By stewartb

The chameleon that has been the Labour Party’s GB Energy policy merits so much more objective appraisal than it has received from the media. This deficit in critical assessment is important – is to be deprecated – given that GB Energy (GBE), and the location of its HQ, is clearly being pushed by Labour as its big inducement to voters in Scotland. IMHO GB Energy is the GREAT OBFUSCATION!

What follows is just one example of the gushing, uncritical reporting that may well prove successful in seducing some voters in Scotland: ‘Thousands of Scottish jobs’ created by Labour’s proposed energy company’ – from STV News online on 31 May. We’re told this by the STV journalist in the opening lines:

‘Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has said HIS PARTY WILL BRING “tens of thousands of new jobs” to Scotland BY BASING the headquarters of a new energy company there.’ (My emphasis)

A moment’s consideration shows this for the guff it is. Firstly, is GB Energy going to employ tens of thousands in its HQ? Of course it isn’t! As an investment vehicle – (finally admitted by Labour I think but are enough voters aware?) – we can get a rough indication of job numbers from the Tory version of GB Energy – yes the latter is not quite so innovative as Labour would have us believe. The Tory version was called the Green Investment Bank, also headquartered in Scotland, in Edinburgh and directly employing between 100-150 people as I recall. Anyone think the Green Investment Bank was a game changer for Scotland’s economy?

As far as I can determine, Labour never specifies how many jobs will actually be created directly in Scotland by GB Energy, i.e. jobs in its HQ.

And a thought experiment: how many FEWER jobs might be created in Scotland by GB Energy’s prospective investments in renewables IF its HQ was NOT established Scotland? How big a difference would this make? Would the difference SIMPLY be the relatively small number employed in the HQ? Recall also, in the mid- 2010s the Green Investment Bank headquartered in Edinburgh also had a London office.

Despite careful reading of the Labour manifesto and other statements from the party, it’s actually hard to find a definitive, unspun statement – notwithstanding STV’s reporting – of job creation attributed to the role of GB Energy specifically rather than to Labour’s GREEN PROSPERITY PLAN. The Plan includes multiple interventions, including a NATIONAL WEALTH FUND broadly comparable in scale of capitalisation to GB Energy.

Moreover, I’ve struggled and failed to find a Labour Party statement as to whether the job creation total the party quotes – regardless of attribution to one or actually to a bundle of interventions – is for (i) ‘net additional jobs’; and is (ii) for direct jobs in a invested company/project or includes also indirect and induced employment.

Back to the STV article, we are given this quote from the Labour leader and future PM: “On top of that, there will be new jobs, tens of thousands of new jobs, created by the transition to renewable energy, AND by locating GB Energy in Scotland, it makes Scotland the centre of that.’ (Again with my emphasis) The word ‘AND’ is working hard to support the obfuscation , to perpetuate a deceit.

And on the employment and other beneficial economic impacts of the energy transition, what would happen anyway without GB Energy?

For a bit of context, in addition to the evidence in the main blog post of Scotland already being a green energy ‘powerhouse’: the Times Money Monitor (October 19 2023) had an article entitled: ‘Renewable energy: how and where to invest’ (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/money-mentor/investing/diy-investing/renewable-energy-how-where-invest ).

It notes: ’… THERE IS ALREADY EVIDENCE THAT BRITAIN’S BIGGEST ENERGY COMPANIES ARE PUTTING THEIR MONEY WHERE THEIR FUTURES ARE’ and ‘Shell, for example, has spent about $2bn (£1.4bn) since 2016 on investing in renewable energy.’

And it added: ’INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS SUCH AS BIG PENSION FUNDS ARE ALSO PUTTING VAST AMOUNTS OF MONEY INTO THE SECTOR. A recent survey from the alternative-investment manager Octopus found that they plan to plough $743bn into renewables in the next decade.’

Crown Estates Scotland in February this year provided an update on its ScotWind leasing round for offshore wind: ‘Latest figures, taking into account all 20 projects, now show initial total Scottish commitments total £28.8bn, indicating an average of £1.5bn investment in Scotland per project built. Offshore wind projects typically take several years to plan, develop, and build. ScotWind projects are expected to be built from the late 2020s onwards.’

Issues that arises therefore in the context of GB Energy as an investment vehicle include but are not limited to: will it invest in renewable energy generation projects that would not proceed without its investment? – if not, then its use of public funding is ‘DEADWEIGHT’! And winning votes for Labour in Scotland on such a proposition as GB Energy will verge on a democratic outrage!

Candidly, the bauble of the GB Energy HQ being offered to entice the voters of North Britain sits atop a pile of carefully crafted and cleverly marketed deceptions. And that’s before one tries to tease out a credible ‘theory of change’ for Labour’s claims that actions attributable to GB Energy specifically will deliver reductions in energy bills for UK consumers and businesses!