The UK faces massive, complex, challenges. But what can we expect from GB Energy after the first wave of elegant, system-led, solutions?

Labour has promised systemic approaches to tackling two of the UK’s biggest challenges. It promises 40,000 more NHS appointments every week and to significantly reduce the number of re-offenders returning to prison.

These are striking commitments. But it is the approach being taken that is elegant. And there are common threads between the two. The new government has appointed leaders with a history of using “system thinking” to solve complex problems. It has also begun laying the groundwork, cautioning that change will take both time and compromise.

Let’s take the NHS first. Wes Streeting has been appointed as the new Health Secretary. He has pledged to lower waiting times, resolve pay disputes, increase the number of appointments and improve the overall standard of healthcare available to all. He will do this by taking a multi-faceted look at the problem – and is not afraid to turn to private independent healthcare providers to do so.

What I really like about this solution, is the recognition that there is capacity in the healthcare system. It’s just not right now in the NHS. Rather than being idealistic or single-minded about how to address the issues, he is addressing the system as a whole, with an open mind.

If there are aspects of the system working well, let’s amplify them and capitalise on them, and use them to bring up the overall standard of the rest.

Between the lines

On the prison system, James Timpson, CEO of the Timpsons shoe repair and key-cutting business, will take the role of Prisons Minister.

As with the NHS, this new government appears to be looking at the prison problem from all angles. The prison capacity issue will be partially addressed through the experience of Timpson in employing ex-offenders. So what can we draw from these big ticket issues, and how could it play out for the energy sector?

1) Labour is looking at complex challenges through multiple lenses and taking a system-led approach. They believe that by fixing or amplifying the component parts, the whole will be better.

2) We should expect to see more leaning on the private sector for partnering, leadership and to plug gaps. This will require compromise on all sides.

3) Leadership will be crucial in steadfastly pursuing elegant solutions, which take time and negotiation.

4) And yes, they will take time. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has made it abundantly clear that his government’s approach to solving the most challenging issues of our time will not yield results overnight. There’s no silver bullet.

Energy plans

At a headline level, Ed Miliband, MP for Doncaster North, has been appointed Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. He has touted Labour’s “mandate to deliver a bold plan for energy independence, lower energy bills, good jobs and to tackle the climate crisis”.

It has been clear for GB Energy from the outset that doing this will rely on private sector partners. The government’s challenge will be in stretching the initial capitalisation of GB Energy as far as possible, alongside the private sector.

Before the election, Labour said it would support GB Energy with £8.3 billion. It has three main priorities: to co-invest in new technologies, to scale and accelerate mature technologies and finally to scale up municipal and community energy.

Given those demands to invest in new and old technologies, it becomes clear the £8.3bn budget will be stretched.

The new government will need to really lean into its system-led approach to solving challenges. I would expect to see very targeted activity as a result, but again no silver bullet.

Policies will be designed to unlock and speed up private investment. An early example of this is the move to unblock onshore wind in England, which has already been announced. An interesting component of the onshore wind announcement is that it came from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This is an early indication of energy and climate policy working together with finance.

Regional investment will likely look to take advantage of existing workforce capacity, infrastructure, supply chain, energy resource or physical resource. Port Talbot and Grangemouth are two examples, but it is unlikely to be a one size fits all and there are more opportunities, from all corners of the UK, than the pot will be able to deliver without it significantly attracting private capital.

Finding a balance

There will be compromise everywhere. And there will also be a feeling amongst some business leaders that any given investment won’t be as good as it could be. This is often a factor of any system-thinking approach.

It seems likely that different technology verticals will be competing for attention, and finance. However, the delivery of progress across all of them is going to require a united view of one energy sector and one energy sector workforce.

But perhaps one of the greatest considerations is the third point of Labour’s plans, relating to municipal and community energy.

Lowering energy bills, creating good, long-term jobs, having confidence in energy security and addressing the climate crisis are four areas that an entire population can get behind.

No matter what happens across the larger-scale technology plays, risk balance in Labour’s new-look energy system portfolio will come from tapping into the motivation of people and businesses at a local level up and down the country. This might stave off some aspects of public concern if it appears change isn’t happening fast enough.

At the heart of it all though, is not just long-term consistent policy, long-term modest investment and the building up of a fairly paid workforce. We are also going to need exemplary leadership behaviour across a united energy industry – coupled with a healthy dose of trust – from all of us.

Related Content

The price of power and pitfalls of reform

“Just get moving” on Tees Valley’s path to energy leadership

Tees Valley aims to transform industrial foundations into energy future

The UK’s renewable energy costs paradox