To drill or not to drill? Burnham’s North Sea test
Andy Burnham is expected to be confirmed as the UK’s next prime minister in the coming days after securing the support of nearly 350 Labour MPs. When he enters Downing Street, one of his early tests will be whether to approve two North Sea projects: Rosebank and Jackdaw.
The decision is politically awkward because Labour’s 2024 manifesto drew a clear line against new exploration licences. It said: “We will not issue new licences to explore new fields because they will not take a penny off bills, cannot make us energy secure, and will only accelerate the worsening climate crisis.” Rosebank and Jackdaw, however, were already in progress before Labour came to power. The incoming government has said decisions will be made “in due course”, leaving Burnham to decide how much weight to give that distinction.
Pressure from jobs, bills and place
With the leadership nominations deadline approaching, the oil and gas industry and trade unions wrote to Burnham and all other Labour MPs urging them to “back North Sea oil and gas”. The letter described support for the sector as a signal that Britain remains committed to producing, building and manufacturing, and that the government backs the people and places that have powered the country for generations.
That argument is closely tailored to Burnham’s political identity. The MP for Makerfield comes from a part of the country shaped by de-industrialisation and has often presented himself as a politician who puts “place first”. Some Labour MPs hope that background will make him more sympathetic to the industry. He is also facing pressure from colleagues, members of the public worried about bills and, internationally, Donald Trump, who has repeatedly advocated more North Sea drilling.
Domestic production, though, would not automatically mean cheaper household energy. Oil and gas prices are set in international markets, so additional UK output cannot by itself shield consumers from wholesale price movements. That is the central conflict in Labour’s manifesto: the industry frames drilling as a question of security and jobs, while opponents argue it will not deliver the promised relief on bills.
Labour’s environmentalist MPs want the government to reject further drilling and accelerate renewable energy instead. Protests over the projects have reached London, while recent extreme heat in Westminster has reinforced their argument that climate policy cannot be delayed. One Labour MP described Burnham as embodying the challenge: as mayor of Greater Manchester, he backed improved public transport and took action on climate, but he also saw the consequences of industries disappearing from the North West.
Some Scottish Labour MPs believe Burnham will take a more liberal approach to North Sea drilling than the outgoing administration. There have also been reports that Ed Miliband, who previously called Rosebank’s licence “climate vandalism”, could be open to granting consent to Jackdaw. Neither development settles the policy, but both suggest the debate is shifting from whether new drilling is desirable to how existing projects should be treated.
The climate stakes are widening
The pressure against drilling is not based only on emissions targets. Recent unprecedented heatwaves in the UK may have killed thousands of people, children have been affected by overheating schools and NHS trusts have faced record-breaking demand. Climate extremes have also begun to affect national security: three of Britain’s five worst harvests have occurred since 2020, impairing food security.
This is the “adaptation gap” — the difference between the climate that society was built for and the climate that now exists. Government climate-risk advisers have warned for years that the gap is widening. The political danger for Burnham is that approving new fossil-fuel development while heat, flooding and food-security risks intensify could make it harder for him to present Labour as credible on climate, even if the projects were initiated under a previous government.
Climate impacts are also changing the wider political environment. In Spain, devastating floods in Valencia in October 2024 were intensified by climate breakdown, but the climate-sceptic Vox party used misinformation and anger over the deaths of hundreds of people to build support. Spain has been praised for investment in renewables, but its record on adapting to climate impacts is weaker.
A similar dynamic has been reported in the UK, where persistent flooding in poorly adapted Wales was followed by reports of increased support for Reform UK. The party’s lead spokesperson for Wales rejected a link between the flooding and climate breakdown, calling it a “red herring” and focusing instead on inadequate investment in flood protection. The lesson for Burnham is that failing to prepare for climate impacts can create political space for opponents, but climate disasters do not automatically produce support for stronger climate policy.
Security politics are reshaping the argument
The North Sea debate has also been affected by the cost of living crisis, the continuing war in Ukraine and uncertainty over passage through the Strait of Hormuz. In Scotland, the SNP’s position has visibly evolved. Nicola Sturgeon’s administration established a presumption against new drilling in 2023, and Sturgeon told Holyrood in 2021 that the Cambo field off Shetland should not proceed.
John Swinney has since softened his position, saying energy security should be considered in decisions on further exploration. Stephen Flynn, after winning his north-east seat in May’s Holyrood election, promised to be a vocal champion for oil and gas workers. SNP MSP Jack Middleton, who represents Aberdeen Central and previously advised Swinney, has called for both Rosebank and Jackdaw to go ahead, arguing that reliance on countries in the Middle East and on Vladimir Putin’s allies should be reduced. The Scottish government has not taken a firm position, but it has shown no sign of discouraging such interventions.
The Conservatives have intensified the same message. Kemi Badenoch has promised to “get Britain drilling”, a position that appeared to resonate with voters in Aberdeen South, who elected a Conservative MP in a recent Westminster by-election.
What Burnham’s decision will signal
The immediate question is whether Rosebank and Jackdaw are treated as exceptions to Labour’s manifesto or as projects that conflict with its stated purpose. A decision to proceed could reassure workers, unions and parts of Scotland, but provoke Labour’s environmental wing and climate campaigners. A refusal could strengthen the government’s climate credentials while reopening questions about employment, regional economies and future energy supply.
Burnham cannot resolve energy prices, climate adaptation and industrial transition through one licensing decision. But he can indicate how those policies fit together. The most consequential test will be whether any decision on the two fields is accompanied by faster renewable deployment, continued investment in public transport, credible support for affected workers and stronger preparation for heat and flooding. Until then, “in due course” leaves the central choice — and its political cost — waiting on the new prime minister’s desk.