The Conservatives Double Down on Oil and Gas
But I fear it won't help them
Fresh from her barn-storming appearance at Offshore Europe in September (see my thoughts here), the Leader of the Opposition, Kemi Badenoch, last week launched her party’s campaign to: ‘get Britain drilling again’, scrap the windfall tax and lift the moratorium on new exploration licences. She had planned to visit Aberdeen in person on 05 November for the launch, but fog got in the way (don’t I know it, I was flying to London on the same day – I got there eventually).
Badenoch spoke in terms those of us who heard her at Offshore Europe will be familiar with. Her messages included:
‘Scotland, and the whole United Kingdom, faces a growing oil and gas emergency thanks to Labour’s inability to put our national interest first.’
Adding:
‘by the end of Labour’s first term in office, it’s not inconceivable that Scotland’s oil and gas sector will be at serious risk, with domestic production currently set to half by 2030’.
In short, she said the Government was committing an act of ‘economic self-sabotage’.
Shadow Scottish Secretary Andrew Bowie then put the boot in:
‘We need secure and cheap energy for years to come yet between the moratorium on new licences and the burdensome Net Zero mandates this industry is shedding jobs at alarming rates. This cannot continue.’
It’s a clever strategy and one which the Conservatives hope will play well with both the local population and, more importantly, those who might be flirting with Reform UK. Indeed, the message is one which many will have sympathy with.
In response a Labour spokesperson said:
‘Kemi Badenoch is doubling down on the same failed Tory energy policy that caused the worst cost of living crisis in a generation.’ Their approach was: ‘anti-growth, anti-jobs and anti-investment … [which would] leave Britain reliant on insecure, expensive fossil fuels’.
As is so often the case, the reality and need lies somewhere in-between both sets of statements.
There are few in the energy industry who would want us to abandon renewables or who think oil and gas and the North Sea can supply us with energy ad infinitum. Yes there is more oil and gas there to exploit (indeed the North Sea Transition Authority talks of an additional 1.1bn barrels equivalent more than we thought – in addition to the 6.3bn barrels of discovered but undeveloped resources it has highlighted separately), but the UK Continental Shelf is a declining resource which has delivered much more than was ever expected.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t exploit it as much as possible. Of course we should. It will help our energy security. But more importantly it will secure jobs and skills and allow the just transition everyone sensible actually wants to take place.
That is the goal for anyone who cares about the future of the UK energy sector – in the North-East but also across the UK. We need time to build and develop the renewables to ensure the jobs are there to replace those lost in oil and gas.
So, once again, it is about ‘and, not or’. Although I often wonder whether any of the major parties understand this simple concept instead pitching their tent at one extreme or the other. Being at the extremes of society or politics is not, I would suggest, where any sensible politician wants to be – even those who polarised the public the most (including Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair).
Whilst the Tories and Labour focus on each other Reform UK is probably sitting back watching and waiting to pick up the pieces. Because none of the main UK parties (and this includes the Liberal Democrats) seems capable or willing to actually fact-check what Reform UK are saying. Instead they prefer to follow a pointless (and ultimately self-defeating) policy of calling them names.
Of all the major parties it is only the SNP (and Stephen Flynn in particular) who seem willing to call out Reform UK’s policies as opposed to only calling them names. Kudos to Mr Flynn and I would encourage others to follow. Because, in my view, Reform UK can only be beaten by arguing and disproving the validity of their policies.
Calling them names will only play to one of their main strengths – that they are not part of the establishment and that they are rocking the boat. Something which a large swathe of the population, fed-up with the traditional parties, seem to find appealing.
What does all this mean? Ultimately, it’s quite simple. We need pragmatism, we need common-sense, we need compromise, and we need to be realistic.
That means accepting that the windfall tax is causing significant damage. That we need to use our own oil and gas. And that we need to ensure a just transition. Considering the options highlighted in OEUK’s letter to the Chancellor from mid-October which showed how the UK economy could be boosted by £137bn safeguarding 160,000 jobs in the process would be a good start. Or, as the Press & Journal put it on 16 October: ‘OEUK’s windfall levy olive branch to PM and Reeves’.
Being dogmatic or ideological will not help the public, will not protect jobs and will not, I suggest, help the traditional parties win the next election.