Ed Miliband is resisting pressure from Sir Keir Starmer to cut spending in his department amid a Cabinet row about how to fund defence. [some emphasis, links added]
Sources said the energy secretary was pushing back against demands to find at least 1 percent of capital budget savings within the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to help fund the long-delayed defense investment plan (DIP).
The ultimatum from No 10 could force Mr. Miliband to cut spending on net zero schemes by hundreds of millions of pounds, including support for heat pumps, carbon capture, and hydrogen production.
A 1pc cut to the capital budget of Mr Miliband’s department in the five-year spending period would amount to more than £600m.
No 10 is reportedly eyeing even larger cuts to net-zero expenditures, where £9bn alone is set to be spent on controversial carbon capture and storage — a technology that has never been commercially proven.
A Whitehall source suggested the Energy Secretary would undermine the defence investment effort if he succeeds in preventing cuts to net zero.
They told The Telegraph: “While investing in sustainability is clearly important, it is also unsustainable to leave Britain’s wind farms vulnerable to Russian attack.”
A source close to Mr. Miliband refused to be drawn in, saying: “We do not comment on speculation.”
The pushback will be seen as fresh evidence of Sir Keir’s waning authority as Labour MPs and ministers openly prepare for a leadership competition that could see the prime minister supplanted by Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Manchester.
Mr. Miliband has been supporting Mr. Burnham behind the scenes and is said to have fallen out with Sir Keir in recent weeks after telling him that he felt his position had become untenable.
The funding dispute also shines a light on the continued standoff between No 10, the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury regarding how to plug a black hole of up to £28bn in military budgets.
Addressing the shortfall in full is now seen as politically unachievable, but there is alarm at how little could be committed to defence.
Read rest at The Telegraph
