The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[weeklycommuter]

Absolute rubbish. It’s clear that the actual reason is the NEC is filled with Starmer allies who aren’t going to allow someone to come in and threaten his leadership.

Probably true but the stated reason is still valid.

 

[Vinnym]

Think Andy Burnham would have won the seat but Labour are prepared to sacrifice it to keep him off the ballot paper

 

[Sorcerer]

The whole point of elected mayors is that they are politicians. Yes Burnham is from the area, but the whole Bee Network is all about putting himself out there.

If I were you I'd be very careful about labelling a Liverpudlian as someone from the area of Greater Manchester.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Jan 2026 ==

Think Andy Burnham would have won the seat but Labour are prepared to sacrifive it to keep him off the ballot paper

It does indeed sometimes feel like Labour a trying to speedrun a Reform government at the worst of times.

 

[Topological]

If I were you I'd be very careful about labelling a Liverpudlian as someone from the area of Greater Manchester.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Jan 2026 ==


It does indeed sometimes feel like Labour a trying to speedrun a Reform government at the worst of times.

That is a terrible error isn't it.

You may guess that I have very little time for Andy Burnham

I just hope Labour can cling on to their unity long enough for Reform to fizzle out. I suspect they will, but things like blocking Burnham do not help their cause.

 

[Sorcerer]

That is a terrible error isn't it.

You may guess that I have very little time for Andy Burnham

I just hope Labour can cling on to their unity long enough for Reform to fizzle out. I suspect they will, but things like blocking Burnham do not help their cause.

I gathered you didn't have a lot of time for Andy Burnham, but personally I feel like he would have a better chance at winning back some Reform-leaning working class Labour voters than Starmer would. In a way I feel sorry for Starmer because a lot of his unpopularity comes from being the face of a government people aren't happy with. He's sufficient for the status quo, but for a country crying out for change he's just way too out of his depth. His biggest strength lies in diplomacy where I'm hoping he gets to retain some role or influence.

 

[Topological]

I gathered you didn't have a lot of time for Andy Burnham, but personally I feel like he would have a better chance at winning back some Reform-leaning working class Labour voters than Starmer would. In a way I feel sorry for Starmer because a lot of his unpopularity comes from being the face of a government people aren't happy with. He's sufficient for the status quo, but for a country crying out for change he's just way too out of his depth. His biggest strength lies in diplomacy where I'm hoping he gets to retain some role or influence.

Yes he would and the country desperately needs Labour to start getting back some of those who have been lost to Reform.

The way to achieve it is not to try and out Reform, Reform and I think that at least people like Burnham get that.

 

[Harpo]

Whatever personal views there may be of Burnham, he does a fine job of keeping a high profile for Manchester and the north generally, much like Andy Street did for Birmingham, unlike whoever his fairly low profile successor is.

A Labour communique about not wanting to lose what Burnham does though, seems as unlikely as any other well thought out positivity from Labour.

 

[KHCT]

A more sensible politician than Starmer would have at least abstained in the NEC vote. As for Burnham, I honestly can;t see why people think he is some sort of saviour; his record as a minister under Blair/Brown is hardly Grade A.

The really interesting element to all of this is how the 'split' within Labour will play out. Angie 'tax dodger' Rayner had backed Burnham and her and her supporters despise Starmer. This decision is likely going to encourage them to cause more trouble. Either way, Starmer is a lame duck who will likely be finished off following the impending labour disaster in May.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Trumps NATO sideswipe finally stiffened Starmers resolve to grow a backbone and he has carried tat through here. He now needs to be forthright about what is right for the UK and if the agitators tray come after him again call a vote no confidence in parliament and lets see how many Labour MPs want to take a risk on that.

 

[david1212]

Whatever personal views there may be of Burnham, he does a fine job of keeping a high profile for Manchester and the north generally, much like Andy Street did for Birmingham, unlike whoever his fairly low profile successor is .......

Richard Parker is the name that is not rolling off your tongue.

 

[Bevan Price]

I think Mr Burnham is better staying where he is, The by-election result is likely to be much closer than some expect. Far too many mugs are likely to vote Reform, in the misguided belief that things would get better if Reform won an election. There is also a danger that Labour would lose a mayoral election.

Whoever won the 2024 election was always going to have big problems and lose popularity - it just happened to be Labour. And Labour probably still contains many pro-Corbyn sympathisers who have little love for Starmer; not surprising that some of them are willing to "stir things" even it it means Labour losing power.

 

[brad465]

Perhaps Starmer should considering having an extramarital affair with an intern in No.10*, so nobody ever recalls anything else in his premiership. Source: nobody remembers any of the other things Bill Clinton did as President (although Epstein has changed this a bit).

