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 a defining political dilemma that could shape the future of the Labour Party, reopen Britain’s bitter Brexit divisions and determine whether he becomes a central figure in the country’s next political chapter.
The Manchester mayor has increasingly found himself at the centre of discussions about Labour’s direction, Britain’s relationship with Europe and the government’s response to growing public frustration over living standards, immigration and public services. His political ambitions, combined with his willingness to discuss closer ties with the European Union, have created a difficult question: should he continue working within the political structures that already exist, or take a more direct role in shaping the country’s future?
Whatever decision Burnham makes, it could have consequences far beyond his own career. Labour is under pressure to demonstrate that it can deliver tangible improvements for voters, while the Conservatives and Reform UK are competing to define the future of Britain’s political right. At the same time, disagreements over Brexit continue to divide communities, parties and families.
The stakes are high because Burnham’s next move would not take place in a political vacuum. It would unfold against a backdrop of economic uncertainty, strained public services and a growing debate about what kind of country Britain wants to become.
The Decision That Could Define Burnham’s Future
Burnham has built a political reputation around his role as mayor of Greater Manchester, where he has promoted regional investment, transport improvements and greater local control over public services.
His supporters argue that his experience outside Westminster gives him a different perspective on the problems facing ordinary communities. They point to his emphasis on local government, regional economic development and public transport as evidence of a political approach that focuses on practical outcomes.
However, his national profile has also created questions about his long-term ambitions.
Could he remain focused on Greater Manchester, or might he eventually seek a more prominent role in national politics? Would he support the current direction of Labour, or argue for a different strategy if he believed the party was failing to meet voters’ expectations?
These questions have become more significant as political pressure on the government grows.
Burnham cannot simply assume that a move into national politics would be straightforward. Any such move would depend on the available parliamentary opportunities, party rules and the support of Labour members and elected representatives.
Nor would a higher national profile automatically translate into political success. He would need to explain what he would do differently, how he would finance his priorities and why his approach would deliver better results.
The decision is therefore not simply about personal ambition. It concerns the kind of political leadership Burnham wants to offer and whether he believes he can exercise greater influence from outside or inside Westminster.
Brexit Remains the Fault Line
One of the most divisive questions facing Burnham is Britain’s relationship with the European Union.
The 2016 referendum produced a narrow but clear victory for Leave, with approximately 52 per cent of voters supporting withdrawal and 48 per cent choosing Remain. Britain subsequently left the EU in January 2020.
The decision reshaped British politics. It contributed to divisions within both major parties, altered trade arrangements and created a lasting argument about national sovereignty, immigration and economic opportunity.
Nearly a decade later, those disagreements have not disappeared.
Supporters of Brexit argue that leaving the EU restored democratic control over British laws and immigration policy. They believe that Britain should now concentrate on using its independence to develop trade relationships and policies suited to its own circumstances.
Those who favour closer ties argue that the existing arrangements have created unnecessary barriers for businesses and weakened cooperation with Britain’s largest nearby trading partner. They want the government to explore ways of reducing those costs without necessarily reversing Brexit altogether.
Burnham’s position places him within this wider debate. He has argued for closer cooperation with Europe and for a serious examination of Britain’s long-term relationship with the EU.
But there is a substantial difference between negotiating practical agreements and seeking to rejoin the bloc.
Any move towards closer integration would need to explain what Britain would gain, what obligations it would accept and how much influence it would retain over the rules governing its economy.
For Burnham, the challenge is to present a clear position without alienating voters who believe the referendum result should be respected.
Why a New EU Deal Could Become So Controversial
Closer cooperation with the EU may sound technical, but its political consequences could be substantial.
Agreements on food standards, trade procedures, energy cooperation and youth mobility could offer practical benefits. Businesses might face fewer administrative obstacles, while young people could gain additional opportunities to study or work abroad under agreed conditions.
Greater cooperation could also help Britain and European governments coordinate on security challenges and cross-border crime.
However, every agreement would involve questions about the balance between access and independence.
If Britain aligns its regulations with EU standards in particular sectors, businesses may find it easier to trade across borders. Yet the UK could have limited influence over future changes to those rules.
