Miliband made a statement in the Commons about the Government’s climate ambitions
Watch as Reform UK MP Lee Anderson repeats the same “really simple” question six times to Energy Secretary Ed Miliband during a frosty showdown in the House of Commons.
After the insurgent party’s chief whip asked his initial question and the microphone leaves him, he can be heard in the distance repeating his initial query on six occasions as he demanded an answer from Miliband.
“The statement from the Energy Secretary sounded like a desperate attempt to save his own job”, he said.
“But he’s right. The British people do need saving. They need saving from the Energy Secretary.
The pair locked horns in the Commons
PARLIAMENT
“Businesses I visit every single week say his madcap ideas are killing growth, killing business and killing jobs.
“But I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt if he answers one simple question which he has already refused to answer.
“How much would the Earth’s temperature reduce by if the UK became net zero tomorrow? Simple question. Simple answer.”
Miliband’s response left Anderson with more questions than answers as he proceeded to interrupt on several occasions.
Ed Miliband told Anderson ‘just listen’
PARLIAMENT
The Energy Secretary refused to give Anderson a number and instead spoke about the importance of Britain’s role in driving global efforts against climate change.
He said: “The answer, which he just does not want to accept is this, if he just listens.
“I believe in British leadership and Britain’s ability to make a difference. When we passed the Climate Change Act, 60 countries followed.
“When we legislated for net zero, many countries followed. He talks Britain down, I believe in Britain.”
Lee Anderson said Ed Miliband is guilty of ‘desperately’ attempting to save his job
PARLIAMENT
A frustrated Anderson repeatedly interrupted as Miliband delivered his response, demanding a specific figure.
Miliband set out the findings of a study, led by the Met Office, that detailed how the UK was already hotter and wetter as a result of climate change.
The findings also said Britain faced a greater number of extreme weather events.
It was supposed to be just another day in the hallowed halls of Westminster, but anyone who witnessed the Commons showdown between Lee Anderson and Ed Miliband could tell you it was anything but ordinary. The air in the chamber was thick with anticipation as MPs gathered for what should have been a routine statement on the Government’s climate ambitions. Instead, it turned into a political spectacle that will be replayed for days—maybe weeks—to come, as two men with wildly different visions for Britain’s future clashed in a way that made the usual parliamentary theater look tame.
Lee Anderson, the brash and unfiltered chief whip of Reform UK, didn’t waste a moment. The second Ed Miliband, the Government’s Energy Secretary, finished his speech, Anderson was on his feet, his voice cutting through the formalities like a hot knife through butter. He wasn’t interested in pleasantries or the usual back-patting that so often follows a ministerial statement. No, Anderson had a point to make, and he was going to make it with the kind of blunt force that’s become his trademark. “The statement from the Energy Secretary sounded like a desperate attempt to save his own job,” he declared, his words hanging in the air, heavy with accusation. You could almost feel the collective intake of breath across the benches as he continued, “But he’s right. The British people do need saving. They need saving from the Energy Secretary.”
It was classic Anderson—direct, unvarnished, and impossible to ignore. He went on to paint a dire picture of Britain’s economic landscape, invoking the voices of business owners he claimed to speak with every week. “Businesses I visit every single week say his madcap ideas are killing growth, killing business, and killing jobs,” he thundered, his frustration evident. But it was what came next that set the Commons alight. Anderson, never one to let a minister off the hook, announced that he’d give Miliband the benefit of the doubt—if he could answer one “simple” question. And then, with the eyes of the nation upon him, Anderson delivered his challenge: “How much would the Earth’s temperature reduce by if the UK became net zero tomorrow? Simple question. Simple answer.”
For a moment, there was silence. It was as if the entire chamber was holding its breath, waiting to see how Miliband would respond. The question, on its face, was straightforward. But as any seasoned observer knows, nothing in climate politics is ever truly simple. Miliband, a veteran of countless parliamentary duels, didn’t flinch. Instead, he launched into a passionate defense of Britain’s role on the world stage, arguing that the UK’s leadership on climate change had inspired dozens of other countries to follow suit. “The answer, which he just does not want to accept is this, if he just listens,” Miliband began, his tone measured but unmistakably firm. “I believe in British leadership and Britain’s ability to make a difference. When we passed the Climate Change Act, 60 countries followed. When we legislated for net zero, many countries followed. He talks Britain down, I believe in Britain.”
But Anderson wasn’t satisfied. As Miliband spoke, Anderson could be heard in the background, his voice growing louder and more insistent with each repetition of his question. Even after his microphone was cut, his words echoed through the chamber: “How much? How much? How much?” Six times he asked, six times he was met with a refusal to provide the number he demanded. The tension was palpable, the frustration on both sides almost tangible. It was a standoff that laid bare the deep divisions not just between two politicians, but between two competing visions for the country’s future.
As Miliband pressed on, he cited a new study from the Met Office, warning that Britain was already facing hotter, wetter conditions and an increase in extreme weather events thanks to climate change. He spoke about the moral imperative for Britain to lead by example, to show the world what was possible if a nation truly committed to going green. But Anderson wasn’t having it. He wanted a number, a concrete figure, something he could take back to his constituents and the business owners he claimed to represent. For him, the grand speeches and international accolades meant little in the face of what he saw as real-world economic pain.
What made the exchange so riveting was not just the clash of personalities, but the way it encapsulated a much larger debate raging across Britain and, indeed, much of the Western world. On one side, the argument that climate change is a global crisis that requires bold action, even if the direct impact of any one country’s efforts might seem small in the grand scheme of things. On the other, the demand for accountability, for clear answers and measurable results, especially when the policies in question carry real costs for ordinary people.
Watching from the press gallery, it was impossible not to be struck by the sheer intensity of the moment. Anderson, with his working-class swagger and no-nonsense rhetoric, has become something of a folk hero to those who feel left behind by the political establishment. Miliband, meanwhile, remains a lightning rod for criticism from the right, but is revered by many on the left for his unwavering commitment to tackling climate change. Their confrontation felt less like a political debate and more like a microcosm of the national conversation—a battle for the soul of Britain, played out in real time on the floor of the Commons.
The aftermath was just as dramatic. Social media exploded with clips of the exchange, supporters of both men rushing to defend their champion. Some praised Anderson for “finally asking the question no one else dares,” while others mocked his refusal to engage with the complexities of climate science. Miliband, for his part, was lauded by environmentalists for refusing to reduce the issue to a single statistic, but also faced criticism for what some saw as evasiveness. In living rooms and pubs up and down the country, the debate raged on: Should Britain lead the world, whatever the cost? Or should it focus first on the needs of its own people?
As the dust settled, one thing was clear: this was more than just a parliamentary spat. It was a moment that captured the anxieties and aspirations of a nation at a crossroads. For Anderson, the fight is about making sure ordinary Britons aren’t sacrificed on the altar of global ambition. For Miliband, it’s about reminding the world—and perhaps himself—that Britain can still be a force for good, a beacon of hope in a world facing unprecedented challenges.
In the end, the question Anderson posed remains unanswered, at least in the terms he demanded. But perhaps that’s the point. In a world as complex and interconnected as ours, there are no simple answers—only choices, trade-offs, and the constant struggle to balance what’s right for today with what’s necessary for tomorrow. As the Commons returned to its usual rhythm and the headlines moved on, the echoes of that confrontation lingered, a reminder that the real battles are often the ones fought not just with words, but with conviction.
Whether you side with Anderson or Miliband, whether you believe Britain should lead or follow, one thing is certain: the debate over climate change—and the future of the country—is far from over. And if today’s fireworks are any indication, it’s only going to get louder.
