To quote the great tactician and thinker Mike Tyson: “Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face.”
In political terms, BBC Question Time’s Makerfield by-election special was the equivalent of a prize fight. In the turquoise corner stood Robert “Plucky Plumber” Kenyon, Reform UK’s candidate and local councillor. In the red corner stood Andy “King of the North” Burnham, Mayor of Greater Manchester, former cabinet minister and, if the political gossip is to be believed, a man with one eye on a considerably larger prize than a parliamentary seat in Makerfield.
If that makes this sound like an even contest, it is worth considering the tale of the tape.
Click here for our dedicated Makerfield by-election newsletter with exclusive interviews and analysis
Burnham has spent decades in politics. He has sat around Cabinet tables, fought leadership contests, survived Westminster and appeared on enough Question Time panels to know exactly where the audience is likely to turn. Kenyon, by contrast, is a councillor and a plumber.
Whether unblocking a toilet on a wet Monday morning is preferable to being confronted by a BBC audience armed with printouts of your social media history is a matter only he can answer.
The challenge facing Kenyon was obvious before the programme even began. Earlier in the day he had appeared on BBC Radio Manchester with Mike Sweeney, where he described Burnham as a political titan and portrayed the contest as something of a free hit. Expectations were low. If he performed well, he would exceed them. If he struggled, he was up against one of Labour’s most recognisable figures.
Yet there was another issue hanging over him. A succession of difficult interviews during the campaign had raised questions about both his policy knowledge and a trail of controversial comments that stubbornly refused to disappear. Question Time offered an opportunity to reset the conversation.
It did not quite work out that way.
The first question concerned trust in politics. Burnham answered with a theme he has spent years developing. Westminster, he argued, is too focused on point-scoring and not enough on problem-solving. It is “party first rather than place first”. The system does not properly serve places like Greater Manchester. What is needed is a more collaborative style of politics and a fundamental change in how power is distributed.
Whether or not one agrees with the diagnosis, it is a case Burnham can make almost from memory.
Kenyon’s answer was more straightforward.
“Get normal people into politics,” he said. People who care about where they live and do not see politics as a stepping stone.
It is a line that neatly captures Reform’s broader argument. The country has too many professional politicians and not enough ordinary people willing to speak plainly.
The irony was that, as the evening progressed, Kenyon often appeared the most scripted person on the panel.
There were moments where he seemed less like a man expressing his own views than somebody trying very hard to remember the precise wording approved by a communications team. The anti-politician occasionally looked more cautious and rehearsed than the politicians.
The most uncomfortable exchanges centred on his past comments about women.
Audience members returned repeatedly to the issue. One declared: “I’d rather have a career politician than a plumber who is a sexist.”
Kenyon insisted he would not accept the label. He acknowledged making mistakes. He said comments made 15 years ago did not reflect who he is today. He spoke about being raised by his mother, grandmother and older sister.
“I’ve got nothing but respect for women,” he said. It didn’t quite convince – it sounded almost like ‘how can I hate women, my mum is one’?
Yet the strangest moment came when he was challenged over comments in which he had reportedly described himself as a sexist. His reply was a single word. “Allegedly.” The audience laughed.
It was one of those exchanges that lasts only a few seconds but lingers far longer. The problem for Kenyon was not that anyone thought he was seriously denying the charge. It was that a room which was clearly waiting for contrition got a punchline instead.
Sarah Wakefield, the Green Party candidate, pressed the issue further. Having spoken to Carol Vorderman, she said Vorderman remained upset by the comments and challenged Kenyon to look directly into the camera and apologise. He did not.
Instead, he returned to the same defence he had used throughout the evening. The comments were old. They had been taken out of context. He had made mistakes. He would not say those things today.
It was a perfectly coherent defence. It just was not the answer some audience members wanted.
If Kenyon spent much of the evening on the defensive, Burnham’s challenge was always likely to come later.
The death of Henry Nowak and the subsequent controversy around policing has become one of the most emotionally charged political issues of recent weeks. There had been widespread anticipation about how Burnham would respond.
The discussion produced some of the programme’s most serious moments.
Conservative candidate Michael Winstanley described the footage as heartbreaking and appalling. Kenyon spoke of the anger many people felt and argued there was a perception of two-tier policing.
Burnham’s response was careful. He rejected the idea that Greater Manchester Police operated such a system, praised Chief Constable Sir Stephen Watson’s leadership and emphasised the importance of maintaining public confidence across all communities.
At the same time, he accepted that national guidance required scrutiny.
“I think it’s right that the Government are reviewing this guidance,” he said. “I don’t think this guidance has got it right.”
It was a nuanced position. Acknowledging public concern while avoiding the broader claims made by Reform. The larger clash came over political rhetoric.
Burnham criticised Nigel Farage’s use of the word “rage” in relation to the case and warned politicians about the consequences of their language.
“I’m mayor of Greater Manchester,” he said. “I know my words have consequences.”
He spoke about the danger of “poison dripping into our streets” and argued politicians should be working to find common ground rather than deepening divisions.
Kenyon, for his part, unequivocally condemned the disorder that followed.
“Violence is not the answer,” he said.
Elsewhere the discussion ranged across housing, immigration and economic growth.
One audience member posed a question that neatly captured the tensions running through modern politics. She announced she intended to vote for Burnham before immediately declaring that she could not stand Keir Starmer.
Burnham used the opportunity to make the case for his own political project. Greater Manchester, he argued, has become the country’s fastest-growing city region under devolution. The answer to Britain’s problems is not less local power but more.
Then came the moment everybody had been waiting for.
Would he challenge for the Labour leadership?
Burnham stopped just short of a formal declaration while somehow managing to leave little doubt about his intentions.
“I think Wes Streeting seems to have launched a leadership contest,” he said. “So if that is running, I would seek to join it.”
It was not quite a campaign launch.
For a by-election candidate supposedly focused on winning a single parliamentary seat, it was a striking intervention. Throughout the evening Burnham repeatedly framed Makerfield as part of a bigger argument about changing Labour and changing politics. This was the clearest indication yet that he sees the two as connected.
By the end of the programme, the shape of the evening had become clear. Burnham looked exactly what he is: an experienced politician entirely comfortable in a live television debate.
Kenyon looked like a candidate still adjusting to the scrutiny that comes with national attention. He survived the evening without a catastrophic mistake and occasionally landed points of his own, particularly when discussing immigration and housing. But he never quite managed to escape the controversies that had followed him into the studio.
Perhaps the oddest thing about the night was that Reform’s candidate, the man running against professional politicians, often looked more constrained by politics than anyone else on the panel.
Question Time is a difficult format because audiences can sense the difference between conviction and choreography. Burnham understood that instinctively. Kenyon sometimes appeared caught between speaking naturally and sticking to the script.
And in politics, as Mike Tyson might have put it, that is often what happens after the first punch lands.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login