Mainstream’s model motion on Rosebank

dlandmjLeave a comment

CLP Motion on oil and gas:

This CLP notes:

The Government has announced that it has granted approval for the development of the Jackdaw gas field, while it is still considering approval for Rosebank oil and gas field.

  • Climate change is here, and its impacts will only become more devastating to the lives and livelihoods of local communities and people. The Labour Government has an opportunity to affect generational change in this Parliament by putting people and the planet first through rejecting Rosebank.
  • According to the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), there were 2,877 excess deaths during May and June heatwaves in the UK this year. The World Health Organisation (WHO) estimates that between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250,000 additional deaths per year, from undernutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress alone.
  • The Jackdaw gas field is due to reduce our annual gas import dependency by just 2% on average, a miniscule proportion of usage.
  • Oil and gas prices are set by the international market, and therefore excavation of Jackdaw and Rosebank will not meaningfully reduce prices for consumers. Meanwhile, Rosebank’s total lifetime emissions are estimated at 254 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent, which is equivalent to 70% of the UK’s entire annual emissions in 2025.
  • Comparatively, the UK’s growing green economy is worth more than £100bn a year, accounting for over one million jobs, which have- on average- better pay and conditions than those in other sectors. This is thanks to a Labour Government delivering on its clean energy mission but this unprecedented progress must not be undone by support for fossil fuel projects.
  • Energy security and affordability is built on home grown energy. The North Sea oil is in decline and cannot provide either, whereas millions of distributed clean energy assets offer a far more secure foundation for the UK’s power, while growing local jobs.

This CLP believes:

  • The approval of Jackdaw takes the UK in the wrong direction and makes rejecting Rosebank all the more critical to protect future generations from the most catastrophic impacts of climate change.
  • The climate crisis is an issue of justice- the world’s richest 1% cause double the CO2 emissions of the poorest 50%. We will not all bear the brunt of the climate emergency the same- poorer people, especially in the Global South, are most exposed to the negative impacts of flooding, heat stress, water scarcity, and climate induced war and conflict- despite contributing the least to emissions. Poorer and more vulnerable communities in the UK are also far less climate resilient on the whole. Their homes are poorly insulated, more prone to extreme heat, cold and flooding. Poorer households are also much more financially impacted by climate induced energy shocks.
  • The Government must side with working people, rather than fossil fuel giants and shareholders, who will overwhelmingly benefit from this decision.
  • The Government must be consistent in its clean energy mission and focus on transitioning communities and workers away from oil and gas. This means removing the UK’s reliance on fossil fuels to send a clear message to investors, UK supply chains and the world that it is committed to clean energy.

This CLP resolves:

  • To write to [insert local Labour MP here if you have one/ if not, just to Secretary of State], requesting that they urge the Government to reject licenses for the Rosebank oil and gas field.
  • To write to Miatta Fahnbulleh, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, urging her to reject licenses for the Rosebank oil and gas field.

One comment on Andy Burnham’s conference speech

dlandmjLeave a comment

Taken from a report-back to a CLP in Greater Manchester


The applause was huge. Just imagine if he had actually won a leadership contest. (This is the policy platform that should have been given in a leadership contest, and debated in the party, with other candidates).

All the news media I had heard that voting on the way to conference was trailing the ‘national care service announcement. But the way he introduced it was so much better than the trails: “I want to speak directly today to our care workers… I am sorry that my profession has let down yours for so long.” (The later announcement of a new collective pension scheme for care staff, that has been pushed for by UNISON, seems to be part of this).

That a Labour leader is now at least rhetorically reviving Labour’s previous opposition to privatisation is a change, and a change very much for the better. The problem is that Andy Burnham’s verbal disavowal of Thatcherism – and by implication the Blairite capitulation to it, of which he was part – is not accompanied by any immediate policy for reversal – much of it is ten years away. It does create an importantly different situation for Labour though, I think.

I gradually realised that at every point, ‘democratic control’ was interpreted only as “a stronger role for mayors and local leaders” – though of course county-wide mayors rather than councils were a Tory initiative to reduce levels of democratic accountability. I am disappointed that our programme for democratisation doesn’t go beyond that to local democracy – even simple things like every school having a governing body again.

There were a number of points where there was an evident contrast between what Andy Burnham was saying and what conference had just voted for: He said “we will reform Right-to-Buy” – just 24 hours after the conference had voted not to reform it but abolish it altogether. (The difference is that ‘abolish removes RTB on all council houses; the intended reform would remove it only in those houses not yet built). Last years’ conference voted to call for “a wealth tax on the richest to raise revenue for public services”. And 48 hours before Andy’s speech, conference had again voted for a wealth tax. But he announced that the care service would be funded not through wealth tax, but by reduction over time in the value of the state pension. That morning conference had voted to “clearly and publicly reject forced academisation as a failed education policy”, but the was no mention of the academies problem – which is a perfect example of the point Andy makes of how privatisation has taken control further from local communities.

There were also contrasts with what conference had not been allowed to discuss (ruled out motions and disappeared references-back): His reference to “the biggest council house building programme since the post-war era” and the “need to restore stronger democratic control over our housing stock” was great, but of course our motion on means of making that a reality had been ruled out. On water, he said “water is a symbol of what has gone wrong with Britain – a service where the shareholders never lose and the public never win, from which some have syphoned out easy money while the public picked up the bill for the sewage in our seas.” Great, but the motions on water passed by dozens of CLPs – and ruled out for conference – called for “the Government to urgently return water in England into public ownership”; His commitment was very different, that he “will start a 10-year journey to a very different water system”.  He will repeal the “ban on public ownership of water companies”, give new powers to mayors, give warning to companies, and ultimately “consequences will be clear… including taking back control or public ownership.” (Polls show that 82% of the public are for public ownership of water – not a ten year plan that might or might not lead to public ownership at the end). His announcement about exploring options on the EU, including re-joining, was met with huge applause but the NPF references-back pointing out how poor the party’s own NPF had been on the issue had disappeared from the agenda.

On education, reference to Youth Services was well received, but the policy to “rebuild a system of comprehensive education” consisted only of “parity between academic and technical”, with no reference to academisation or the wholesale privatisation of SEND that has taken place in the past 20 years, bleeding local authority SEND budgets into the pockets of hedge funds.

The announcement of a move towards PR had a mixed response, but more positive than negative. There will be a mixed response in our CLP. It was the only reference to conference policy though: “Conference, in past years you have voted twice to support electoral reform. I hear you, I agree with you and today I am announcing a new national commission on electoral reform.”  Unfortunately, it appeared motivated by ‘stability’, cross-part working, and perhaps coalition government – rather than by democratisation.

Concerningly, a speech over an hour long made no reference to workers’ rights or implementing the Employment Rights Act (despite the vote for those in the emergency motion), and nothing at all on the climate emergency.

Despite these shortcomings, it was probably the best-delivered leader’ speech for decades. A lot of people seemed genuinely enthused. We should use this fact – as far as we possibly can – to get our members more active and to recruit new members, and getting our branches more active in their communities supporting strikes and local campaigns.

I have drafted a leaflet we can use to urge people to join Labour when we are door-knocking.