policymakers to confront the full evidential picture, particularly on system costs and domestic energy security. This left voters with an incomplete picture of the energy system and obscured the economic and security costs of Britain going “further and faster” than other countries on decarbonisation.
However, far less has been discussed about the role played by indifference and distraction, including amongst those who are now among Net Zero’s strongest critics.
Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party manifesto in 2019 did not mention Net Zero, nor was abandoning it made a condition of the party’s decision to stand aside in Conservative-held seats. Farage refused to take part during Channel 4’s climate change debate. And senior figures who have subsequently joined Reform as MPs, including Suella Braverman and Robert Jenrick, enthusiastically supported the policy framework between 2019-2024.
Certainly, Brexit and Corbynism dominated political attention at the time, but I still find it shocking how decisions with profound long-term consequences for Britain’s energy system and national security passed with remarkably little scrutiny.
There is also a further problem with turning this into an argument about individuals.
In 2019, Badenoch was one of just two MPs to raise objections when the Net Zero target was introduced (Coutinho was not yet an MP). She campaigned against “unilateral economic disarmament” in her first tilt at the leadership in 2022.
Yes, as Energy Secretary, Coutinho later spoke positively about Net Zero and expanding renewables, but along with Rishi Sunak she started the process of unwinding the cross-party consensus in 2023. And she has since explained that she did not then have the full comparative analysis that demanded from officials showing the full system costs that are available now. Since the election, she has been one of the most effective Parliamentarians on this issue. Anyone who has spoken to her or listened to her speeches does not doubt her sincerity.
But for me there is a more important principle of British parliamentary democracy at stake here. In our system, reasoned political debate relies on our political class being willing to revise their conclusions when new facts emerge, better arguments are made or circumstances change. Our parliamentary system thrives off scrutiny, challenge and correction.
It does not serve national interest when politicians – whether Conservative, Reform or Labour – feel trapped by every single position they have ever taken. Indeed, if changing your mind is always treated as a display of weakness or hypocrisy, the incentive is to defend bad policy long after the evidence has turned against it.
Moreover, it would also be a very strange standard to impose on modern politicians. Some of Britain’s greatest political figures, including Winston Churchill, Keith Joseph and Margaret Thatcher, revised major positions throughout their careers. In Churchill’s case, some of those changes followed numerous disastrous errors of judgement – including the Dardanelles campaign during World War 1, his decision to return Britain to the Gold Standard and his complacency about imperial defence in East Asia while Chancellor in the 1920s.
The proper question, therefore, for all politicians who are determined to fix our country is not whether every statement they have ever made is consistent with what they say today. It is whether the argument they are advancing is sound.
We are already halfway through this Parliament and Labour is implementing its disastrous energy and climate agenda at pace. Investment decisions, contracts and infrastructure commitments are being made as we speak. Reversing all of this will be no easy task.
That is why the national policy argument must move rapidly on to solutions. Continuing to litigate which opposition politician bears the greatest historical responsibility for Net Zero risks distracting from what the present Government is doing and, more importantly, denies voters the serious competition of ideas desperately needed to produce better policy. The only winners from keeping the debate frozen at the level of historical blame – whether now or during an election campaign – are the greedy rent-seekers and green ideologues who benefit from the status quo.
As Tony Benn once said, “issues not personalities” are what matter in politics. Britain is entering the 2030s with expensive energy, weak industrial capacity and growing demands on the electricity system. We do so against a backdrop of renewed great power competition and the AI revolution. By the next election, voters will need more than another argument about who was to blame. They will need credible plans for what comes next. The pressure should now be on both the Conservatives and Reform to produce them.