New Prime Minister Andy Burnham is open-minded about scaling up North Sea drilling. Oil and gas sources expect him to approve the Rosebank and Jackdaw projects quickly to help with the cost of living. Burnham has described moving government functions north as his defining act to change how Britain is run.
The lede here is generational, and stark: the over-55s, who came out in force, waved the projects through by roughly seven to one, while the 16-24s in the chamber did almost the mirror opposite, rejecting them nearly to a person. That is not noise, it is two different relationships to the question — older voters weighing bills and energy security now, younger ones weighing a carbon budget they expect to live with longest.
It is the sharpest divide the vote produced, and it says something about how the net-zero debate is actually splitting the UK: not neatly left against right, but old against young, near-term costs against long-term consequences. Every other cohort, from 25-34 up, landed comfortably on the Yes side, which suggests this was less a partisan rout than a case of most ages converging on "approve it" while one age group held out.
That pattern echoes the wider fault line running through British energy politics since the 2016 vote reshuffled the parties — a country still arguing whether North Sea oil is a bridge to affordability or a debt against the climate commitments it has already signed. Burnham's apparent readiness to wave the projects through, and his framing of it as relief for household bills, plainly found an audience here.
The floor's arguments broke down the same lines it split on. The top Yes voice dismissed climate science outright, urging the chamber to "get back to drill baby drill ,frack to lower bills," while the leading No voice countered that "the ecological damage from sea drilling is immense" and that spending should shift toward "renewables like solar and nuclear." Neither swayed the whole chamber, but between them they captured exactly the trade-off the numbers show voters actually making.
A vote that reads, in the end, as most of the UK choosing cheaper bills today over a bet the youngest voters weren't willing to make.
“Yes for a limited time, as long as the reasoning is to give the UK breathing space to build more forms of renewable energy sources AND build nuclear power stations. They should only be allowed to produce fossil fuel power for a limited time & only to give breathing space & power security until the renewables & nuclear alternatives can be built.”
YES case · JustFactsNotBeliefs · 2 respects · read the thread ↓
“The ecological damage from sea drilling is immense, and we'd need to increase spending in other areas to his carbon goals. Instead we should be focusing on renewables like solar and nuclear.”
NO case · CarmineClouds · 1 respect · read the thread ↓
Are net zero policies the main cause for the recent energy price cap?
Energy · 433 votes · 51% voted No
Should the UK invest more in renewable energy sources over natural gas?
Energy · 379 votes · 51% voted Yes
Should local Oil and gas be exploited to ease the burden of the ludicrous green agenda?
Energy · 281 votes · 66% voted Yes
Should older clean energy projects be moved to fixed-price contracts?
Energy · 134 votes · 73% voted Yes
Should the UK open up the North Sea for oil drilling?
Energy · 145 votes · 72% voted Yes
Should households near new electricity transmission infrastructure receive up to £250 annual bill discounts for 10 years?
Energy · 134 votes · 56% voted Yes
Should fracking be allowed?
Energy · 111 votes · 50% voted Yes
Should the UK change its electricity market so the wholesale price is no longer set by the most expensive gas generator?
Energy · 106 votes · 92% voted Yes
4 Opinions
Unless we are the only country in the world that can't make money from oil !! Doh
Yes for a limited time, as long as the reasoning is to give the UK breathing space to build more forms of renewable energy sources AND build nuclear power stations. They should only be allowed to produce fossil fuel power for a limited time & only to give breathing space & power security until the renewables & nuclear alternatives can be built.
The ecological damage from sea drilling is immense, and we'd need to increase spending in other areas to his carbon goals. Instead we should be focusing on renewables like solar and nuclear.
The sooner we accept that "hole in ozone , climate warming, climate change," is a scam and it what the earth has done for millenia the better off we will be get back to drill baby drill ,frack to lower bills.