If Starmer wants us to take his professed conversion to growth capitalism seriously, he should sack Ed Miliband immediately.

This is what Allister Heath writes in The Telegraph. Heath, editor of The Sunday Telegraph, is one of the most important voices in Britain. An eternal pessimist, Heath is not particularly enamoured of energy minister Miliband, whom he refers to as a “lunatic”.

The Secretary of State for Energy is the author of the dreadful Climate Change Act, a supporter of wealth taxes, and the pro-growth agenda’s public enemy number one.

The editor of one of the country’s most important newspapers believes that the energy secretary is driving the country towards economic crisis with his fanatical climate policy. In that sense, Miliband is following the same script as the Norwegian government and EUs madness in Brussel.

Miliband more than any other politician symbolises Labour’s pathological hatred of free markets. Sacking him will do more to get the economy moving again than any other gimmick the Treasury could come up with, says Heath.

Former Labour leader Miliband has, among other things, threatened to resign as a cabinet minister if a third runway at Heathrow becomes a reality. He didn’t even bother to turn up when Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves gave his speech on this and other topics on Wednesday. His vision for the UK is incompatible with the Chancellor and the Prime Minister’s desperate need to boost GDP.

Net zero fanatics, of which he is the honorary leader, want fewer of us to travel by plane. They hate cars, and oppose building the Lower Thames Crossing, another good idea that Reeves now claims to support.

Miliband’s plan to make the electricity grid greener by 2030 will paralyse Reeves’ dream of economic growth. Tech companies need cheap and plentiful energy, especially in the pursuit of artificial intelligence (AI), which is highly relevant in the post-DeepSeek era. They’re not going to find that with Miliband in government.

Starmer therefore faces massive challenges. Even he has to realise from time to time that his policies are destroying the economy.

Not least his extension to workers’ “rights”, the phasing out of North Sea oil and gas, the higher taxes on working people, the deranged profligacy, the war on private schools, the wanton destruction of standards in the state sector, and the obsession with tying everything that moves in red tape, even football clubs.

Reeves, meanwhile, is characterised by panic mode, and the relationship between Reeves and Starmer appears to be souring. Conflicts between finance ministers and prime ministers often end with the fall of the prime minister.

Finance Minister Reeves stares blankly into the abyss.

The policies she proposed this week, if realised, will be positive for the economy over the next decade, although they won’t be as transformative as some seem to think, given the scale of the economic problems.

The British are being systematically lied to by a misguided political elite

Starmer desperately needs Reeves’ newfound agenda to be realised. This could create a new mood and give the impression of some short-term and urgent victories.

He will therefore have to choose between his panic-stricken finance minister and his climate fanatic energy minister. The dream of “net zero emissions” must be abandoned if there is to be any hope of economic growth, as both Starmer and Reeves have promised this week.

Admittedly, few believe the promises, but by sacking Miliband, Starmer could create a glimmer of hope that exhausted Britons desperately need. It would be a step in the right direction, but obviously not nearly enough.

The whole green shift must be cancelled, freedom of speech restored, boat migrants stopped and Two Tier Keir abolished. Taxes must be cut, house building must begin and Heathrow must be expanded.

There is probably no hope that Reeves will cut taxes or spending, or save the City.

But the Prime Minister has one last card to play on growth: he should fire Miliband, explain that Donald Trump’s election requires a pause to net zero, and attempt to save Britain’s manufacturers.

The alternative is doom, both for Labour and the UK.