We’re about to find out if Andy Burnham can make tough decisions. (Image: Getty)
Which is why he’s been putting it off. He knows how divisive this issue is, especially among the left-wing voters he’s trying to win back to Labour. Disappoint them and they’ll feel betrayed. Go the other way and he’ll be accused of putting short-term party politics ahead of the UK economy. It’s a rotten position for a left-leaning Labour PM to be in. But now it’s make-your-mind-up time.
Burnham has to strike a balance between tackling climate change and keeping the lights on, and there are no easy wins. He’s been accused of “dithering and delaying” over whether to approve fresh production at the Rosebank oilfield and Jackdaw gasfield in the North Sea. They have become symbols of the wider battle over Britain’s energy future, and after the summer we’ve had, the heat is on.
Burnham should have settled this weeks ago. Instead, he put it off until after last Thursday’s by-election in Holborn and St Pancras, triggered by Keir Starmer’s decision to quit Parliament. It was a big test for Burnham, as Green Party leader Zack Polanski was standing for the seat. Burnham was desperate to stop him, to put the resurgent Greens back in their box, and reconnect Labour with disillusioned voters on the left. He didn’t want to boost Polanski’s campaign by announcing new North Sea drilling.
Get personal finance news, money saving tips and advice plus selcted offers and competitions
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
And it worked. Labour held the seat and Polanski is now on resignation watch. Burnham is free to move on, but he can no longer use the contest as reason to delay.
Former energy secretary Ed Miliband triggered a mighty row by blocking new North Sea drilling licences. He repeatedly argued that the policy wouldn’t cut a penny off household bills, overlooking the wider economic and strategic case for domestic production.
Rosebank and Jackdaw could produce substantial quantities of oil and gas over their lifetimes, although they’re not suddenly going to make Britain self-sufficient. They’ll bring other benefits that Miliband never mentioned. New investment would support jobs, generate tax revenues and revive Aberdeen’s flagging energy industry.
Drilling could also strengthen energy security by reducing reliance on imports, and lift Britain’s balance of payments too. We cannot simply transition to renewables overnight, but need oil and gas for decades. In that case, there’s a powerful argument for producing more of it at home.
North Sea gas has lower production and transport emissions than imported liquefied natural gas, so that’s another argument in favour. But there are arguments against.
Critics say new fields risk locking Britain into fossil-fuel dependence when it should be accelerating the shift to renewables. Approving Rosebank and Jackdaw will enrage environmentalists, who’ll be marching through the streets with banners saying the PM is killing the planet. It could even save Polanski.
But with winter looming, energy costs climbing and the Iran and Ukraine wars threatening supplies, most voters will think it’s madness to leave domestic resources untapped, while handing billions to Norway, the US and Qatar.
Labour allows imports of jet fuel made from Russian crude, boosting Vladimir Putin‘s war chest. Given that, it would be crazy to block our own. It might even cost Labour seats in the next election.
Burnham is in a bind. He can’t please everyone, and he can’t keep delaying. Bad luck. He wanted power, he’s got it. Now he has to make the tough calls that come with it.
Andy Burnham Now Has a Massive Decision to Make – It’s Going to Rip Britain in Half
Andy Burnham is facing one of the most consequential political decisions of his career, with the potential to reshape the future of the Labour Party, reignite Britain’s Brexit divisions and intensify the struggle over the country’s economic and political direction. As debate grows over closer relations with the European Union, Burnham finds himself at the centre of a question that has haunted British politics for years: how far should the United Kingdom go in rebuilding its relationship with Europe?
For Burnham, the decision is not simply about trade agreements or diplomatic negotiations. It is about political identity, public trust and the difficult task of bringing together voters who remain deeply divided over Brexit. Any move towards closer European integration could be welcomed by businesses, pro-European voters and those who believe the UK has paid a heavy economic price for leaving the EU. At the same time, it could provoke an angry response from people who regard Brexit as a democratic choice that must be respected.
That is why the stakes are so high. Burnham must decide how to pursue closer cooperation with Europe without appearing to reopen the entire Brexit argument. If he moves too cautiously, supporters of a more ambitious reset may accuse him of offering little more than cosmetic change. If he moves too aggressively, opponents could portray him as attempting to reverse the referendum result by stealth.
Either way, the consequences could extend far beyond Burnham himself.