Are Labour’s climate policies sustainable enough to win an election?

Labour’s flagship policies to tackle climate change are coming under attack from critics both inside and outside the party, with the underlying fear that the costs and debts involved in funding them will also become increasingly unpopular with voters as the general election nears and they are subject to more intense scrutiny.

Keir Starmer has had to face some hostility at the GMB conference over his plan to end new fossil fuel projects in the North Sea. He has also had to justify accepting a £1.5m donation from Dale Vince, the owner of the green electricity company Ecotricity and a high-profile supporter of Just Stop Oil – which advocates precisely the policy on UK oil and gas exploration that Labour has just adopted.

The Conservatives have also suggested that Labour’s £28bn climate investment pledge is unaffordable. So the question arises: are Labour’s green policies sustainable enough to make it into government?

How much trouble is Starmer in with the unions?

Some. The unions with members in the oil and gas sector, principally focused on operations off the coasts of Scotland and East Anglia, have obviously been the most vocal – the GMB, Britain’s third-largest union, which donates up to £2m a year to the party, and Unite, the second-largest, which is worth £1m a year in affiliation fees.

Gary Smith, the general secretary of the GMB, was on television on Sunday saying Labour had “got it wrong” and risked creating “a cliff-edge with oil and gas extraction from the North Sea”. Smith used his own speech to the Brighton conference to reiterate his criticism, urging Labour to focus on a “mix of energy sources” including fossil fuels: “We have to fix and secure our energy supply if we are to face down threats from authoritarian regimes in the world and find a workable way to achieve net zero.”

Sharon Graham, the general secretary of Unite, has also said she wants a transition that would “guarantee jobs, pay and conditions for all the tens of thousands of workers in the North Sea and supporting industries”.

What can Starmer offer them?

Jobs – “good, union jobs” – it is claimed, in the green energy revolution. That is to say, in home insulation, power generation, battery gigafactories, nuclear power, and revitalising projects such as building the electric-car-charging infrastructure. Besides that, he can also argue that the phasing out of oil and gas will take decades, and gently remind everyone that the North Sea reserve has in any case been on a gentle slope downwards towards exhaustion for some time, and no government can guarantee its continued existence.

Thus, Starmer and his colleagues stress that “oil and gas will be part of our energy mix for many, many years to come”, and that existing licences – unaffected by Labour’s plans – will be valid into the 2050s. The obvious problem is that the new jobs won’t necessarily be in the places where the current workers will be made redundant.

Starmer, like Tony Blair in the 1990s, can also promise the trade unionists some modest reforms of the law. He says he will repeal the bill, going through parliament now, that restricts the right to strike in vital public services. He also intends to “ban zero hour contracts, extend parental leave, strengthen flexible working, [offer] better protections for pregnant women, close the ethnicity pay gaps” and to legislate for “fundamental rights from day one, statutory sick pay for all, no more one-sided flexibility, no more fire and rehire”.

However, he hints that he’ll need to be in power in order to deliver any of these things, and for that he needs them to back him and fund the party.

What about his MPs?

Such is Starmer’s internal authority in the party, after dragging it out of the hole it was in in 2019, that he can do pretty much as he pleases – witness the recent row over the deselection of Jamie Driscoll, the incumbent, as a candidate to be Labour mayor of the North East of England.

There is some gossip about tensions over how ambitious the party’s green policy should be, with Starmer and his shadow climate change secretary on one side and the former leader, Ed Miliband, on the other, but there’s no sign of serious parliamentary dissent. The emerging issue is reconciling the £28bn green energy plan with the fiscal rules that the shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves, will impose on the next Labour government.

In any such conflict, it is a safe bet that Starmer will back Reeves. They know that a reputation for fiscal responsibility trumps every other consideration.

Are green policies popular?

In principle, yes, and Labour enjoys a healthy lead on the issue. However, environmental issues such as climate change have slid down the list of voters’ most serious concerns, so it’s a less potent issue for Labour if presented in “green” terms.

Some in Labour are trying to pivot the presentation to mirror the angle favoured by Joe Biden’s administration, and indeed, Starmer has quoted his counterpart’s words: “When I hear climate change, I think jobs.”

The government claims that, far from boosting incomes and jobs, the Labour plan will cost families £1,000 a year in taxes and higher bills. Starmer and Reeves will need to produce a costed plan that is more attack-proof than the current one by the time the election campaign starts in earnest.

Isn’t the link with Just Stop Oil damaging Labour?

The Conservatives and sections of the media have tried to link the unpopular and disruptive protesters of Just Stop Oil to Labour, via a common donor (Vince). It’s true that Vince has given Labour money, and the party has adopted a similar policy on new North Sea oil and gas production. But the attempt at guilt by association doesn’t seem to have worked all that well, given that Labour has such a green tinge these days.

Nobody expects Starmer and Reeves to launch themselves, carrying bags of orange dust, at the treasures in the National Gallery, for example.