*Not counting the affair he seems to be having with Morgan McSweeney.

 

[Egg Centric]

Perhaps Starmer should considering having an extramarital affair with an intern in No.10*, so nobody ever recalls anything else in his premiership. Source: nobody remembers any of the other things Bill Clinton did as President (although Epstein has changed this a bit).

*Not counting the affair he seems to be having with Morgan McSweeney.

Wasn't there a rumour of something fairly early on in his premiership?

 

[YorkshireBear]

I would just love it if our politicians could stop pretending they live in EastEnders stop the drama and get on with the job.

 

[telstarbox]

Betfair has Starmer as odds-on to be replaced during 2026.

 

[Egg Centric]

Betfair has Starmer as odds-on to be replaced during 2026.

It certainly does; I think the odds are way too short (on my basic thesis that being PM is moreish) and I am consequently financially interested in the result. From prior experience, I won't say any more than that on a non-specialist forum

 

[styles]

I'm still holding out for my 14:1 Farage to be next PM bet, £20. Currently closer to 5:1 depending on bookie. Will see how Scottish and Welsh parliamentary elections go.

 

[Cross City]

much like Andy Street did for Birmingham

Street did practically nothing for the city in the long-run. Loved a fantasy tram map and would turn up to the opening of a packet of crisps if it meant he got his photo in the paper, but for things actually achieved under his stewardship the list is microscopic. Parker is hardly any different mind.

I'd kill for a mayor like Burnham here, and him not being selected for this byelection is very much Labour's loss and Manchester's gain.

 

[Lewisham2221]

Street did practically nothing for the city in the long-run. Loved a fantasy tram map and would turn up to the opening of a packet of crisps if it meant he got his photo in the paper, but for things actually achieved under his stewardship the list is microscopic. Parker is hardly any different mind.

I'd kill for a mayor like Burnham here, and him not being selected for this byelection is very much Labour's loss and Manchester's gain.

Street might not have actually achieved a lot, but he was reasonably vocal and attempted to promote Birmingham and the greater West Midlands region in a positive light. Unlike Parker, who's name I didn't even know until reading this thread...

 

[Cross City]

Just like most politicians

Except for Andy Burnham, evidently.

 

[DarloRich]

Labour are dammed if they do and dammed if they don't with Burnham:

Let him stand:

• No guarantee he wins
• Potential leadership candidate on the back benches
• Media focus on Labour crisis
• Expensive mayoral election
• Potential loss of a key mayoralty to crank left or right
• Weak Starmer

Don't let him stand

• Media focus on Labour crisis
• Unhappy back benchers
• Burnham outside the tent widdling in
• Weak Starmer
• Crank right and tame "media" focus on stopping elections

 

[weeklycommuter]

I agree with the comments in the following press report made by Harriet Harman about Andy Burnham's demand to be the Labour candidate in the Gorton and Denton by-election.

I also do not understand why some Labour MPs are demanding that Andy Burnham is allowed to stand as the candidate. If they want Andy Burnham to replace Sir Keir Starmer as Prime Minister what difference do they seriously think that would make in terms of policies and the current unpopularity of the Labour Government? This is a repeat of twenty years ago when many in the Labour Party thought that replacing Tony Blair with Gordon Brown would give them the policy changes they wanted and win the following general election and of course it did not.

One of the biggest reasons for the unpopularity of the current Labour Government like the previous Conservative Government with many voters is the failure to fix the problems with asylum and immigration system. The best way forward for the Labour Government on this is to move quickly to implement the reforms announced by the Home Secretary in November last year.

Andy Burnham 'not entitled' to a seat in parliament, Harriet Harman says

The Labour Peer criticised Andy Burnham's tweet after Labour's ruling body blocked him from standing in an up coming by-election.

news.sky.com

Andy Burnham 'not entitled' to a seat in parliament, Harriet Harman says
The Labour Peer criticised Andy Burnham's tweet after Labour's ruling body blocked him from standing in an up coming by-election.
Monday 26 January 2026 17:03, UK

Andy Burnham is not "entitled" to a seat in parliament, Harriet Harman has said.
Speaking to Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby on the Electoral Dysfunction podcast, the Labour peer criticised Mr Burnham's reaction to being blocked from standing in the upcoming Gorton and Denton by-election.
She said: " I would say to Andy Burnham, now look, Andy, you are not the candidate, although obviously you did want to be the candidate, but you are not. The best interest of the party now and everybody is to get on and help win the by-election.
"And when he put at the end of his tweet, 'you would think that over 30 years of service would count for something, but sadly not' that smacked to me of entitlement. And he's given 30 years of service. But it ought to be because he believes in it, because it's a cause, not because he's gonna get something back.
"It doesn't matter how many years you've served, nobody in the party is entitled to anything. It's our privilege to serve and put ourselves forward. And if we don't get selected for one thing or another, we just do something else good in the party. So I think that that was not a good tone in that tweet, and I think he needs to kind of change his tone, be part of the team."
She added: "No one is bigger than the party. The party leader is Keir Starmer and we've got elections that lie ahead of us, this by-election and then elections throughout the country in May."

