As Andy Burnham moves closer to Downing Street, he inherits an energy policy that is already largely set. The UK is moving towards a low‑carbon system, anchored in Clean Power 2030 and the legislative programme set out in the King’s Speech, including the Energy Independence Bill.
The challenge is not necessarily direction, but delivery. Keir Starmer entered office promising to make the UK a “clean energy superpower”. That ambition remains central to Labour’s programme, but it has not always been clearly communicated or consistently defended. As a result, the political space around energy has become more contested.
That contest is now shaped by competing pressures. Reform UK has built support in part on its pledge to “scrap net zero to cut your energy bills”. At local level, Reform‑led councils have scaled back climate commitments while continuing delivery in practice. At the same time, pressure from opposition parties and parts of the Conservative base for expanded oil and gas production has intensified, reflected in the Conservative win in the Aberdeen South by‑election.
Burnham enters this debate as both participant and constraint. His political argument rests on his ability to win back voters who have drifted away from Labour. But he also inherits a policy framework that limits how far he can move.
The Energy Independence Bill reflects the current approach. It is designed to accelerate renewables and nuclear, reduce reliance on imported fossil fuels and reform pricing. It aims to create a system that is more secure and less exposed to global shocks. That direction is unlikely to change quickly.
The more immediate question is how that system is delivered.
Burnham’s record in Greater Manchester suggests a different approach. He has favoured stronger public control while continuing to work with private operators. The Bee Network is the clearest example. The public sector sets direction and standards. The private sector delivers within that framework.
Applied to energy, that points to a more interventionist and more localised model. Burnham has argued that growth requires stronger public direction over infrastructure, including utilities. At a national level, that would mean more regional input and a stronger focus on delivery.
At the same time, his approach is pragmatic. Burnham has shown he is willing to adjust under pressure. He has said he is “open-minded” on new North Sea licences. That signals flexibility, but also creates tension with the current policy direction.
That tension sits most clearly around Ed Miliband. As Energy Secretary, he remains the defining force behind Labour’s strategy, even as speculation grows over whether he could move to a different role. His position is explicit. “The era of fossil fuel security is over, and the era of clean energy security must come of age.” It is a position that is now deeply embedded and difficult to unwind.
At the same time, pressure within the labour movement is becoming more pronounced. Unite and the GMB have both been critical of Miliband’s net zero agenda, with growing concern about its impact on jobs and industry and increasing resistance to any move that would see him step foot in No.11.
This noting of rolling back on Labour’s energy agenda has led Green Party leader Zack Polanski to state “half measures or backsliding on climate action would be a moral and political failure”.
These pressures point in different directions. Reform and parts of the political right are questioning the transition itself, calling for a reversal of current policy. Greens and sections of the labour movement are arguing for faster action. Burnham will need to navigate both.