Is North Sea Oil and Gas Set to Be Keir Starmer's Next Major Policy U-Turn?
Every day, as we watch news from the Middle East with growing anxiety, our energy bills remain a constant source of nervous concern. Will oil prices surge or plummet? Is liquefied natural gas flowing freely through trade routes? Is the Strait of Hormuz open for business or closed by conflict? This precarious situation should not define Britain's energy security. We possess a substantial supply of oil and gas right on our doorstep, in the North Sea—a resource that Greg Jackson, the chief executive of Octopus Energy, describes as "low-hanging fruit." Yet, Jackson argues, we are prevented from tapping into it by a toxic blend of "ideology, wishful thinking, nostalgia and culture wars."
The Pragmatic Voice of Greg Jackson
Jackson is no fossil fuel zealot. Quite the opposite. He advocates for a comprehensive energy strategy that includes greater reliance on nuclear power, wind, and solar energy. His proposals focus on cutting wastage, deploying efficient heat pumps, reforming the grid to eliminate peaks and troughs, and ramping up battery storage. He cautions against becoming overly distracted by expensive technologies like carbon capture and hydrogen, urging instead that we recognise and access the resources we already have in the North Sea. "We should use what's available from the North Sea," Jackson insists. "There's no point shipping gas from the other side of the world when we have it here." He describes this moment as a time "to be James Bond about it, to take the threat seriously and to calmly and carefully plan our options. Crisis is a time to catalyse thinking on the underlying issues."
Political Dogma Versus Practical Solutions
Try as he might, Keir Starmer will never embody the suave confidence of James Bond. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, on the other hand, might fancy himself as 007, but his current stance suggests he would not last long in the role. By ruling out North Sea exploration, Miliband is shutting off a guaranteed safe exit—a move that, as Jackson notes, even the dashing James Bond would avoid. Jackson, who has transformed Octopus Energy from a challenger supplier into a global force with annual revenues of £16 billion, employing 11,000 people across 27 countries on six continents, serves 11 million customers globally, including 8 million in the UK. He is also a member of the Cabinet Office Board. Yet, his pragmatic advice appears to be ignored. Political dogma dictates that we cannot exploit these resources, or rather, Ed Miliband has decreed that we must not.
The Consequences of Inaction
Miliband insists that Britain must focus on the long-term transition to renewables, effectively sidelining the North Sea. The result is a nation left defenceless against energy shocks, waiting indefinitely for sufficient wind turbines, solar panels, and nuclear plants to come online. No one claims that tapping into fossil fuels off our shores would solve immediate problems—it most definitely would not. Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride highlights "the greatest tragedy" in fields like Jackdaw and Rosebank, which are "ready to go" and could, within months, "pump vital relief to millions." However, the definition of "months" is crucial. David Whitehouse, chief executive of Offshore Energies UK, clarifies that "you can go from project sanction to the first gas being obtained in one to two years." So, while not immediate, the benefits would be substantial.
Learning from Past Crises
Consider the last major energy shock: the Russian invasion of Ukraine four years ago. Had Britain committed to the North Sea route back then, we would be in a far stronger position today to face the current crisis involving Iran. This conflict may soon blow over, but it is a safe bet that another will emerge, leaving us vulnerable once again. Even the head of the UK renewables trade body echoes this sentiment. Tara Singh, chief executive of Renewable UK, argues that the Iran crisis demonstrates how Britain would be "stronger, safer and less exposed if it produces more home-grown energy of every kind." She asserts it is "entirely sensible to support continued domestic oil and gas production in the North Sea." Singh is not advocating a Trumpian "drill baby, drill" approach at the expense of all else. She acknowledges the North Sea is depleted and "not a limitless national asset." Yet, she warns, "if we do not produce that gas here, we will not stop needing it. We will simply import more of it."
Broad Support for Reconsideration
Even the Unite union agrees, calling on the government to "not let go of one rope before having hold of another" and urging an urgent increase in North Sea production. As ever, Keir Starmer finds himself stuck between a rock and a hard place of his own making, anxious to appease the left wing represented by Miliband and undoubtedly fearful of the electoral rise of Zack Polanski's Green Party. Blinking in the headlights is not a new experience for Starmer; in the past, he has beaten a hasty retreat on contentious issues. Britain's energy policy, particularly regarding the North Sea, has all the hallmarks of another major U-turn in the making.
