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
Andy Burnham has found himself at the centre of another political confrontation after Kemi Badenoch challenged Labour’s approach to Britain’s biggest economic and public policy problems. The exchange has renewed attention on the increasingly bitter relationship between Labour and the Conservatives, with both sides seeking to present themselves as the party capable of addressing the country’s concerns.
Prime Minister’s Questions, commonly known as PMQs, remains one of Westminster’s most closely watched political events. It provides opposition leaders with a regular opportunity to question the government, expose disagreements and demand explanations for controversial decisions.
For Badenoch, the session is an opportunity to put Labour’s record under scrutiny. For Burnham, the wider debate presents a challenge: how to defend Labour’s policy direction while responding to criticism over living costs, taxation, public services and economic growth.
The confrontation reflects a broader political struggle over the direction of Britain, with the Conservatives seeking to challenge Labour’s credibility and Labour attempting to demonstrate that its policies can deliver tangible improvements for households.
As the debate continues, the arguments exchanged in Parliament are likely to influence how voters assess the parties’ competing claims.
A tense atmosphere at Westminster
PMQs is rarely a quiet affair. The weekly session is designed to hold the government accountable, but it also provides a public stage for political competition.
Opposition leaders often focus on issues that resonate with the public, including household bills, immigration, taxation, employment and the state of public services. Government representatives, meanwhile, attempt to defend their decisions, highlight their achievements and challenge the credibility of their opponents.
Badenoch has made scrutiny of Labour’s economic policies a central feature of her political approach. She has repeatedly questioned whether the government can deliver stronger growth while addressing pressure on public finances and avoiding additional burdens on businesses and working households.
Burnham, associated with Labour’s wider political direction, has been drawn into debates over the party’s priorities, including the balance between public spending, economic reform and support for ordinary families.
The political significance of such exchanges often extends beyond the precise words spoken in the chamber. A pointed question can dominate news coverage, while a response may be examined for signs of inconsistency, uncertainty or a failure to address the issue directly.
However, the impact of a parliamentary confrontation should not be confused with proof that one side’s argument is correct. The substance of the claims, the evidence behind them and the policies being discussed remain the most important considerations.
The confrontation between Andy Burnham and Kemi Badenoch at Prime Minister’s Questions has intensified the political debate over Britain’s energy policy, public finances and the future direction of the Labour government. Badenoch challenged the Prime Minister over the approval of the Jackdaw gas field, arguing that ministers had taken too long to make a decision that could affect Britain’s energy security.
Her criticism quickly widened into questions about government borrowing, welfare spending and whether Labour has a credible plan for the economy. Burnham defended his administration’s approach, insisting that the government was correcting problems left by the Conservatives and making decisions intended to benefit households over the long term.
The exchange highlighted the competing priorities facing the two parties. Badenoch wants Labour to demonstrate greater urgency over economic growth and public spending, while Burnham is attempting to defend a combination of energy investment, public service reform and measures to ease the cost of living.
Badenoch challenges the government’s energy policy
The Jackdaw gas field became one of the main subjects of the confrontation after the government announced that the project could proceed following further environmental assessment.
Badenoch argued that the Conservatives had approved the project in 2022 and accused Labour of delaying the decision for approximately two and a half years. She questioned why the government had taken so long to resolve the issue and called on Burnham to reconsider Labour’s wider restriction on issuing new oil and gas licences.
Her argument was that Britain possesses the resources, technical expertise and skilled workers needed to maintain a substantial domestic energy industry. In her view, uncertainty over government policy has weakened confidence among businesses considering investment in the North Sea.
Burnham responded by arguing that the previous government had failed to complete the necessary process correctly, creating the legal difficulties that subsequently delayed the project.
He defended the approval as a pragmatic decision that would help maintain energy supplies while generating resources that could support investment in renewable energy.
The disagreement illustrates an important distinction in the debate over North Sea drilling. Supporters argue that domestic production can contribute to energy security and protect industrial employment. Critics question whether additional fossil fuel extraction can deliver significant benefits to consumers while remaining consistent with Britain’s climate commitments.
The approval of Jackdaw does not automatically resolve those questions. Its wider impact will depend on production levels, market conditions, environmental requirements and the government’s ability to deliver its broader energy strategy.
The battle over Britain’s energy bills
Burnham also used the parliamentary session to discuss measures intended to ease pressure on households.
He revealed that he had asked the Chancellor and Energy Secretary to examine whether standing charges on gas bills could be removed.
Standing charges are fixed costs that consumers pay for having an energy supply, regardless of how much gas or electricity they use. They can represent a particularly frustrating expense for households attempting to reduce consumption or manage tight budgets.
A change to the system could alter how energy costs are distributed between fixed charges and the prices consumers pay for each unit of energy. However, removing a standing charge would not necessarily eliminate the underlying costs of maintaining and operating the energy network. Those costs would have to be recovered through some other mechanism or funded differently.
The proposal therefore requires careful examination before its practical effect on household bills can be established.
