Today marks one month since the escalation of conflict in the Middle East threw global energy markets into chaos. The Prime Minister used his statement today to outline Britain’s role in bringing together 35 nations around a statement of intent for maritime security across the Gulf, with the Foreign Secretary set to host a meeting of these nations later this week.
It sounds impressive. Diplomatic coalitions. Statements of intent. Maritime security frameworks. But strip away the language and ask the question that actually matters to families across Britain: what is this government doing to protect us from the economic consequences of a crisis it had months to prepare for?
A Month of Drift
Four weeks into this crisis, petrol prices continue to climb. Energy bills are rising. Food costs are increasing as transport and logistics become more expensive. Businesses are absorbing costs they can’t sustain. And the government’s response has been a series of meetings, statements, and reassurances that amount to the same thing: we’re working on it.
Working on what, exactly? The Strait of Hormuz disruption was foreseeable. Tensions in the region had been escalating for months before the crisis hit. Any competent government would have been preparing contingency plans for exactly this scenario: activating strategic reserves, accelerating domestic energy production, securing alternative supply arrangements, and communicating clearly with businesses about what to expect.
Instead, we got COBRA meetings after the crisis hit and diplomatic language about coalitions of the willing. The government was caught flat-footed by a crisis that anyone paying attention could see coming. That’s not leadership — it’s improvisation.
The Domestic Failure
What’s particularly frustrating is that Britain has the resources to significantly reduce its vulnerability to Middle Eastern energy disruptions. North Sea oil and gas production, while declining, could be maintained at higher levels with the right investment signals. Nuclear capacity could be expanded on faster timescales with streamlined planning. Renewable deployment could be accelerated. Strategic petroleum reserves could be larger.
But all of this requires a government that takes energy security seriously as a matter of national defence, not just an environmental talking point. Labour has consistently prioritised climate signalling over energy resilience. They’ve discouraged North Sea investment, delayed nuclear decisions, and presided over a planning system that makes it virtually impossible to build new energy infrastructure at the pace required.
The result is that one month into an entirely predictable energy disruption, Britain is more exposed than it needed to be. Families are paying more than they should be. Businesses are under more pressure than they should be. And the government is scrambling to manage a crisis that better preparation could have significantly mitigated.
The 35-Nation Coalition
The Prime Minister’s announcement of a 35-nation maritime security coalition deserves scrutiny. International cooperation on maritime security is sensible. Keeping shipping lanes open through the Gulf is in everyone’s interest. But coalitions of this kind take months to become operationally effective, and in the meantime, the disruption continues.
More importantly, maritime security coalitions don’t address the fundamental vulnerability: Britain’s dependence on energy imports that travel through geopolitically unstable regions. Even if the coalition succeeds in its immediate objectives, the underlying exposure remains. The next crisis — whether in the Gulf, the South China Sea, or anywhere else along global supply chains — will produce the same result.
Reform UK has argued consistently that energy independence should be treated as a pillar of national security alongside defence spending and border control. You don’t wait until a crisis hits to start thinking about resilience. You build it in advance, so that when disruptions occur — as they inevitably will — the impact on domestic consumers and businesses is minimised.
What Should Be Happening
A month into this crisis, a competent government would have already taken concrete domestic action: emergency licensing for North Sea operators willing to increase production, fast-tracked planning for shovel-ready renewable and nuclear projects, temporary relief on energy duties for businesses in critical sectors, and a clear public communication strategy about the likely duration and impact of the disruption.
Instead, we get statements about working for peace and de-escalation — which are desirable but don’t put food on tables or keep businesses open — and diplomatic initiatives that won’t show results for months. The gap between what the government is doing and what it should be doing grows wider every week.
“Diplomatic coalitions are fine, but they don’t heat homes or fill petrol tanks. A month into this crisis, Britain needs domestic action, not more international statements of intent.”
The Middle East crisis will eventually resolve. But the lesson it teaches is one this government seems determined not to learn: a nation that depends on global energy markets without investing in its own resilience will always be at the mercy of events beyond its control. Until Britain has a government that understands this — and acts on it — every new international crisis will find us in exactly the same position: scrambling, reactive, and paying the price for someone else’s failure to plan.