Andy Burnham and the meaning of Makerfield

The news that Andy Burnham would stand as the MP for Makerfield was received with some surprise. In the throes of Labour’s May 2026 crisis, following the disastrous local and devolved parliament elections, commentators questioned his choice of constituency. 

Burnham’s ambition, of course, was never in doubt – nor was the national executive committee’s rapid capitulation. The Greater Manchester mayor was blocked ahead of the February 2026 Gorton and Denton by-election on the grounds that his selection would unleash a new wave of Westminster psychodrama. At the second time of asking, Starmer’s resistance – and his political capital – was spent. 

But the circumstances that delivered Burnham’s Makerfield vacancy invited scrutiny. It was Josh Simons, the former director of Labour Together, who sailed to the rescue of Labour’s prince across the water. Simons’ abdication could well be rewarded with a central position in the Burnham court.

The second curiosity concerned the character of the Makerfield constituency. Simons’ 5,399-vote majority was the fifth lowest of the 27 Greater Manchester constituencies in 2024. The seat also carried a significant Reform presence. The party’s 2024 candidate, Robert Kenyon, polled 12,803 votes (31.8%), finishing second. Some two years later, in the weeks before Simons’ resignation, Reform secured 24 out of the 25 seats up for grabs on Wigan Borough Council.

Featured

MDU warns Chancellor clinical negligence system ‘not fit for purpose’

Featured

Northern Ireland RE curriculum is ‘indoctrination’ – Supreme Court

In truth, it was necessity – as opposed to calculation and strategy – that carved Burnham’s path to power. He was left with limited options as Greater Manchester Labour MPs successively ruled out imposing a by-election on their constituents. Political circumstance conspired to produce a proof-of-concept contest for the man many cast as Labour’s antidote to Reform.

Burnham’s victory this week was remarkable on two counts therefore: for its margin – a majority of 9,231 with 54.8% of the vote – and for its narrative power.

Burnham’s campaign in Makerfield was constructed around a series of familiar rallying cries. But it was their convergence on a single candidate that defined the by-election’s novel nature. Burnham was simultaneously the “change” candidate, the “stop Reform” candidate and the “Get Starmer out” candidate. This same succession of slogans powered the Green Party’s victory in Gorton and Denton. But in Makerfield, they formed the rhetorical reserve of the candidate with the red rosette – in a historically Labour-voting constituency. 

Not every slogan was featured on Burnham’s “For Us” literature. But there could be no mistaking the subtext of Burnham’s “bring change to Westminster” message. In Makerfield, the electorate endorsed Burnham and the central, irresistible implication of his candidacy: regicide. 

Against this backdrop, Burnham’s landslide conforms to recent electoral trends. Voters want change and do not expect Starmer to deliver it. Makerfield represented another opportunity for voters to send a version of the same message they have sent to Westminster for some years now. 

For weeks, Makerfield was styled as a stepping stone on Burnham’s path to power. But Burnham’s campaign would be mistaken to see itself as the driver of events. Voters used him to send a message to Westminster – not the other way round.

Burnham still has considerable cause for optimism this weekend. Reform’s limited pool of candidates is continuing to cause problems; Robert Kenyon marked the party’s second candidate blunder in as many by-elections. Nigel Farage, meanwhile, appears increasingly uneasy in the role of permanent political actor; the prospect of becoming prime minister is weighing on British politics’ perennial outsider. Over the coming months, his fragmenting right flank will pose a series of tricky purity tests that risk pulling Reform’s centre of gravity further from the median voter.

Burnham will now reap the political spoils of his Makerfield conquest. His immediate achievement lies in injecting a popular element into what had hitherto been an elite-dominated power struggle. Burnham was endorsed as his party’s saviour in a Reform target seat by voters Labour must win to survive as a national force. A great deal was left unsaid during the campaign. But Burnham’s implicit message to Labour MPs was simple: if I can win Makerfield, I can win the country. 

Politicians, of whatever rank or party affiliation, trade in stories. The original sin of the Starmer premiership was its almost dogmatic aversion to narrative. Burnham’s victory simultaneously strikes the heart of the story Starmer told Labour MPs in opposition: that ideological self-flagellation was a condition of victory. Burnham’s message is that Labour can be truer to its historic instincts (more left-wing) and still win the country. 

Today, in the wake of Makerfield, Burnham’s principal problem is that all which was left unsaid during the campaign must now be articulated. 

The mythical power of the prince across the water is derived from their perfect isolation. Burnham’s relative detachment in recent years has obscured his political outline. As such, leading figures from every Labour faction have projected their political aspirations onto the Greater Manchester mayor. Burnham’s power base is found among the soft left, and his emerging leadership operation is staffed by figures drawn from the upper reaches of the relaunched Tribune Group. But elements of the traditional Labour right, the Socialist Campaign Group, Blue Labour and the Red Wall Caucus have all found common cause with Burnham in recent months. 

The rival claims on Burnham were thrown into sharp relief in the early hours of Friday morning. Both Josh Simons and John McDonnell celebrated when the returning officer declared Burnham’s victory. The former was situated by Burnham’s side at the Makerfield count; the latter shed a tear live on LBC Radio. 

Labour MPs’ conceptions of what Andy Burnham means, politically, will now be pitted against each other. Every faction that rallied to Burnham’s ambiguous standard will want to see itself represented, ideologically at least, in the settlement that follows.

The extent to which Burnham’s factional coalition is a marriage of convenience – or of delusion – will soon be revealed.

The big strategic dilemma facing camp Burnham is whether they choose to define their man before or after challenging Starmer. The route of least resistance would be to land in Westminster on Monday with the roster of 81 regicides required under Labour’s leadership rules. A contest would begin in earnest, and Starmer and Wes Streeting could melt away. But this approach would store up problems for Burnham in Downing Street.

There is also the matter of unseating Starmer, whose public pronouncements indicate a stubborn resolution to remain in power. The prime minister is protected by Labour’s strict leadership election procedures, which do not provide for a simple “no-confidence” motion, and he senses that subjecting Labour’s saviour to finer scrutiny could see some of the sheen come off. 

In any case, it is time for Labour MPs to reconcile themselves to the consequences of their rebellion and Burnham’s Makerfield victory. The demand for an “orderly” succession will soon reveal its oxymoronic character. There is no such thing as a bloodless coup in British politics. Even if a contest is avoided, Burnham will need to succeed where previous prime ministers have failed in constructing a sense of political order from the rubble of regicide.

If the real meaning of Makerfield lay in the campaign subtext, its fallout will be defined by the clarity Burnham can no longer defer.

And if he does not deliver, if chaos reigns, Labour’s latest MP will learn that the public’s patience is perilously thin.

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.