A youth mobility scheme could create opportunities for young people, but its eligibility requirements and limits would need to be negotiated carefully.
These details matter because voters are unlikely to agree on every aspect of a closer relationship with Europe.
For some, practical cooperation represents a sensible response to changing economic conditions. For others, it risks reopening the very arguments that Brexit was supposed to settle.
Burnham would therefore need to make the case for each proposed agreement individually. A general promise of closer European ties would not be enough to resolve legitimate concerns about accountability, costs and national control.
Labour’s Growing Political Challenge
The dilemma is made more complicated by the pressures facing Labour.
When a government wins office, expectations rise quickly. Voters want improvements in public services, stronger economic growth, better access to housing and a credible response to the cost of living.
Yet many of these problems cannot be solved immediately. Public finances are constrained, infrastructure projects take time and changes to public services may require difficult decisions.
When results fall short of expectations, disagreements emerge over whether the government should maintain its existing strategy or change direction.
Burnham’s political appeal partly comes from his emphasis on regional inequality and the argument that economic growth should be felt beyond London and the South East.
Greater Manchester has become an important example in the wider debate about devolution and local decision-making. Supporters of this approach argue that mayors and local authorities understand regional needs better than central government departments.
But transferring responsibility to local leaders does not automatically solve funding problems. Local authorities still need resources, skilled staff and the ability to coordinate with national institutions.
If Burnham wants to expand his influence nationally, he will need to explain how his approach could be applied across regions with very different economic conditions.
The question is not merely whether local government should have more power. It is how that power would be funded, scrutinised and used to improve people’s lives.
The Challenge From Reform UK
Burnham’s choices are also shaped by the growing importance of Reform UK in British politics.
Reform has attracted support from voters dissatisfied with the traditional parties, particularly over immigration, public spending, national identity and the consequences of Brexit.
Its rise has placed pressure on both Labour and the Conservatives to explain how they intend to respond to concerns about border control, economic insecurity and trust in government.
For Labour, the challenge is especially difficult because its electoral coalition includes voters with very different views on immigration, Europe and public services.
Some Labour supporters favour closer cooperation with the EU and stronger international partnerships. Others, including many in areas that voted Leave, remain wary of proposals that appear to dilute Brexit.
Burnham would have to navigate these differences carefully if he took on a larger national role.
An argument for closer ties with Europe could appeal to voters who believe Brexit has created unnecessary economic barriers. But it could also provoke opposition from people who see renewed integration as a rejection of their democratic choice.
At the same time, ignoring the economic and social concerns that fuel political dissatisfaction would carry its own risks.
The challenge is to respond to those concerns with policies that can be explained clearly and assessed against measurable results, rather than treating every disagreement as a battle over national identity.
Immigration Could Become Another Dividing Line
Immigration is another issue that could complicate Burnham’s decisions.
The subject remains central to political debate, with voters expressing concerns about border security, pressure on housing and public services, labour shortages and the treatment of people seeking asylum.
These concerns do not all point towards the same policy response.
Some argue that Britain needs lower overall migration and stricter enforcement. Others emphasise the contribution of migrant workers to health care, social care, universities and other parts of the economy.
There are also differences between legal migration, irregular Channel crossings, asylum applications and the movement of people under international agreements. Treating these categories as interchangeable can make policy debates less precise.
If Burnham wants to influence national policy, he would need to explain how his proposals would address these distinct challenges.
Closer European cooperation could help with information-sharing and action against smuggling networks. But it would not automatically resolve questions about the number of people entering Britain, the availability of housing or the capacity of local services.
Any credible approach would need to establish clear objectives, explain the legal framework and show how enforcement would work in practice.
This is particularly important because immigration debates can become emotionally charged very quickly. Political leaders have a responsibility to discuss the evidence without portraying entire communities as responsible for problems that have multiple causes.
Can Burnham Offer a Different Economic Direction?
The economic argument may ultimately be more important than the political drama.
Britain faces difficult questions about productivity, investment, housing, infrastructure and regional inequality. These issues influence people’s everyday lives more directly than many of the arguments taking place in Westminster.
