The Tories are on the right side of oil and gas argument - Brian Wilson

I found myself in the unusual position of welcoming a Tory win. Nothing to do with the constitution or fundamentals of political ideology. But once this became a straight fight about policy towards the North Sea, there was an unpalatable truth to swallow.

The Tories are on the right side of the argument (as are the trade unions). For Labour, on the other hand, there has been no more damaging folly in Scotland and wherever North Sea jobs matter, than to brush aside all objections to Ed Miliband’s irrational zealotry.

This was not a Scottish Tory revival, as they well know. It was a result peculiar to time, place and issue, about which people felt strongly enough to send a decisive, unmissable message. In that respect, it served the same purpose as Makerfield.

For the SNP, who lost the seat, belated efforts to play both sides against the middle have rightly failed to convince. For them, the dye was cast when their love-in with the Greens was flourishing. Now, when Stephen Flynn growls that “some will need to reflect on (the result), quite heavily”, Mr Swinney knows exactly who he is referring to.

There is nothing so ex as an ex-Minister and I do not make a habit of proffering unsolicited advice. In June 2023, however, I was sufficiently offended to make an exception. The Observer carried an “exclusive” which clearly came from Miliband’s camp proclaiming that an incoming Labour government would ban all new licences in the North Sea.

This was a policy ambush which should have been resisted and I wrote the only letter I have ever addressed to a Labour leader, explaining why I believed it to be deeply counter-productive, for the Labour Party, for energy security and also the credibility of a “just transition”. Surely Sir Keir would understand? I should have saved myself the price of a stamp.

The vast majority of voters, in Aberdeen like anywhere else, recognise the inevitable moves away from fossil fuels. But they also know that, for the time being, oil and gas have to come from somewhere. So why not reflect that balance in government policy?

Yesterday, I happened to meet an offshore worker who is now employed in Namibia, rather than the North Sea.

Two huge finds will keep him and many other Brits busy for decades to come. By then, our own industry would have expired of natural causes. But what is the rationale for forcing it into premature death – while importing from the four corners of the earth?

The audience which Miliband’s policy was intended to impress will not care one way another about that question. It’s not their jobs on the line and most of them are probably voting Green anyway, from a safe distance. But they still expect their laptops to work. It’s called security of supply and for the foreseeable future, it will require a balanced energy policy that includes oil and gas.

In the early hours of yesterday, a policy which ignores common sense delivered its logical political outcome – a thumping Tory victory in an Aberdeen by-election with Labour humiliated. Thanks, Ed. You’ve lost none of your reverse Midas touch.

By creating a false dichotomy between the North Sea and renewables, the policy discredited the concept of a “just transition” which just about everyone would buy into, if it was seen to be genuine and respectful of people’s jobs and legitimate objections.

North Sea workers, their families and communities see little evidence that the dash for renewables is replacing thousands of well-paid jobs with new and virtuous ones in clean energy. Maybe it will happen eventually but certainly not within timeframes that determine how people vote.

If Starmer and Miliband had been sensitive to these realities, there have been ample opportunities to get off the hook. With every global conflict pointing towards the need for energy security, pursuit of a policy which – for at least 20 years – knowingly makes us more import-dependent, seems eccentric.

So where does the Aberdeen result intersect with Makerfield? First, there is that common theme of fluidity in voting behaviour in order to send messages which are relevant to immediate circumstances.

There are many Labour MPs, acutely aware that their tenures may be brief, who will have noticed the difference between Burnham’s by-election result and other recent ones in which the only question was who is best placed to beat Labour.

But if Burnham wants to signal the change he represents, he would do well to take notice of the result declared in Aberdeen just a couple of hours before his own. This really is what happens when Labour fails to listen to working people and tries to pander to a different market.

Many in Scotland will like the sound of his commitment to bridge north-south divides. And, of course, his record as Mayor of Greater Manchester is streets ahead of anything attempted in our own cities and regions, despite Holyrood having far more money and devolved powers.

When Burnham says that this (by which he means himself) is the last chance for Labour, that too will strike a chord with those who have just come through the Holyrood elections and discovered, if they didn’t know already, the extent to which the party’s base has been eroded, not least due to recent policies shaped in Whitehall.

So let battle, it seems, commence. We obviously need finer definition of what Burnham’s promise of “change” would look like. I won’t write another letter but hope he has noticed that the North Sea would be a good place to start.