Almost 160 years after Bismarck opined that politics is the art of the possible, the UK’s government, and other UK politicians, seem to have turned his aphorism on its head. Full of hubris, the Labour Party’s 2024 general election manifesto promised (in its second of five numbered “missions”) to “[m]ake Britain a clean energy superpower to cut bills, create jobs and deliver security with cheaper, zerocarbon electricity by 2030, accelerating to net zero.”

Also (page 31) it promised to give “certainty to manufacturers by restoring the phase-out date of 2030 for new cars with internal combustion engines…”.

On page 50, still banging on about the fantasy of making Britain a clean energy superpower [sic] they claimed that their “plan will create 650,000 jobs across the country by 2030. [My emphasis – no ifs, buts or maybes – a definite claim that it will happen].

The following page offered a little more detail regarding their “clean energy” offering:

Families and businesses will have lower bills for good, from a zero-carbon electricity system….To deliver our clean power mission, Labour will work with the private sector to double onshore wind, triple solar power, and quadruple offshore wind by 2030. We will invest in carbon capture and storage, hydrogen and marine energy, and ensure we have the long-term energy storage our country needs….We will…ban fracking for good…

More hubris. Although the UK lacks a written constitution, it is a fundamental principle of our unwritten model that Parliament is supreme. How will this Labour government bind the hands of future sovereign Parliaments? Is democracy to be ended by 2029? Mind you, it has to be said that our Prime Minister does seem to be doing his best to make life difficult for his successors – why else, as part of his Brexit re-set, has he given the EU access to UK fishing waters for twelve years when they were at this stage seeking access only for four, and allowed a clause that permits the EU to impose tariffs on the UK should a future UK government seek to deny it access to our waters for fishing before 30^th June 2038?

But I digress. What else is in the manifesto? Housing – “Labour will get Britain building again, creating jobs across England, with 1.5 million new homes over the next parliament.”

We’re now around six weeks away from the first anniversary of Labour’s general election victory (on 4^th July 2024) so now might be a reasonable time to take stock. It’s fair to acknowledge that any new government needs a little time to put measures in place to achieve its obectives, but as we’re probably close to 20% of the way to the next general election, and between 15 and 20% of the way towards its 2030 date for various targets, if those targets are to be hit, then real progress should be taking place by now. How’s it going?

Energy

The big one, of course, is the “clean energy superpower” plan and the proposed “decarbonisation” of the grid by 2030. This was always going to be a tall order, as Robin Guenier has pointed out. Quite apart from the practical, financial and engineering challenge associated with the “plan”, he reminded us that:

…we don’t have enough skilled technical managers, electrical, heating and other engineers, electricians, plumbers, welders, mechanics and other skilled tradespeople required to do the multitude of tasks essential to achieve Net Zero – a problem exacerbated by the Government’s plans for massively increased house building.

Despite throwing lots of money at the Sixth Allocation Round (AR6) of the Contracts for Difference project (and trumpeting its alleged success at the time), Mr Miliband doesn’t seem to be achieving the buy-in he hoped for. Earlier this month, we had an announcement from Ørsted to the effect that it has:

…decided to discontinue the Hornsea 4 project in the UK in its current form. Since the Contract for Difference (CfD) award in allocation round 6 (AR6) in September 2024, the 2,400 MW Hornsea 4 project has seen several adverse developments relating to continued increase of supply chain costs, higher interest rates, and an increase in the risk to construct and operate Hornsea 4 on the planned timeline for a project of this scale.

In combination, these developments have increased the execution risk and deteriorated the value creation of the project. Therefore, Ørsted has taken the decision to stop further spend on the project at this time and terminate the project’s supply chain contracts, meaning that Ørsted will not deliver Hornsea 4 under the CfD awarded in AR6….

This morning, the BBC website told me that “Major solar farm proposal on pause ‘indefinitely’”. No explanation is given by the developer (a subsidiary of a Spanish company – such is the ownership of the UK’s energy infrastructure these days), whose website simply says that the project team has taken the decision to pause development of the project indefinitely. It was to have covered 675 acres, and was opposed by the local authority, but given that it was claimed that it would – actually, could, intermittently, and not a lot in the winter – “power more than 40,000 homes” it’s the sort of news that Mr Miliband can do without. Coming on the back of the Hornsea 4 failure, his objective is starting to look increasingly unachievable. Why the sudden “indefinite pause” for the solar project? In the absence of an explanation from the developer, we can only speculate. Perhaps it has something to do with the recent blackout in Iberia, which some people say was linked to over-reliance on solar energy there. Perhaps it (and the earlier decision by Ørsted with regard to Hornsea 4) is simply an attempt to pile the pressure on Mr Miliband to cough up still more cash (and possibly extend the state guarantee from 15 to 20 years) when it comes to Allocation Round 7 (AR7) later this year. When politicians insist on achieving the unachievable within a short time frame, they certainly offer a hostage to fortune. In this case Mr Miliband’s solution may have to be to offer a very large carrot. In other areas, the government appears to prefer to wield a very large stick.

Zero Emissions Vehicle Mandate

Jit’s article and the comments under it should be read to understand exactly what is going on here. Meanwhile, as existing targets for sales of EVs continue to be missed, the government in its embarrassment chose to blame Trump tariffs when announcing a relaxation of electric vehicle (EV) sales targets early last month. The BBC reported thus:

Currently, 28% of new cars sold in the UK this year must be electric, a target that will rise each year until 2030.

But manufacturers will now be given more freedom in how they meet their yearly targets – meaning if they don’t sell enough EVs in one year, they can make up for it by selling more the next year, for example.

