Starmer’s AI Growth Zones: The Hidden Cost of Labour’s AI Gamble

EUROPEANPOWELL

Most people in Britain know that Keir Starmer has thrown his weight behind Artificial Intelligence, but far fewer are aware of the concrete plans taking shape on the ground. These plans—known as AI Growth Zones—could transform not only the tech sector, but also the way we pay for everyday essentials like energy and water.

What are AI Growth Zones?

AI Growth Zones are government-designated areas where planning and regulatory hurdles are lowered to accelerate the building of data centres and AI infrastructure. Labour has promised 200 of these sites, with Teesworks in Teesside flagged as one of the crown jewels: a mega data centre billed as Europe’s largest.

To Starmer’s team, these zones represent Britain’s leap into the future. To many residents, however, they could represent higher bills and strained public resources.

The Energy Squeeze

According to the Guardian, the average household energy bill will rise to £1,755 from October due to Ofgem’s latest cap increase. Now, imagine adding hundreds of power-hungry data centres into Britain’s already creaking grid.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/aug/27/higher-energy-bills-price-cap-rises

The International Energy Agency warns that AI data centres could double global electricity demand by 2030, consuming as much power as Japan. In the U.S., expansions driven by companies like Amazon, Microsoft, and Google have already pushed up household bills as utilities pass on the costs of new infrastructure. Big Tech negotiates favourable rates while the public picks up the tab.

Why would the UK be any different? Grid upgrades don’t come free. If companies like Microsoft (with its expanding Azure data centres), Amazon Web Services, and Google Cloud receive preferential treatment in Starmer’s Growth Zones, ordinary households could end up subsidising Silicon Valley’s profits.

The Thirst of AI

The problem isn’t just electricity. AI data centres also consume vast amounts of water to cool their servers. A 100MW data centre can use up to 2 million litres of water every day—the same as thousands of households.

Microsoft’s U.S. data centres have already drawn controversy for consuming millions of litres of drinking water during droughts. Google and Amazon have also faced protests from communities in Oregon and Arizona for water use that competes directly with local households. If these same companies expand under Labour’s AI Growth Zones, (200 and counting) British households could see water stress translate into higher bills and tighter restrictions.

Freeports by Another Name

What the Guardian rarely mentions is how closely this ties into Britain’s broader free zone policy. Starmer’s AI Growth Zones are not arriving in a vacuum—they are the continuation of the Conservative blueprint for freeports, Special Economic Zones (SEZs), and so-called “investment zones” championed by Sunak and Truss after Brexit.

In opposition, Labour dismissed freeports as “not a silver bullet” for the economy. Yet in June 2025, the Labour Government quietly published its Industrial Strategy Zones Action Plan, which openly seeks to merge the Tories’ freeports and SEZs with new “industrial strategy zones.” It is hard not to conclude that AI Growth Zones are simply being folded into this framework: freeports by another name, dressed up in AI-friendly language.

This means the same risks we saw with freeports—tax breaks for corporations, weaker regulation, and limited benefits for local people—are now being replicated in the AI sector. Only this time, the stakes include national energy security and water resources.

Weakening Rights and Regulations

Beyond higher bills, these zones risk diluting protections that working people and communities depend on. Freeports and SEZs historically come with reduced labour standards, weaker collective bargaining rights, and exemptions from environmental safeguards. If AI Growth Zones follow the same model, workers could face a race to the bottom while local environments shoulder the burden of resource-intensive industries.

And this isn’t happening in isolation. In April 2025, at the EU’s AI Safety Summit, both the UK and the US refused to sign up to a common regulatory framework. US Vice President JD Vance even dismissed AI regulation as “woke.” This signals a deliberate political choice: to prioritise unfettered corporate growth over democratic oversight and public safety.

Who Benefits, Who Pays?

Starmer frames AI Growth Zones as a national success story. But the benefits—new jobs, investment, prestige—must be weighed against the hidden costs. If the past is any guide, the gains will flow to multinational tech giants, while the costs filter down to households in the form of higher utility bills.

Communities near Growth Zones could face the sharpest trade-offs: local jobs on the one hand, but higher energy and water stress on the other. And once Big Tech establishes itself, it locks in decades of resource use and political influence.

The Silence Around AI Growth Zones

Despite the scale of this policy, media discussion has been scant. The headline is usually “Starmer backs AI” rather than “Starmer designates 200 AI Growth Zones.” Most people don’t realise what this means: not robots walking the streets, but massive data warehouses owned by the likes of Amazon, Microsoft, and Google, sucking up power and water at unprecedented rates all within zones that extend the legacy of Tory freeports.

A Future We Need to Debate

Labour insists these Growth Zones are vital to Britain’s future prosperity. But unless there’s transparency about who pays the bills, we risk sleepwalking into a system where households subsidise a corporate AI gold rush, hidden behind the language of industrial strategy.

For now, most Britons are only dimly aware of what’s being built in their name. The debate needs to start now, before the servers start humming and the bills start rising.

---

This article (Starmer’s AI Growth Zones: The Hidden Cost of Labour’s AI Gamble) was created and published by EuropeanPowell and is republished here under “Fair Use”