Burnham’s emphasis on regional development suggests that he believes greater local control can help address some of these challenges.
Supporters of devolution argue that local leaders can identify transport bottlenecks, workforce shortages and investment opportunities more effectively than a central government applying the same approach everywhere.
For example, better transport connections could expand access to employment, while long-term investment in skills and infrastructure could help businesses grow.
However, these benefits depend on effective delivery. Projects must be properly funded, carefully managed and evaluated to determine whether they are producing the expected results.
There is also a risk that regional strategies become dependent on short-term political announcements rather than sustained investment.
If Burnham seeks a greater national role, he will need to show how regional policies could improve productivity across the country and how the costs would be shared between central and local government.
His proposals would also need to address the interests of areas outside Greater Manchester, including rural communities, coastal towns and regions with different industrial needs.
The Risk of Reopening Old Wounds
One of the greatest difficulties facing any politician who revisits Brexit is the risk of reviving divisions that remain deeply personal for many voters.
For some people, leaving the EU was an expression of democratic self-government. For others, it represented an economic and political mistake that Britain should eventually reconsider.
Both perspectives are connected to wider questions about trust in political institutions and whether governments listen to people outside traditional centres of power.
A political leader who dismisses Brexit supporters as misinformed risks alienating voters whose concerns deserve to be understood. Equally, a leader who refuses to examine the practical consequences of Brexit risks avoiding legitimate questions about trade, investment and international cooperation.
Burnham’s challenge is to create a discussion that moves beyond these opposing assumptions.
That would require a clear distinction between practical changes to the existing relationship and a fundamental decision to rejoin the EU. It would also require transparent explanations of the benefits, costs and democratic processes involved.
If a future government wanted to make major constitutional changes, it would need to address how public consent should be secured.
Without that clarity, even proposals designed to improve economic cooperation could become symbols of a much wider political conflict.
What Decision Does Burnham Really Face?
The choices confronting Burnham are not limited to one dramatic announcement.
He must consider how much of his political future should be devoted to Greater Manchester, whether he wants a larger role in national politics and how he would respond if Labour’s direction came under sustained pressure.
He must also decide how directly to engage with the Brexit debate and whether closer European cooperation should be treated as a limited practical objective or part of a broader long-term vision.
Each route carries trade-offs.
Remaining focused on regional leadership would allow him to continue working on local priorities. Seeking a national role could give him a larger platform but would expose him to greater scrutiny and the demands of Westminster politics.
Advocating closer ties with Europe could open discussions about trade and cooperation, but it would also require him to address concerns about sovereignty and the referendum result.
There is no guarantee that one decision would settle these issues. Each would create further questions about funding, implementation and public accountability.
The political consequences would depend not only on what Burnham announces but also on the details of his proposals and the response from voters, Parliament and Britain’s European partners.
A Defining Moment for Britain’s Future?
Andy Burnham’s position reflects a broader question facing British politics: how should the country respond when its existing political arrangements appear to be delivering mixed results?
Britain must balance economic opportunity with democratic accountability, border management with international cooperation and national priorities with the realities of an interconnected world.
Brexit remains central to that debate, but it is not the only issue determining the country’s future. Public services, regional inequality, productivity and confidence in government will also shape how voters judge political leaders.
Burnham’s next steps could influence the direction of Labour’s debate, particularly if he chooses to pursue a larger role in national politics. However, no specific decision should be treated as inevitable until it is formally announced.
The claim that his choices could “rip Britain in half” captures the intensity of the political argument, but the actual outcome will depend on how the issues are handled.
A constructive debate would distinguish between verified facts and political predictions, explain the implications of proposed agreements and allow voters to judge the alternatives on their merits.
Ultimately, Burnham’s most important decision may be how he intends to connect his political ambitions with the practical concerns of the people he hopes to represent.
Whether the issue is Brexit, immigration, economic growth or regional investment, the public will want more than dramatic headlines. They will want clear proposals, credible funding and evidence that political decisions can improve their lives.
That is the test facing Burnham—and it is one that Britain’s political leaders cannot afford to ignore.