In addition, the fine of £15,000 per vehicle sold that does not meet the latest emissions standards will be cut to £12,000.

I haven’t noticed the government amending those amended targets once it announced its more recent trade deal with the USA. It will be very interesting indeed to see its response next year, the year after, and the year after that, as we approach the end of the Parliament and the 2030 cut-off date, while EV sales will (I assume) continue to fall far short of target.

Housing

Remember the pre-election manifesto pledge to build 1.5 million homes during the current Parliament? Not all is well there either. This morning the Guardian reported that “ministers have admitted [the commitment to build 1.5 million new homes] is a challenging target.” I take issue with that – it’s not a target, it’s a manifesto commitment (“will” is the word the manifesto used). If ministers are already referring to it as a target instead, then I think we can take that as an early acknowledgement that it’s a commitment that’s not going to be honoured. So desperate is the government that (if the Guardian article is to be believed):

Developers face tens of thousands of pounds in fines if they slow down housebuilding under new powers being granted to councils…Under government proposals, housebuilders will need to commit to a timeframe for construction before they are granted planning permission, and deliver annual reports on their progress. Those who repeatedly fail to build or sit on land could be fined with a “delayed homes penalty” or blocked from future planning permission by councils….The prospective fines would be based on lost council tax revenue and could be imposed by councils on developers who fall at least 10% behind schedule without good reason. As a result, a developer who is failing to build 50 homes that would each raise £1,500 in annual council tax could face a £75,000 fine….

Heat Pumps

The Government has been a little smarter here, and has studiously avoided committing to any set number of heat pump installations in any given year or by a particular date, although as the Climate Change Committee says:

The Government projects 600,000 heat pump installations per year by 2028, up from around 35,000 last year.

It’s difficult to see how that level of heat pump installations can be achieved in that timescale. Even pv magazine (which is enthusiastic about this sort of thing) has reported that despite increased subsidies (a reversion to the carrot, rather than the stick) and despite a “record” start to the year, installations remain well short of the target:

Strong installation figures for March 2025 helped set a first-quarter record of 15,758 certified heat pump installations, beating the previous first-quarter record of 14,211 set in 2022. [Wow – up by 1,547 per quarter over three years]. March 2022 remains the busiest period for UK heat pump installations to date, with 7,775 certified installations recorded as consumers rushed to beat a subsidy scheme deadline.

The positive start to 2025 reflects a ramping up [sic] of heat pump installations in the United Kingdom, with nine of the top 10 months for certified installations occurring between May 2024 and March 2025. MCS recorded a total of 58,176 heat pump installations in 2024, a new annual record….

…Despite more generous subsidy support than comparable European markets, the pace of heat pump deployment is well below the level required to hit UK government targets. A report from the UK National Audit Office released March 2024 found uptake of the BUS subsidy had been lower than expected, and warned the government’s target of 600,000 installations per year by 2028 was “based on optimistic assumptions.”…

You can say that again. Bear in mind that the government target is hopeless in terms of achieving net zero by 2050 (with around 28 million homes in the country, at the rate of 600,000 installations a year, it’s difficult to see us all with heat pumps before 2070; but at the current rate of installation, I think we’re looking at 2450CE).

Scottish (and Northern Ireland) Government targets

In Scotland, of course, SNP politicians have long been guilty of hubris, especially when sharing power with Green politicians. Hence, when the UK set a legally binding net zero target for 2050, Scotland just had to go one better and have a 2045 target date. Three months ago, the Guardian reported that “Top officials and climate policy experts believe delays in cutting emissions make it improbable 2045 target will be met”. At the same time, the BBC reported:

Unused and wasted renewable energy will cause Northern Ireland to miss its 2030 power emissions target by more than 20%, a consultancy firm says.

The forecast, from Cornwall Insight, says a reduction of around 50% is likely, rather than the 73% aim.

It adds that almost 40% of wind energy generated in Northern Ireland in December 2024 went unused due to restrictions in the power grid.

And it expects emissions to rise in the near term, due to increasing demand and the slow expansion of renewable generation....

Energy Prices

The Labour Party manifesto, contrary to popular belief, didn’t commit to cut electricity prices by £300 per annum, though it’s fair to hold the government to that target, given that it’s a claim that was made repeatedly during the general election campaign. The manifesto, however, did promise “lower energy bills” and to “cut energy bills for good”. And, on page 50, explicitly in the context of energy policy, it did say that “We will save families hundreds of pounds on their bills, not just in the short term, but for good.” It’s not unreasonable, therefore, to expect energy bills to come down. And yet, as Jit tells us, referring to “the July-September 2024 tariff cap of £1568…the bill…needed to go down to £1268 to fulfil the promise. The present £1720 means that an additional £452 savings are necessary to achieve it.” It’s not going well. And nor will it, as the massive capital costs of, and associated with, renewables, continue to be added to our bills. I shudder to think what will happen if Mr Miliband decides he needs to throw even more money at AR7 later this year to get the foreign subsidy-sucking renewable energy companies, on whom he is completely reliant, back on board. So much for energy security.

Conclusion

There was a time when politicians (who often failed) legislated to try to make our lives better. They acted in the here and now, and generally didn’t try to tie their successors’ hands, nor did they usually believe that they had the power to achieve the unachievable by impossible dates. King Canute, when he had his throne placed on the beach and ordered the incoming tide to turn back, was seeking to ensure that sycophantic courtiers understood that that he wasn’t all-powerful. I suspect that the current crop of politicians fundamentally misunderstood his message.