In two letters to the Guardian, readers debate whether the prime minister, Andy Burnham, should support expanding North Sea oil drilling, framing it as a test of his political credibility. The exchange follows reporting that Burnham risks a backbench revolt over his apparent backing for new drilling, with correspondents disagreeing sharply on whether this represents pragmatic industrial policy or a betrayal of environmental commitments.

John Barstow argues, as a self-described environmentalist, that oil expansion is necessary because oil serves as a feedstock for maintaining wind turbines, nuclear plants and rail, making a domestic supply base valuable; he also links this to approving coking coal extraction in Cumbria for steel production, and suggests tree planting and reducing plastic waste as better environmental measures. David Parker counters that new drilling offers little practical gain while damaging the optimism Burnham has built, arguing that he will be seen as bowing to the fossil fuel lobby, and challenges Burnham's stated view that the real question is where Britain's oil and gas comes from rather than whether it is used at all.