In Aberdeen, the warning sirens are no longer coming from offshore rigs but from the unions themselves. A recent study cited by the GMB union paints a stark picture: the North Sea’s offshore workforce, roughly 115,000 strong today, could be slashed to around 57,000 by the early 2030s if Britain’s headlong rush to Net Zero continues. For a city already bleeding skilled jobs — some 18,000 lost since 2010 — this is not an abstract climate model but the prospect of a living community turned into another deindustrialised ghost of Britain’s past.
The GMB’s Scotland Secretary, Louise Gilmour, has broken ranks with the political class by calling Ed Miliband’s policies “delusional” and warning that they risk “arguably the most destructive industrial calamity in our nation’s history”. Yet her intervention raises an uncomfortable question: how did a movement born to defend the English working class against economic dispossession become complicit in the very policies that now threaten to hollow out Aberdeen just as surely as coal-mining towns were once gutted across England and Wales?
From there, the story must go backwards before it can go forwards.
From Chartism to Labour
The English working class was not dreamed up in Marx’s study: it was forged in the mills, furnaces and pits of the early Industrial Revolution, then politically awakened through Chartism in the 1830s and 1840s. Chartism’s six demands — universal male suffrage, secret ballots, equal constituencies, annual Parliaments, payment of MPs and the abolition of property qualifications — were radical only in insisting that politics should serve those who laboured as much as those who governed.
Though their great petition of 1848 failed, the Chartists created a template for mass working‑class politics and helped pave the way for reforms that gradually extended the franchise to urban workers. Out of this ferment emerged powerful trade unions and, ultimately, the Labour Representation Committee of 1900, later the Labour Party: an explicitly class‑rooted vehicle intended to turn working‑class organisation into working‑class representation.
For much of the 20th century, that bargain held. Unions fought for shorter hours, safer workplaces and secure industrial jobs, while Labour in government under Clement Attlee created the NHS, the welfare state and public ownership of coal, steel and rail — ‘triumphs’ which secured Labour’s bond with the working class, even though by foisting the welfare state on the Exchequer it assured Great Britain of slower future growth in productivity and incomes. For a time, it seemed as if the material interests of workers and the political instincts of Labour and the unions were at least broadly aligned: strong industry, affordable energy, national prosperity and social mobility.
Yet, as E.P. Thompson showed in The Making of the English Working Class, this identity was never inevitable. It had to be constructed and could just as easily be deconstructed by elites whose priorities drifted away from the shopfloor. That drift has now matured into what can only be called betrayal.
Blair, managerialism and luxury beliefs
The decisive rupture did not come with Margaret Thatcher, as the standard Left‑wing narrative claims, but with Tony Blair’s New Labour in the 1990s. David Starkey has argued that Blair did not renew Labour’s founding mission but negated it, remaking the entire political sphere around managerialism and technocracy rather than democratic accountability.
Under New Labour, power migrated from a sovereign Parliament to an archipelago of quangos, supranational courts such as the European Court of Human Rights, NGOs and expert committees, all operating at arm’s length from voters. Labour ceased to be the political arm of the working class and became instead the party of a credentialed managerial elite, fluent in the idiom of ‘human rights’, ‘sustainability’ and global governance but increasingly tone‑deaf to the practical concerns of welders in Aberdeen or machinists in the Midlands.
Rob Henderson’s concept of “luxury beliefs” captures the new Labour mood: ideas and opinions that confer moral status on the affluent at little personal cost, while imposing heavy burdens on the lower classes. Green ideology and Net Zero orthodoxy fit this pattern perfectly. For university‑educated professionals in London, higher energy bills are a badge of virtue; for low‑income households in Sunderland or Oldham, they are the difference between modest comfort and genuine hardship.
Since Blair, both Labour and Conservatives embraced an increasingly absolutist green agenda, selling a painless ‘energy transition’ away from fossil fuels to renewables. Labour, the party that once promised to own the ‘commanding heights’ of the economy, now presides over their systematic dismantling, especially in energy, outsourcing production and emissions while awarding itself moral credit for decarbonisation. The English working class found itself redefined as a problem to be managed under energy austerity and managed decline, not a constituency to be served.
