The Westminster Whistleblower Trying to Warn People about the Coming Energy Crisis
Unique testimony from ex-parliamentary researcher James McSweeney.
When former parliamentary researcher James McSweeney approached an unnamed minister about a significant problem concerning the UK’s energy supply, he was met with a reaction he did not expect.
You see, James, whose job it was to research and create briefings for ministers, noticed there was a dramatic decline in our “dispatchable energy” capacity—sources (gas, natural gas, oil) that can be relied upon at any moment.
Supply and demand lines were converging, presenting a very credible risk of blackouts. But when he raised the issue, the minister laughed, deferring the matter to regular procedural channels.
James was astonished. Noting the complete lack of accountability, a brutal reality dawned on him:
“I kind of came to the conclusion that, oh my gosh, no one is actually thinks it's their job to take to pay attention to this issue. So, that sent me into a bit of a panic.
It was a sort of penny drop moment that the British state doesn't have these kind of behind closed doors sensible adults in the room experts, who are looking into things, at all.”
This was most recently exemplified in 2022 when our National Grid issued an emergency appeal to Belgium to keep Britain's lights on. An oversight that led us to pay an all-time high of £9,724 per megawatt-hour (MWh).
For context, for the second quarter of this year, the average wholesale electricity price in Europe was €60 per MWh, or £49.77 per MWh. Talk about a fleecing.
Drawing on his years navigating the shadowy, soulless corridors of Whitehall, James says there are several reasons for this.
The Evolution of MPs: Prioritising Optics Over Policy
A big issue lies in the incentives driving MPs. Rather than scrutinising complex policies, many focus on generating clicks on social media or newsletters to bolster their standing in the press.
Large renewable projects, often inefficient and expensive, gain traction because they allow MPs to rave about local job creation. Another aspect, of course, involves the positive publicity associated with tackling the “climate crisis”.
There’s also a selection issue. A former very senior civil servant, with decades of experience, told James there was a seismic shift in the type of people entering politics.
Following the introduction of cameras in the House of Commons, the once-quiet chamber—where MPs focused more on policy—transformed into a stage for those eager to pose as “mini-celebrities.”
It created a new breed of MPs—ones far more interested in their public image than gritty governance. They’re more concerned with being in front of the camera. It’s soundbite over substance.
Legislative Complexity: A System Designed to Obscure
Westminster’s legislative process often feels like a poor joke, with laws so dense that even those voting on them rarely know what they contain. Remember Nancy Pelosi’s “pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it” remark.
Clocking in at 500 pages, Rishi Sunak’s Energy Act 2023 included a little-noticed provision allowing the government to remotely switch off electricity in homes that use smart meters and appliances.
It essentially gave government the power to control our energy usage at the flick of a switch. And most MPs who voted for the bill probably never read it—or even knew it was there. Even net-zero sceptics likely waved it through.
The sheer volume and complexity of legislation make proper scrutiny nearly impossible. Reading and analysing every bill would be a full-time job in itself, and MPs simply don’t have the time, resources, or staff to do it.
Obviously, there are a few diligent MPs who flag concerns. But even when warnings are raised, bills still pass. Why? Because MPs are neither incentivised nor held directly and quickly accountable for the details they miss.
The Westminster press corps plays its part. Modern political journalism operates more like a "gossip factory," rewarding those who tweet rumours rather than those who laboriously scrutinise policy line by line.
The speed of the news cycle naturally compounds the problem. In-depth reporting on legislative details rarely gets the return on investment needed to justify the effort. It’s one big, messy race for clicks and advertisement revenue.
Net-Zero Policy: Ambition Without Feasibility
The UK’s commitment to achieving net-zero electricity generation by 2035 underpins much of its energy strategy. Yet, as too many of us know, issues riddle the plan, rendering most, if not all, benefits redundant (especially when you recall China’s pumping of nearly 12 billion metric tonnes of CO2 into the air every year).
A recent report by the National Energy System Operator (NESO) outlined the steps needed to achieve this target, including transitioning to electric heat pumps and vehicles while simultaneously reducing energy consumption by 20%.
Such goals rely on unrealistic assumptions, such as implementing “demand-side response” measures. Something that includes reducing energy use during peak periods through price surges and rationing.
These measures will also inevitably and disproportionately affect lower-income households, as they wrestle between warmth and affordability. Elites will buy backup generators or pay the higher rates.
Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, Ed Miliband, recently sought guidance from the NESO on the transition, marking the first genuine opportunity for the NESO leadership to be honest.
Instead, NESO—led by its aptly named CEO, Fintan Slye—produced a report brimming with assumptions. They essentially hedge their bets with vague language, acknowledging the challenges while suggesting that success was technically “possible.”
Translation: they gave responsibility straight back to Miliband. Someone who wouldn’t dare divulge the risks associated with pursuing such an agenda so ruthlessly.
Put plainly, our net-zero plan rests on assumptions so detached from reality that even the experts tasked with implementing it are passing the buck rather than confronting its flaws.
