Calls are mounting within and beyond Labour ranks for a reassessment of the party’s net-zero energy policies following the Conservative victory in last week’s Aberdeen South by-election, widely interpreted as a referendum on oil and gas exploration in the North Sea.

Douglas Lumsden reclaimed the seat for the Conservatives on Thursday, defeating Labour’s Nurul Hoque Ali, who garnered just 1,550 votes—almost 10,000 fewer than Labour’s tally in the 2024 general election. The Scottish National Party (SNP), which lost the seat, and Reform UK also finished ahead of Labour. The result has intensified scrutiny of Labour’s stance on energy, particularly the ban on new oil and gas licences imposed shortly after the party took power under Energy Secretary Ed Miliband.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch framed the by-election outcome as national support for policies favouring domestic energy production. “Energy security is national security,” she stated, urging the UK to develop its own resources rather than rely on imports from Norway, Russia, and elsewhere. Badenoch characterised Labour’s approach as detrimental to economic strength and energy independence, suggesting that the electorate’s choice reflected a demand for “common sense” in energy policy.

The result has also emboldened critics within and outside Labour calling for a shift away from current net-zero strategies. Reform UK’s deputy leader, Richard Tice, described the vote as a repudiation of Labour’s energy restrictions and urged Andy Burnham—poised as a future Labour leader—to remove Miliband from his position. Tice argued that new drilling licences could stimulate growth, job creation, and reduce energy bills. He warned that appointing Miliband as Chancellor would signal Labour’s disconnect from economic realities.

Inside Labour, sources confirm growing internal pressure—especially among Scottish MPs—to reconsider the exploration ban and challenge Miliband’s leadership in energy policy. One MP, speaking anonymously, suggested that Miliband’s continued prominence risks party unity and electoral prospects, particularly if he succeeds Rachel Reeves as Chancellor. Concerns were also raised about potential economic instability, with fears of a “run on the pound” if Miliband assumes greater control over economic policy.

Commentators and industry figures have echoed these concerns. Fred de Fossard of the Prosperity Institute characterised Miliband’s approach as deliberately undermining North Sea oil and gas, contributing to job losses and economic hardship in Aberdeen. An Aberdeen energy manager, speaking on condition of anonymity, echoed this sentiment, lamenting the damage inflicted on the local industry and economy by current net-zero policies.

Energy analyst Andy Mayer of the Institute of Economic Affairs added that the UK’s present policies result in energy that is “more expensive, dirtier, and less secure,” while forfeiting tax revenue and economic benefits from new oil and gas development. He forecast that both the Conservatives and Reform UK could gain politically if Labour maintains its current stance.

Meanwhile, Louise Gilmour, Scotland Secretary of the GMB trade union, criticised both UK and Scottish governments for what she termed a “rushed and needless rundown” of the North Sea industry, signalling dissatisfaction with current transitions from various political and labour perspectives.

The Aberdeen South by-election has thus intensified debate over the UK’s energy future, with Labour’s internal divisions regarding net-zero policy emerging as a key issue ahead of potential leadership changes.