Kemi Badenoch has always prided herself on being the straight-talking, no-nonsense politician, unafraid to ruffle feathers and say the supposedly unsayable. A darling of the right, a would-be Thatcher 2.0, she has spent her political career carving out an image of economic pragmatism wrapped in a distinctly ideological package.
Whilst her delivery is far from the ‘Iron Lady’, her latest move—seemingly pandering to Reform voters by stepping back from the UK’s Net Zero commitments—feels less like a principled stance and more like a political gambit that could backfire spectacularly.
It’s not just political commentators raising their eyebrows at Badenoch’s latest pronouncements; even the usually diplomatic business leaders are pushing back. Rain Newton-Smith, CEO of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), issued a stark warning: now is not the time to retreat from green growth. Her words carried weight, highlighting that the UK’s Net Zero economy grew by a staggering 10% last year, contributing £83 billion to the national coffers. This isn’t fringe economics—it’s hard, tangible, economic success. Yet Badenoch, with a seemingly calculated nod to Reform’s climate-sceptic base, appears willing to put it all at risk.
This latest shift is, of course, all about votes. With Reform UK nipping at the Tories’ heels in the polls, Badenoch knows that unless she can claw back support from the right, she has no chance of winning a general election. So, what better way to appeal to the disgruntled, anti-establishment, anti-green contingent of Reform voters than by rolling back commitments to Net Zero? After all, Nigel Farage and his ilk have long derided green policies as expensive, unnecessary, and an imposition on ‘hard-working Britons’ (a phrase that remains undefined but is nonetheless deployed with alarming regularity).
But here’s the problem: business leaders, investors, and economists all know that Net Zero isn’t just about virtue-signalling or appeasing climate activists. It’s about jobs, investment, and long-term economic security. The UK has built a reputation as a leader in green finance and clean energy investment, and businesses have made decisions based on the assumption that the government will continue down this path. U-turning now risks shattering that trust and driving investment elsewhere.
Badenoch and her supporters like to present this as a simple choice between economic pragmatism and Net Zero idealism. The argument goes that ordinary people shouldn’t have to bear the financial burden of green policies, that energy bills are too high, and that prioritising economic growth means loosening environmental commitments. But this is a false dichotomy.
The reality, as Newton-Smith pointed out, is that the transition to Net Zero is itself an engine of economic growth. From offshore wind to hydrogen power, from battery technology to carbon capture, the UK has been at the forefront of industries that are not just ‘green’ but fundamentally profitable. And let’s not forget the global context—countries like the US, China, and Germany are pouring billions into their own green economies. If Britain steps back, it doesn’t mean the world stops moving. It just means we get left behind.
There’s something eerily familiar about Badenoch’s rhetoric on Net Zero. The same chest-thumping, short-termist, ‘Britain first’ rhetoric that characterised the Brexit campaign is now being deployed to justify environmental backpedalling. And much like Brexit, this shift is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of global economic realities.
Brexiteers argued that leaving the EU would free the UK from economic constraints and allow it to chart its own course. In reality, businesses faced increased red tape, supply chain chaos, and a loss of international investment confidence. The same fate awaits the green economy if Badenoch follows through with her anti-Net Zero pivot.
Investors crave certainty. They don’t pour billions into industries that might be thrown under the bus in the next election cycle. The UK’s commitment to Net Zero has been one of the few constants in an otherwise chaotic political landscape, giving businesses the confidence to innovate and expand. Throwing that certainty into doubt isn’t just environmentally reckless—it’s economically suicidal.
The Cost of Doing Nothing
Badenoch’s strategy might win her a few Reform voters, but it will come at an enormous cost. First, the economic damage—if businesses sense that the UK is no longer a reliable partner in the green transition, they will take their money elsewhere. Second, the diplomatic fallout—while the world moves towards cleaner, greener economies, Britain will be left looking like the petulant child refusing to play along. And finally, the electoral miscalculation—yes, there is a faction of voters who oppose Net Zero measures, but the vast majority of the British public, including the all-important younger demographic, support ambitious action on climate change.
Badenoch might think she’s playing to the crowd, but it’s the wrong crowd. The voters who care most about Net Zero rollbacks are already in Reform’s camp, and the voters who might have been open to her leadership will be repelled by what looks like cynical, short-term politicking.
Badenoch is at a crossroads. She can either stand firm in the knowledge that Net Zero is not just an environmental commitment but an economic necessity, or she can continue to chase the Reform vote, gambling with Britain’s economic future in the process. If she chooses the latter, she may find that what seemed like a clever political manoeuvre ends up being the undoing of both her leadership and the country’s long-term prosperity.
The choice is hers, but the consequences will be ours to bear.
Read more:
Kemi Badenoch’s Net Zero U-turn: A Political Play or a Policy Disaster?
