It won’t be long until the voters of Makerfield will have collectively solved one political conundrum only to create another. If, as seems likely, they elect Andy Burnham to represent their constituency, voting Labour could also oust a sitting Labour prime minister.
As recently as the round of local elections last month, it was Reform UK who campaigned on the slogan “Vote Reform. Get Starmer Out”. Now, not so subtly, Mr Burnham has given them a bizarre alternative: “Vote Labour. Get Starmer Out.”
This has surely been the most discombobulating, as well as the most consequential, parliamentary by-election in decades. Certainly, past spectacular by-elections have been informal referendums on a government’s performance or the prime minister themselves, and have provoked real crises of confidence, driven policy changes, and contributed to the fall of a premier.
Yet, none has been so laser-focused on the occupancy of No 10, and none quite so bizarre. One of the more unwelcome and unintended consequences might yet be the election of a Reform UK candidate as mayor of Greater Manchester, with considerable devolved powers and all that entails for the people of the region.
Anticipating a bittersweet result – one in which Labour wins Makerfield but with Burnham victorious – Sir Keir Starmer has been busily constructing his defences. He has said, repeatedly, that he “won’t walk away”, a thinly disguised threat that any challenge to his party leadership will result in a Gotterdammerung, the likes of which has never been witnessed, not even over the last decade of post-Brexit turmoil.
It may be a bluff, but it is the stated position of the prime minister. And, apparently, he has the most important backer of all in his struggle for survival – his wife, Victoria. Rivals should take him at his word.
Sources close to the PM have also stressed that he has a dedicated team – and even a bank account – for any leadership campaign. In case of mass resignations from the government, or the threat of them – a tactic which did for Tony Blair and Boris Johnson when their MPs had had their fill – there is also reportedly a plan ready to repopulate the various vacant ministries of state.
Given the size of the Parliamentary Labour Party, there will be no shortage of recruits to fill jobs and pledge their loyalty. The “payroll vote” – the more than 150 MPs each with government roles, including ministers and parliamentary private secretaries, who are bound by collective responsibility – can thus be secured.
More magnanimously, Sir Keir has spoken warmly about Mr Burnham’s abilities, and has gone so far as to offer him a job. This might not necessarily be a traditional senior position in cabinet, but what Sir Keir carefully describes as “a big role in government”. How both men handle this will be crucial in the coming days. If Sir Keir offers Mr Burnham the kind of role that sounds important and powerful, but everyone knows is not, then he would actually strengthen Mr Burnham’s admittedly inchoate case for “change”.
On the other hand, if he offers Mr Burnham a position with real authority where he can definitely steer the government in a different direction, the prime minister’s own control of his administration will be weakened.
It would also be an offer that, in the nicest sense, Mr Burnham should not refuse. On an optimistic reading, perhaps to the point of fantasy, it would be a unifying move, one that could start to rebuild the administration and turn it back into more of a team effort. For a student of history, it would be reminiscent of when, in 1995, a beleaguered John Major made Michael Heseltine a genuinely substantial first secretary of state and deputy prime minister, with a roaming role across Whitehall. At any rate, it would not look good for Mr Burnham to spurn such a substantive opportunity to serve both party and country.
All of that, of course, leaves open the very debate about policy that has been conducted so patchily and unsatisfactorily since Mr Burnham relaunched his leadership ambitions. This is an omission which the other contender, Wes Streeting, has rightly drawn attention to.
As regards welfare reform, defence, taxation and migration, it is not obvious that either Mr Burnham or Mr Streeting would implement radical changes if they won power. In fact, so uncertain has Mr Burnham’s grip on national policy been that his personal ratings have actually slid during the by-election campaign, as he and his ideas have been subject to closer scrutiny.
In Britain, changing prime minister has become too often the first, rather than the last, resort for a party of government in trouble. The experience of the Conservatives in the last decade of their time in office proves that this has been an unhealthy, unhelpful and ultimately futile tactic. As Sir Tony points out, it is not indicative of a serious country to have seven prime ministers inside a decade.
Whether “this time it’s different” will be for Mr Burnham or Mr Streeting to prove.
