Kemi Badenoch kicked off PMQs by demanding Andy Burnham gives the green light to more North Sea drilling. It comes after Labour finally approved the Jackdaw gas field after months of speculation.
The Tory leader said: “The Conservatives first approved Jackdaw in 2022. Rather than fighting the Leftie activists that tried to block it, Labour appointed one of them as Energy Secretary.
“So many jobs lost, so much time and money wasted. Britain cannot be a serious player on the world stage if the Government dithers for two and a half years over approving a single licence.
“We have the resources, the expertise and the people. What we have lost is the confidence to make tough decisions. So will the Prime Minister now overturn Labour’s ban on all new oil and gas licences?”
The Prime Minister replied: “Can we get something straight at the start of Prime Minister’s Questions today. We have made a decision that her government made up. That’s why there was a delay, because they didn’t do the process properly.”
Andy Burnham Brutally Skewered by Kemi Badenoch Within Minutes of PMQs
The political battle between Prime Minister Andy Burnham and Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has become one of the most closely watched confrontations in Westminster, with their exchanges at Prime Minister’s Questions exposing deep divisions over taxation, public spending, Britain’s economic future and the government’s priorities.
Badenoch has repeatedly challenged Burnham to explain how he intends to pay for his promises, arguing that voters deserve clear answers rather than broad assurances. Burnham, meanwhile, has defended his approach by pointing to the economic difficulties inherited by his government and insisting that his administration is trying to tackle problems that previous governments failed to resolve.
Their exchanges have become increasingly combative, with both politicians attempting to demonstrate that they understand the pressures facing ordinary households.
Badenoch demands answers over spending
One of the central themes of Badenoch’s questioning has been the government’s approach to public finances. The Conservative leader has argued that ministers cannot promise additional support across multiple areas without explaining where the money will come from.
Her challenge is straightforward: if the government wants to increase spending, it must identify whether the cost will be covered by higher taxes, additional borrowing or reductions elsewhere.
At Burnham’s first PMQs on September 2, 2026, Badenoch repeatedly pressed him on whether he intended to raise taxes in the forthcoming Budget. She also questioned whether his plans to reduce the welfare bill were compatible with promises to spend more on public services.
According to reporting by the Evening Standard, Badenoch accused the Prime Minister of wanting to please everyone while failing to provide a convincing explanation of how his commitments would be funded. Burnham resisted giving a definitive answer on future tax decisions, arguing that he would not write the Budget during an exchange at the Commons despatch box.
The confrontation illustrated a fundamental disagreement between the two leaders. Badenoch wanted specific financial commitments, while Burnham sought to defend the broader direction of his government without being tied to detailed Budget decisions before they were announced.
The tax question that refuses to disappear
Taxation remains a particularly sensitive issue because households are already dealing with the cost of essential goods, housing, energy and other everyday expenses.
Badenoch has sought to make the question of taxation central to her criticism of the government. Her argument is that families and businesses need certainty, particularly when economic forecasts and borrowing costs place pressure on public finances.
For Burnham, the challenge is more complicated. The government must demonstrate that it can improve public services and support economic growth while maintaining confidence in the country’s financial position.
If ministers cannot show how their spending commitments will be financed, critics will argue that taxpayers could ultimately be asked to shoulder the burden. If the government instead reduces spending, it risks disappointing people who expect improvements to healthcare, social care and other services.
These competing demands leave the government with difficult choices, regardless of which political party presents the strongest argument at PMQs.
Welfare and social care become flashpoints
The welfare system has also featured prominently in the exchanges between Burnham and Badenoch.
Burnham has argued that Britain needs a more effective approach to helping people into education, training and employment. He has expressed concern about the number of young people who are not in education, employment or training, suggesting that the government must address the underlying reasons for economic inactivity.
Badenoch, however, has questioned whether the Prime Minister’s plans are sufficiently ambitious when it comes to controlling expenditure.
The disagreement reflects a wider political debate about the balance between financial support and incentives to work. Supporters of reform argue that public money must be targeted effectively and that employment should offer a clear route out of hardship. Others warn that poorly designed changes could leave vulnerable people without adequate assistance.
Social care adds another layer of complexity. Burnham has defended the need to address longstanding weaknesses in the system, arguing that governments have avoided difficult decisions for too long. Badenoch’s wider criticism is that the government must demonstrate tangible results rather than simply announce its intentions.
The question facing ministers is how to improve care and support while ensuring that public spending remains sustainable.
Economic credibility under pressure
The exchanges have also highlighted the importance of economic credibility.
Badenoch has argued that rising public debt and interest payments leave the government with less room to manoeuvre. Her position is that ministers should focus on controlling expenditure, reducing borrowing and creating conditions in which businesses can invest and grow.
Burnham has countered by pointing to the economic challenges facing Britain and defending decisions that he believes can improve living standards over time.
The two approaches reflect different political priorities. The Conservatives emphasise restraint, fiscal discipline and the need to limit the burden on taxpayers. Burnham’s government argues that public intervention and investment may be necessary to repair services and address structural weaknesses.
Neither approach removes the need for detailed evidence. Ultimately, the government’s performance will be judged by whether it can deliver its stated objectives while managing the public finances responsibly.
The International Monetary Fund, economic forecasts and the government’s own fiscal assessments all form part of the wider debate. However, individual statements about economic performance need to be considered in context, including the assumptions behind forecasts and the distinction between reducing the deficit and reducing total public debt.
A political clash with consequences beyond Westminster
The exchanges between Burnham and Badenoch matter because PMQs is not simply a weekly parliamentary ritual. It provides opposition politicians with an opportunity to test government claims in public and forces ministers to defend their decisions under pressure.
For Badenoch, sustained questioning offers a way to present the Conservatives as a party demanding greater accountability over taxation and spending. By returning to the same issues, she can seek to keep the government’s financial decisions at the centre of public discussion.
For Burnham, the challenge is to show that his administration can withstand scrutiny without allowing parliamentary confrontations to overshadow its programme. He must explain the purpose of his policies, provide credible financial reasoning and demonstrate progress on issues that affect daily life.
The political stakes are particularly high when households are worried about bills and the future of public services. Voters may welcome promises of improvement, but they are also likely to ask whether those promises are realistic and who will pay for them.
A sharp exchange in the Commons can attract attention, but its significance depends on the substance behind the rhetoric. The key questions are whether the government can meet its commitments, whether the opposition offers workable alternatives and whether either side can support its claims with credible evidence.
The questions Burnham must answer
The clash with Badenoch underlines the challenges facing Burnham as his government approaches important fiscal decisions.
Can ministers explain how their spending plans will be funded? Will they be able to control borrowing without undermining public services? Can they improve social care and employment opportunities while reducing pressure on the welfare budget? And will their decisions leave households better off over the longer term?
These are not questions that can be settled by a single exchange at PMQs. They require clear policies, transparent financial forecasts and measurable results.
Badenoch’s attacks have placed these issues firmly in the political spotlight, while Burnham has attempted to defend his government’s priorities and challenge the Conservatives’ record. Their competing claims will continue to shape the debate over Britain’s economic direction.
The headline claim that Burnham was “brutally skewered” captures the combative tone of the political contest, but it is an interpretation rather than an objective measure of the exchange. What can be established is that Badenoch has persistently pressed the Prime Minister on taxation, borrowing and spending—and that Burnham faces continuing pressure to explain how his promises will translate into practical results.
For the public, the most important outcome will not be who delivers the sharpest line in the Commons. It will be whether the decisions made in Westminster improve living standards, protect essential services and provide a credible plan for Britain’s finances.