Badenoch’s broader criticism is that the government must show how its energy decisions will translate into tangible savings rather than simply announcing policies that sound attractive.
For Burnham, the challenge is to demonstrate that his approach can improve affordability while maintaining a reliable supply and encouraging investment in cleaner energy.
Public borrowing becomes another flashpoint
The exchange also turned to the state of Britain’s public finances.
Badenoch questioned how Burnham intended to reduce borrowing and argued that the government’s spending commitments were not matched by sufficiently clear plans to control expenditure.
The Conservatives have made the level of public debt and the cost of servicing it central to their criticism of Labour. Higher interest payments can reduce the amount of money available for public services and leave the government with less flexibility when economic conditions deteriorate.
Badenoch argued that ministers needed to make difficult decisions rather than concentrate on smaller initiatives while larger financial challenges remained unresolved.
Burnham defended his government’s approach and referred to the International Monetary Fund’s assessment of the British economy. He also challenged the Conservatives’ record, arguing that they were poorly placed to lecture Labour about the management of public finances.
The disagreement reflects a longstanding divide in British politics over how governments should balance public investment against fiscal restraint.
Conservatives have generally emphasised the importance of limiting borrowing and controlling expenditure. Labour has argued that investment and reform are necessary to improve public services and address longstanding economic weaknesses.
In practice, both approaches face constraints. Borrowing can finance investment, but excessive debt servicing costs can restrict future choices. Spending reductions can improve the fiscal position, but they may also place additional pressure on services if poorly designed.
The key question is whether the government can produce a credible plan that reconciles its financial commitments with the resources available.
Welfare spending and public services
Welfare spending has also remained a major source of disagreement between the two leaders.
Badenoch has called for stronger action to control the benefits bill, arguing that the government must ensure public money is used effectively and that its employment policies are financially sustainable.
Burnham has defended the need to address the underlying problems that prevent people from working, including poor health, limited opportunities and weaknesses in support services.
The debate is complicated because welfare expenditure covers a wide range of circumstances. Some payments support people who are temporarily unemployed, while others provide essential assistance to people with disabilities or long-term health conditions.
Policies designed to reduce expenditure must therefore distinguish between unnecessary costs and support that people genuinely need.
Reducing the number of people who are able to work but remain outside employment could benefit both the economy and the public finances. However, achieving that objective may require investment in skills, rehabilitation, childcare, transport and employment support.
The government must also consider the consequences of changes for people who cannot realistically enter work.
Badenoch’s argument places pressure on Labour to explain how it intends to manage spending. Burnham’s response highlights the competing responsibility to maintain an adequate safety net while helping more people participate in the economy.
The wider political significance
The confrontation matters because it brings several major issues together: energy security, the cost of living, public debt and the future of public services.
Each issue affects the others. Energy prices influence household budgets and business costs. Economic growth affects tax revenues. Welfare spending and public services influence the government’s financial commitments, while borrowing costs determine how expensive it is to finance those commitments.
A decision that appears beneficial in one area may create challenges elsewhere.
For example, additional gas production may contribute to domestic supply, but it cannot guarantee lower household bills. Investment in renewable energy may reduce dependence on fossil fuels over time, but new infrastructure requires funding and careful planning. Welfare reforms may reduce certain costs, but they must be designed to avoid creating greater difficulties for vulnerable households.
These trade-offs explain why parliamentary arguments frequently return to the question of priorities.
Badenoch wants the government to explain more clearly how it will manage those competing demands. Burnham wants to demonstrate that Labour can make decisions that address immediate problems while preparing the country for longer-term change.
Neither political argument can be judged solely by the forcefulness of its delivery. The evidence behind each proposal and the results achieved will ultimately matter more than the exchanges themselves.
What happens next for Burnham?
The government now faces pressure to show that the Jackdaw decision forms part of a coherent energy policy and that its proposals for household bills can deliver practical benefits.
Ministers will also need to explain how they intend to manage borrowing, maintain essential services and approach welfare reform.
The coming Budget will provide a significant test of those commitments because it will set out financial decisions that affect taxpayers, businesses and public spending.
For Badenoch, the challenge will be to turn her criticism into a sustained examination of Labour’s policies and to explain what alternatives the Conservatives would pursue.
For Burnham, the challenge is to show that the government can move beyond announcements and demonstrate measurable progress.
The argument over Jackdaw has already exposed the tension between the government’s climate commitments and the need to maintain reliable energy supplies. The debate over borrowing has raised further questions about how Labour intends to pay for its ambitions.
The PMQs confrontation may have produced sharp exchanges, but the underlying issues will not be settled in the Commons chamber.
Ultimately, voters will judge the government on whether energy becomes more affordable, public services improve and the economy provides greater security for households and businesses. They will also judge the opposition on whether its criticisms are accompanied by credible alternatives.
Badenoch’s challenge has placed those questions firmly in the spotlight. The more important test for Burnham will be whether his government can provide convincing answers through its policies and results, rather than relying on parliamentary rhetoric alone.