Keir Starmer was touring the UK National Nuclear Laboratory in Preston when the Bank of England halved its 2025 growth forecast, cut interest rates for the third time in six months, warned of an uptick in inflation and said the national insurance hike on employers would hit prices and jobs more than expected. 

It was a blow to a prime minister and chancellor who have placed all their chips on growth, made all the more painful because of those budget decisions that – in the short term at least – have made matters worse.

Rachel Reeves said soon after: “I am still not satisfied with the growth rate.”

Keir Starmer, in Preston to talk up nuclear power generation, said “there’s more to do” as he extolled the virtues of small modular reactors – faster to build than existing larger power stations – as a way of speeding up the delivery of new nuclear power stations in England and Wales.

The government hopes the first one will be up and running by 2032.

He wants to do it by shaking up the planning system to “clear the path” for smaller reactors (there are currently just eight favoured sites for nuclear power plants in the UK).

This was a prime minister determined to channel his inner Donald Trump and – hat tip to Chris Mason at the BBC – “build baby build”.

This is a PM determined to take on the “blockers” and get Britain building again.

But what is fast emerging, as growth flatlines, is that he and Rachel Reeves – who once said she’d be the UK’s “first green chancellor” – will also take on the blockers in the cabinet and party if that is what it takes to get growth.

When it comes to green versus growth, the latter is going to win.

This is a prime minister who, for my money, is also prepared to “drill baby drill” in that hunt for growth.

Having signalled last month that the government is going to press ahead with a third runway at Heathrow in the face of fierce opposition from environmentalists, the prime minister all but confirmed to me on Thursday that he’s also minded to back the approval of a giant new oilfield in the North Sea.

At stake is a licence for the Rosebank development – approved by the last government, but now blocked by the courts on environmental concerns over huge carbon emissions.

Read more:
Cut taxes to get people buying electric cars – motor industry
Details on plan for Great British Energy

When I asked the prime minister if he was minded to grant new permissions, he all but said yes: “The mindset is we know that oil and gas is going to be a big part of the future for many decades to come.

“We do need to transition to clean power, but in relation to this particular licence, it was granted in the first place, it is going back through a process.

“I can’t pre-empt the decision but, you know, we did say that where licences have already been granted, we wouldn’t interfere with them.

“But I’ll be open with you, oil and gas is part of the future mix for decades to come.”

The reality is that as growth comes hard to find, the prime minister and his chancellor are going to have to face down the environmentalists in the cabinet and the party.

Nuclear might be an example where green and growth can go hand in hand, but the third runway at Heathrow or the approval controversial licences for two major oil and gas sites in the North Sea are not.

This could get difficult.

The PM is intensely relaxed about taking on environmental “zealots” outside his party, but what about the fight within?

Just a couple of days ago on the Labour List website for activists and members, there was an article that said the PM must reject a proposal to develop this giant oil field or “risk imploding the party”.

Ed Miliband, the climate secretary, described Rosebank as “climate vandalism” when it was issued a licence by the last government.

Meanwhile, the Labour manifesto committed to no further oil and gas licences, so some will see allowing this development as a betrayal.

Note, in the response to my question, the PM was at pains to stress this was not a new licence and the government had said it “wouldn’t interfere” with licences already granted.

It is going to be hugely controversial.

It could push Labour supporters into the arms of other progressive parties, prompt cabinet splits and public rows.

But if this government doesn’t get economic growth, the Starmer project collapses.

When it comes to decisions that pit growth versus green, it seems that Starmer has decided he doesn’t have much choice.