Unions, Net Zero and the principal-agent betrayal
The harshest irony is that this shift has been bankrolled and legitimised by trade unions themselves. Organisations that once embodied collective self‑interest — defending jobs, wages and communities — have spent two decades largely acquiescing in policies that erode the economic foundations of working‑class life.
At its core, the betrayal of the English working class reflects the age-old principal-agent problem. In economic theory, the principal (say, a shareholder) hires an agent (company management) to advance his interests. But agents have their own incentives — prestige, comfort, ideological commitments — and, without discipline, will drift away from the principal’s goals. In corporate life, we mitigate this through performance‑linked pay, independent boards, disclosure rules and, in extremis, takeovers or bankruptcy.
In the labour movement, the principals are union members; the agents are union leaders and officials. Members pay dues in exchange for protection of their material interests: secure jobs, decent wages, affordable energy. Yet the leaderships of major unions like Unite and GMB increasingly occupy the same conferences and social circles as Labour MPs, NGO staff and green activists, internalising the same luxury beliefs about ‘sustainable jobs’ and ‘just transitions’.
The numbers tell their own story, as my colleague Ben Pile noted in these pages. Unite, with around 1.2 million members, takes in roughly £260 million each year in dues; over 20 years, something like £5 billion has flowed through its accounts during the very period when the UK’s green agenda gathered pace. GMB, with about 560,000 members, used to give over a £1 million a year to the Labour Party — meaning that oil and gas workers in Aberdeen have been financing a party whose energy spokesman is determined to shut down their industry. This amount has recently been significantly reduced to £150,000, reflecting concerns over reforms in union funding and the number of members likely to affiliate with Labour individually.
Since the Climate Change Act of 2008, Britain has engaged in a rolling experiment in unilateral decarbonisation, closing coal plants, restricting North Sea licensing and subsidising intermittent renewables at great cost. Offshore wind rights were auctioned at ever higher guaranteed prices in the latest AR7 auction bidding round. Gaslighted by the government as a job-creating ‘sustainable’ energy investment, expensive offshore wind will keep adding to higher consumer power bills and offers only a fraction of the long‑term employment provided by oil and gas. Once turbines are built, they are tended by small maintenance crews, not the sprawling workforces associated with exploration, drilling, servicing, refining and petrochemicals.
While Britain destroys high‑value, high‑skill energy jobs, Norway has continued to license its offshore fields (which lie just beside UK’s own sanctioned fields), employing around seven times more energy workers per head than the UK and using the proceeds to build a sovereign wealth fund now over £1.8 trillion. In other words, Oslo has chosen energy abundance and national wealth; Westminster, cheered on by Labour and significant parts of the trade union movement, has chosen energy penance and managed decline.
The GMB’s late revolt over Aberdeen is therefore welcome but deeply revealing. Only now, as the scale of potential job losses becomes undeniable, have senior union figures started to challenge the fiction that there is no conflict between Net Zero absolutism and working‑class prosperity. For 20 years, the same organisations were willing partners in a green consensus that jacked up energy costs, accelerated de‑industrialisation and left Britain more dependent on imported fuels and Chinese‑manufactured solar panels and wind turbines.
This pattern is not unique to Britain. In the United States, the Democratic Party — once the party of blue‑collar America — has become the political wing of the professional class, prioritising climate crusades, identity politics and cultural causes over industrial jobs. This mirrors what Victor Davis Hanson observed about the US Democratic Party’s Leftward drift under Obama — considerably hastened under Biden — prioritising greens, LGBTQ rights and minorities over blue-collar concerns.
Donald Trump’s MAGA Republicans – traditionally the ‘country club’ party of America – repositioned themselves as champions of “energy dominance” and captured much of the working‑class vote in the process. The parallel is imperfect but instructive: where agents drift into a universe of symbolic and luxury politics, principals (voters) eventually look elsewhere for disruptive outcomes against the status quo. President Trump’s re-election for a second term is the case in point.
