Britain is baking. According to YouGov, about seven in ten acknowledge climate change is the main instigator of the June heatwaves – a belief that does not, however, translate into a greater willingness to do more to combat it.
The cost of living is still consuming our politics. Even would-be Green voters say drilling for oil in the North Sea is not a bad shout. But will the UK’s next chancellor of the Exchequer agree?
Ed Miliband is the clear favourite to replace Rachel Reeves after Andy Burnham becomes prime minister. Yet exclusive polling from Merlin Strategy for the think tank Looking for Growth exposes a public worry from even Labour’s own voters about the net zero minister.
Just one in five 2024 Labour voters say they have no worries about Miliband becoming chancellor. More than a third, meanwhile, say he would be too pro-net zero or that “he won’t cut energy bills”. Ten per cent say he would increase borrowing, while 11 per cent say he would “raise taxes on me”.
All parts of that Labour base are worried about Miliband not cutting energy bills, including more than a fifth of 2024 Labour voters who now back the Greens.
Voters overwhelmingly want their government to prioritise cutting costs for businesses and households over net zero. When asked to choose between the two, they prefer cutting costs by a margin of four to one – 79 per cent to 21 per cent. Even three quarters of Labour voters who have moved to the Greens support cutting energy bills over carbon emissions. It’s two thirds among people aged between 18-24, and 85 per cent among those between 35-44. Other pollsters that include undecideds show similar margins.
The co-founder of Looking for Growth, Lawrence Newport, is forthright about what the responses tell us: “The public is almost entirely unanimous: the government must get bills down immediately, even at the expense of increased emissions. To be truly placed first, Andy Burnham must prioritise cutting energy costs for businesses and households across Britain.”
Burnham is taking over a government perceived as both too ideological on net zero and too indifferent to households struggling with the cost of living.
Few voters say they feel a positive material change to their circumstances as a consequence of the Labour government. Of Keir Starmer’s policy decisions, the one they remember most is his move to withdraw winter fuel support in the opening months of his administration.
According to More in Common, 39 per cent of voters think Burnham ought to be free to set his own policies and tax. Just 35 per cent say he ought to stick to the Starmer manifesto. If Burnham wants to change the course of this Labour government, voters won’t stop him.
Commissioned by Looking for Growth, Merlin Strategy surveyed 1,000 voters that voted for Labour in 2024 on 2 and 3 July.
[Further reading: Ed Balls: Burnham cannot miss this chance to tackle regional inequality]
Content from our partners
Related
Join the debate
Subscribe here to commentIt’s absolutely stunning the way the public has bought into / been brainwashed by the fossil fuel industry trope that more drilling in the North Sea will bring down prices. It won’t, and even if it went ahead there would be no results of any kind for a decade. That’s hardly “immediate action on energy prices”.
The absolutely fastest way to reduce prices is to expand renewables as quickly as possible. And the best way to get the public on-side is to decouple electricity prices from gas, which is now a total absurdity.
Couldn’t agree more about the brainwashing. The reality is that the more renewables we have on the system then the more often it will be a wind or solar farm that is the marginal generator setting the half-hourly price. And the fewer half-hours when expesnive gas sets the price. Two things need to happen:
1) We should give the new North Sea licences ASAP and get that red herring off the table. People will see no change in their energy bills, but the truth will be out there and the running political sore of Aberdeen jobs will disappear.
2) We need to revisit the electricity trading arrangements, as John Woods suggests, to take out the malign and economically unnecessary effect of gas plant setting prices. The Tories initiated a review in 2022 which might have achieved this, but the issue was ducked by Labour in large part by lobbying from renewable generators that feared the disruptive effect on investor confidence from a major change to fundamental market operation. But given that investment has been strangled anyway by high debt prices now would be as good a time as many to grasp the nettle and introduce a system that works for both investors and consumers.
Incidentally – and to correct John Woods’ suggestions of Tory malfeasance :) – the current electricity trading arrangement were introduced by a Labour government back in 2001. A lot has changes in 25 years and maybe these arrangements should too.
There is a short term and a long term solution to the cost of energy problem. Short term is to fix a price for energy which excludes the price of gas fuelled power stations. If necessary the current contracts should be renegotiated. It is ridiculous that the unit price for energy is the highest unit price for a small percentage of the total output. I can only assume it was the Tories who negotiated these contracts.
The long term requires the reintroduction of FIT payments of 10p per KWh for domestic and industrial solar installations. The domestic Feed in Tariff could be surrendered to pay for the installation if the home owner cannot raise the capital cost. It is reputed that Britain enjoys 70% of the wind power that blows across Europe. Local groups should be incentivised to install wind turbines which would generate sufficient electricity to power the local homes and businesses in normal times. Batteries could be used to collect surplus electricity during periods of high winds. Backup by the National Grid would be required. A report in today’s papers (14 July 2026) states that a complete wind system was required to be shut down because the National Grid’s capacity was exceeded. I appreciate that the Tory administration which was elected to govern us in 2010 saw no need to build prisons, upgrade the National Grid, continue the FIT payment system, continue the Child Trust Fund system, build reservoirs, and possibly a thousand other infrastructure projects. However, even the average Tory voter has a limit and s/he stayed at home during election day in 2024.
Possible the most craven and obvious push poll since Bernard Woolley got tied up in knots by Sir Humphry.
If Burnham wants to change the course of this Labour government, voters won’t stop him. They won’t have a choice without a general election.
Are you suggesting that we should have a general election for Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak and Theresa May?
The way the survey results are presented in this article is appallingly biased. The survey questions are the textbook definition of (bad) leading questions designed to elicit answers that appear to support the point of view of their sponsor (although a careful interpretation reveals they cannot, because of bad design).
First, asking someone what their biggest concern with Milliband is says nothing about whether they like or dislike Milliband. I may think Milliband is the best possible chancellor and still have some slight concerns. By definition, one of them is the biggest. So the conclusion in the article title is simply wrong.
The second question is about prioritising between two policy objectives: energy bills and emissions reduction. The order of prioritisation says nothing about an assumed trade-off which the article (not the people surveyed) created. It is entirely possible that one thinks the priority is the cost of living (especially when forced to choose one), and that this is best achieved with policies that don’t affect energy emissions. So overall, quite a disappointing and biased article from New Statesman pushing for a specific policy with zero evidence to support it.