The Role of Lobbyists and Industry Influence
Behind the scenes, the renewable energy industry influences government and policymaking, creating an environment where long-term public interest takes a backseat to short-term personal and political gains.
According to James, this influence operates through three key channels: academic, direct economic, and indirect strategic. Each of these represent distinct mechanisms through which industry can exert a degree of control.
Renewable energy companies, ironically enough, have found an effective way to neutralise critics: funding right-wing think tanks. Organisations like Octopus Energy have funded groups that would typically oppose Net Zero policies1.
By controlling the narrative from within, they can protect their interests—leaving the public with the impression of widespread consensus on strategies that might otherwise face robust criticism.
The second avenue of influence lies in direct financial ties between industry and government officials. Chris Skidmore, a Conservative MP and former energy minister, is a case in point.
During his parliamentary career, Skidmore persistently championed carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies, frequently lauding them as critical to Britain’s energy aims.
In September 2022, Skidmore was even appointed to lead the UK’s Net Zero Review. His resulting report, published in January 2023, highly recommended advancing CCS as part of the UK’s climate strategy.
Just weeks before that same report’s release, however, journalist Rachel Magee discovered Skidmore had accepted an £80,000-per-year consulting role with a carbon capture company.
He registered the interest 25 days after the report’s publication and maintained that he followed all relevant rules. Last June, The Guardian reported Skidmore now has three jobs in the “clean” energy industry, taking home £200k+ per year.
The third form is less direct but equally significant, involving strategic investments that align with political policies and stakeholders. Take David Miliband, brother of Secretary of State Ed Miliband.
David is affiliated with Giant Ventures, a London-based venture capital firm specialising in green technology. One of Giant Ventures’ investments is Field Energy, a battery storage company.
Field Energy, backed by Giant Ventures since its founding in 2021, is developing several battery storage sites in the UK to support renewable infrastructure. The company purchased one of their largest sites to date in County Durham last month.
Conveniently, these projects stand to rake in substantial profits, first for Field Energy, then Giant Ventures, and then Ed Miliband’s brother David as a paid advisor to Giant Ventures—none of which was disclosed to the British public.
McSweeney’s Final Warning
The UK’s energy crisis results from years of neglect, unrealistic ambitions, and misplaced priorities. MPs are more interested in their public profiles. Industry lobbyists push profitable yet impractical solutions. And the media constantly prioritises speed over substance.
As we edge closer to inevitable blackouts—if we indeed continue to follow the aggressive push toward “carbon neutrality”— the question isn’t if the wheels will come off but when.
Toward the end of his interview, James eloquently said:
“(If abandoning Net Zero electricity by 2035) Labour would have to say that the biggest part of their kind of growth policy platform is undoable. And I can't see them doing that easily, so I think we'll actually have to hit a catastrophic, like, event, for that to happen.
And said catastrophic event, if it were a series of localised blackouts or worst, if it were like a full blackout, that would kill people. Boilers would cease to function. Obviously, heat pumps would cease to function. It would happen in winter. It would be chaos. People would die.
And I really think everyone who's nudged this along, every expert who was in a position to point this out and hasn't for the sake of covering their job, is likely to have blood on their hands in the next couple of years.
It's really quite it's hard for me to fathom how un-public spirited a lot of the people who've ended up in charge of these institutions are.”
You can watch a full clip here:
I highly recommend reading McSweeney’s articles in the Critic; here on renewable energy expenses, here on the future of energy policy, and here on energy planning.
Do you think if things stay the way they are our best days are ahead of us?
Are you going to sit down and watch as our media parrot narratives that lead to yet more invasive, authoritarian, censorious policy?
If you want to do something today to help change it, you can opt for a paid subscription and help citizen journalists like me attempting to stop it… for about the same price per month as a coffee.
I did search for who Octopus funds but the private company does not openly disclose donations so I’m taking James’ insider knowledge here at face value.
It is so damn scary - the politicians know absolutely nothing about the departments they are in charge of and the civil servants no longer care about any of it. The media lost all respectability during the Brexit years (hysterical finger-pointing is not civilised discussion and debate). The people in charge everywhere have the expertise, knowledge and experience of teenagers. There are no adults in any rooms. There will be mass unemployment, mass civil unrest, many avoidable deaths, no electricity, no petroleum-based products, no more government borrowing (who's going to lend to a country that is no better than a third world, chaos-driven mess?) so no more welfare. People need to wake up now and start refusing to participate - by the time the power gets turned off it will be too late for a civilised debate on whether the climate is changing and whether CO2 is bad or any other the other stupid topics the idiots believe in.
It takes 25 YEARS for most energy sources to start actually contributing to energy production, this includes wind turbines and nuclear power. Solar energy is better but nobody knows how long the solar panels will actually last.
Net zero is insanity until you recognise that WE are made of carbon and WE are the zero these elites want.
They talk about rising sea levels but ignore the TONS of concrete poured into the oceans to stabilise the wind turbines.
They talk about carbon capture ONLY so that the elites can fly in their private jets to climate conferences, carbon capture is basically chopping down trees and burying them.