Whither the North Sea riches?
If today’s crisis in Aberdeen is the visible tip of a larger failure, the remedy lies in restoring discipline to the relationships between principals and agents. That means, first, making political funding genuinely voluntary and transparent: union members should have to opt in explicitly to any levy that supports a political party, and unions should have to justify those transfers in terms of measurable gains for their members, not sentimental tradition.
Second, unions must be forced to confront reality rather than rhetoric. Before endorsing Net Zero packages, they should commission and publish independent analyses of the impacts on jobs, wages and energy bills for their own members, sector by sector and region by region. If a policy means that 50,000 oil and gas jobs will be destroyed in exchange for a few thousand short‑term construction roles in wind, members deserve to see that arithmetic in black and white.
Third, internal democracy must be deepened. Regular ballots on strategic questions (such as backing continued North Sea licensing), term limits for senior officers and credible recall mechanisms would make it harder for a small activist cadre to drag entire unions into supporting ideological projects at odds with members’ material interests.
Finally, Britain needs to rediscover an energy policy rooted in abundance and realism rather than in virtue-signalling of the sort that Ed Miliband seems to excel at. That means recognising that oil and gas remain indispensable for decades to come. For both economic and energy security objectives, it is better to produce energy efficiently at home – blessed as Great Britain is with the North Sea and onshore coal and gas fields.
Why would any government outsource both production and responsibility abroad if not for virtue-signalling on the backs of the nation’s working class? In his speech at the World Economic Forum at Davos, President Trump specifically targeted Sir Keir Starmer’s stance on North Sea oil and gas.
Trump, a vocal critic of what he labels the green energy “scam”, contended that the UK Government has made it “impossible” for oil companies to develop North Sea reserves.
The United Kingdom produces just one-third of the total energy from all sources that it did in 1999 – think of that, one-third – and they’re sitting on top of the North Sea, one of the greatest reserves anywhere in the world, but they don’t use it, and that’s one reason why their energy has reached catastrophically low levels, with equally high prices. High prices, very low levels. Think of that – one-third and you’re sitting on top of the North Sea.
A Norwegian‑style model of continued licensing, sensible taxation and long‑term investment would do more for workers in Aberdeen and across industrial Britain than any number of sanctimonious speeches at climate summits. It is time trade union officials realise that.
This article was first published in the Daily Sceptic https://dailysceptic.org/2026/01/29/how-labour-betrayed-britains-working-class-in-the-name-of-net-zero/
Dr Tilak K. Doshi is the Daily Sceptic‘s Energy Editor. He is an economist, a member of the CO2 Coalition and a former contributor to Forbes. Follow him on Substack and X.
What a really good article!!
No, its a confused and mistaken view of Labour Party history and British social history. It is correct in arguing that the energy policies of all the major political parties – Conservatives, Labour, Plaid, SNP, Liberals – are idiotic and are impoverishing the country. They are also driving it to almost guaranteed nationwide blackouts. Its also hitting the less well off disproportionally.
But the account of the early Labour Party, its changes, the role of the unions in it, and the birth of the welfare state are just wrong. Without writing a whole screed about this, consider the implications of two observations. The post-WWII welfare state is largely the creation of Beveridge, a Liberal. The Education Act of 1944 was due to RA Butler, a Conservative. Those two observations should tell you that the conventional left wing account of post WWII UK history is well adrift of reality.
The decisive event in Labour – union history which the author misses is the change in who the unions were and how they were structured. Over time, and before Blair, they had become oligopolies by consolidation and merger, and they had become dominated by their representation of the civil service and state sectors. He writes as if they were one and the same thing all century, and they were not.
So yes, it is true that the ideological center of the Party has changed, and its now in an uneasy situation where its funded by unions but has a membership and strong fringe which is what the British call the ‘loony left’, perpetually taking up such causes as climate change, trans ideology, the support of almost any terrorist movement you care to name, support for Hamas and Hezbollah which goes up to and over the point of straightforward old fashioned anti-semitism, something called ‘decolonization’ … etc.
Its the Welwyn Garden City tendency of British politics, but turned nasty as it allied with the Islamist tendency. And yes, energy policies are hitting one of these key Labour support elements, the rump of the industrial unions. But this was not the fault of Blair or a ‘betrayal’, it was just that the membership had changed, and with that, the interests of the membership.
The way to see Gilmour’s remarks is that they are a symptom of the split within the union movement and therefore within Labour. Labour has increasingly become the political arm of government employee unions, who are quite disconnected from economic pressures being taxpayer funded. Unlike Gilmour’s members.
The thing about modern Britain that requires explanation is quite different from the drift of the article. The question is why the political and media class of the country, and apparently the schools and universities too, became seized of the crazy idea that
The answer is not Labour betrayals – because it has not been wholly or mainly Labour, its all of them. And its not just climate and energy, its also race and sex/gender. The heads of the Liberal Party and the Labour Party both take the view that women can have penises and seem confused about what a cervix is and who has one. Then there is the issue of reparations payments. For what? For having abolished the trans Atlantic slave trade 200 years ago?
No, we are dealing with a great popular delusion or madness of crowd. Confined to a small elite group of people. Not restricted to energy and climate. And the results of this are likely to be that the present split between population and elite will widen, and result in a landslide for a radical populist party at the first electoral chance the voters get.
That is, unless Labour cancels the elections…. They have form!
“No, we are dealing with a great popular delusion or madness of crowd”
It’s also at the pandemic level here in New England, led of course by Boston which identifies itself more as an EU city, not American, or so it seems. People here tend to think everything between Boston and San Francisco is just fly over country.
Good points. All the parties are pretty far left. Academia is also leading the way.
That’s accurate….well done!
I remember well my 4 years at Uni. Pretty much all the lecturing staff were staunch labour supporters/members and even back then, starting to murmur about global warming. Gender politics were also becoming high profile, alongside CND and the awakenings of WOKE. Many an impressionable student succumbed to the “higher ideologies”! I guess I might have even been numbered among them. Fully believing that we held the moral high ground, ours was the fight to save the world. Oh, please forgive the foolishness of my youth!🫣🥴
Excellent analysis
To Decline (or Not) is always a choice, not the ‘inevitability’ as often portrayed. Methinks someone will tap these resources, perhaps one election-cycle away. It’s not as tho’ no-one is thinking about these things:
Given that Labour-UK is unlikely to Reform [UK], why not Reforma*-Tory:
The UK needs a Trump.
What would Swift do — a Modest Proposal:
Invite his Excellency General Mark Rutte+ to undertake a Rescue-UK Operation, N.A.T.O.-enforced, bringing Niall Ferguson and Ayaan Hirsi Ali over from Austin to serve in the roles of William of Orange and [Queen] Mary, and letting King Charles+ depart in peace to Paris. Wrap it up by the 5th of November 2028 A.D., the 340th Anniversary of the landing in the Glorious Revolution (1688 A.D.), as a Restoration of the ancestral rights of their loyal citizenry.
This is an article which should be read by every trade union member. They need to realize that the parties which they have traditionally supported no longer want to see them prosper, regardless of the platitudes which they spew forth. The traditional left is now the party of university professors who love to talk about things that they have never done.
Labour has been betraying the British workers and Britain for a long time.
Daft article.
Labour decided back in the 1970s and 1980s that its core working class vote was neanderthal – racist, xenophobic, in fact, *.phobic. It resolved to import a new core vote and it did.
Since Blair became PM in 1997 we have had more people arrive than did between 1066 and 1950.
It really is that bad. When Blair started the process…
Ministers hoped to radically change the country and by doing so “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, added Mr Neather, but senior Labour figures remained reluctant to discuss the policy in case it alienated the party’s “core working class vote”.
Critics said the revelations showed a “conspiracy” within Government to impose mass immigration for “cynical” political reasons. Herald Scotland
That process is ongoing. Net zero was late to the party.
The left is trying the same thing here in the states. That explains Biden’s opening of the border and the left’s rioting to prevent any deportations.
100% true and it is an affront to all that Blair has not been dragged to court for this and subsequently hanged. These are crimes against humanity.
Unforgivable.
Mr. Doshi, you need to learn the difference between England and Great Britain. If you don’t get all your facts right your whole paper fails.
Strange but true, the Germans during WW part II nearly always called their enemy Englanders. But then they did try hard to sow division between Ireland, Scotland and…
I suppose one should feel sorry for Taffy.
Strange that the Germans didn’t call their enemy Anglo-Saxons, since they tried to pretend that the UK had so much in common with the Teutonic motherland.
“In the United States, the Democratic Party — once the party of blue-collar America — has become the political wing of the professional class…”
Doshi is too kind. The Dems have become Marxists, the Party of violent revolution, baby murder, child mutilation, terrorism, arson, fraud and theft, death and destruction. The “professional class” does not want their businesses bankrupted and/or looted, their schools demolished, their streets a battlefield. If they do, they’re suicidally insane. No, this country is waking up to the real intentions of the Democrat Party.
Well said. I would agree that ’[t]he “professional class” does not want their businesses bankrupted and/or looted, their schools demolished, their streets a battlefield’, but by continuing to serve as useful idiots to the Left, that’s exactly what’s going to happen.
Principal/Agent seems to be a restatement of Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy, or
Simon’s similar work on political parties. Those who master the internal politics of an organization tend to end up running it, to the detriment of purported purpose. That applied in cases as varied as GM and the NRA.
Add in Marxists, and one has a definite problem.
Well paid working class jobs depend on capital investment and productivity, and energy. Driving away capital knocks the legs out.
In Canada Labour equivalent NDP switched to being a homosexual first party along with academia. Even the unions are against industrial development.
Great overview. Please send a copy to No 11 Downing St.
We in U.K. are being destroyed by virtue signalling ignorance displayed by Labour and Tory MPs in lock step, deindustrialising Britain for what benefit nobody can say.
According to Biden, you can just teach them to code.
The theme of this thread is betrayal of the UK’s working class in the move towards Net Zero. Again, we come back to ‘mitigating’ (favoured by left/liberal/greens) and ‘adapting’ (favoured by populous voters/right wing/working classes) – ideologies promoted by the likes of Booker, Monkton, Farage, etc.
Couple gets a new puppy.
In corner of couple’s kitchen, sits a shiny Brabantia ‘soft-touch’ bin.
Puppy learns to jump up and open bin lid with paws.
Puppy sticks head in bin.
Puppy begins eating bin’s contents.
MITIGATION: Replace existing £80 Brabantia with new bin with ‘puppy-proof’ secure lid.
ADAPTATION: Simply rotate existing Brabantia 180 degrees so that lid opens other way.
While I am on board with this article I think it misses the bigger point.
The government should not be making decisions concerning energy production and transmission. These are far too important to be left to politicians. The only function government should have is to lightly regulate those who produce and transmit the power. They can also be involved in the determination of how much power we have, how much we will need in the future and how much is currently available. The health of the grid is also one thing to keep an eye on. Power companies need to be forced to maintain it.
If it has been determined that more generation should be built bids should be received by someone (I don’t know who) and all qualified contractors can submit bids with no one having preference. The bids will be for the amount of energy their plant will (not can) produce 24/7 and at what cost with the life expectancy included. All designs must already be approved and environmental concerns addressed. All new designs will be handled separate from new construction.
The last thing we should include here is which political party we want to have their thumb on us. We don’t want any of them to have their thumb on us. One more thing the amount of jobs created is meaningless. This is not a jobs program it is an energy program.
Labour is not a political party. Neither is any socialist party anywhere in the world. They are tools for mass destruction of society, humanity, culture and values.
Started with the deranged ideas of the Frankfurter Schule, they have metastasised to the leading problem on this planet. Anything touched by Socialism will perish. Millions of deaths over the years and It is frankly astonishing that the left has not been eradicated root and all because of it’s leathality.
So expect any vile, low, inhuman idea from labour.
“Whither the North Sea riches?” Norway, by the look of things. Britain pulling out is leaving more for them.