 

[Falcon1200]

Labour are dammed if they do and dammed if they don't with Burnham:

Indeed, which is why Burnham, if he was really concerned about the fortunes of the Labour Party instead of his own self-advancement, should have kept quiet and simply remain as Mayor until his term ends, and then re-enter Parliament.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'm still not convinced that Burnham actually wants to be Labour leader, for all the posturing. I don't see Burnham as anything other than a stalking horse. Of course Burnham was never going to be allowed to stand. And of course Burnham himself knew that he was never going to be allowed to stand. Whatever you think of him, he's not stupid.

But it all shows just how politically inept Starmer and his senior advisers really are. It doesn't make him look ruthless or tough, it makes him look scared.

But now Burnham has set a trap for Starmer. If Labour lose the by-election- and there's a decent chance they will, because the left vote is increasingly fractured- then Starmer's just invited even more pressure on to himself. I'd go so far as to say he's turned it into a referendum about his leadership. Reform's proposed candidate for the by-election, the GBNews presenter Matt Goodwin, is selling it as one.

As for the Labour Party's chances, they need to stop trying to out-Reform Reform. I genuinely don't understand why Starmer and McSweeney and Mahmood don't get this. I can only presume that they think the left don't have anywhere else to go. I think they are very wrong.

There was a protest in Bristol last week which summed it all up. The right-wing 'Bristol Patriots' organised a protest against Labour and Starmer. The left-wing organised a counter-protest which they named 'We hate Keir Starmer more than you.'

What the Bristol protest was all about and how many were arrested

Police were deployed from 9am near the Cenotaph

www.bristolpost.co.uk

A protest, organised by Bristol Patriots, gathered at the Cenotaph in Bristol city centre from 11am. The group said their protest was anti-Government and anti-Keir Starmer.

A counter-protest was called by a coalition of anti-racism groups within the city and gathered at the same location from 10am. The counter-protest was titled 'We Hate Keir Starmer More Than You'.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jan 2026 ==

This is a repeat of twenty years ago when many in the Labour Party thought that replacing Tony Blair with Gordon Brown would give them the policy changes they wanted and win the following general election and of course it did not.

If Brown had called an election when he was going to, it would have done.

And even then, even with everything going on, Cameron didn't win either.

One of the biggest reasons for the unpopularity of the current Labour Government like the previous Conservative Government with many voters is the failure to fix the problems with asylum and immigration system. The best way forward for the Labour Government on this is to move quickly to implement the reforms announced by the Home Secretary in November last year.

No, Labour's problem is they're trying to out-Reform Reform, and Reform's whole schtick is that everything is broken and everything is wrong and its all the fault of brown-skinned people.

Immigration as a subject is being blown way of proportion. 36,000 people arrived by small boats in 2024, about 39,000 in 2025. More people go and watch Leeds United every week. Not that you'd think it with the media coverage. We've just had a period of 28 days with no arrivals by small boat at all.

Home Office figures showed a stretch between 14 November and yesterday (12 December) without arrivals, making it the longest uninterrupted run since autumn 2018.

 

[Topological]

I'm still not convinced that Burnham actually wants to be Labour leader, for all the posturing. I don't see Burnham as anything other than a stalking horse. Of course Burnham was never going to be allowed to stand. And of course Burnham himself knew that he was never going to be allowed to stand. Whatever you think of him, he's not stupid.

But it all shows just how politically inept Starmer and his senior advisers really are. It doesn't make him look ruthless or tough, it makes him look scared.

But now Burnham has set a trap for Starmer. If Labour lose the by-election- and there's a decent chance they will, because the left vote is increasingly fractured- then Starmer's just invited even more pressure on to himself. I'd go so far as to say he's turned it into a referendum about his leadership. Reform's proposed candidate for the by-election, the GBNews presenter Matt Goodwin, is selling it as one.

As for the Labour Party's chances, they need to stop trying to out-Reform Reform. I genuinely don't understand why Starmer and McSweeney and Mahmood don't get this. I can only presume that they think the left don't have anywhere else to go. I think they are very wrong.

There was a protest in Bristol last week which summed it all up. The right-wing 'Bristol Patriots' organised a protest against Labour and Starmer. The left-wing organised a counter-protest which they named 'We hate Keir Starmer more than you.'

What the Bristol protest was all about and how many were arrested

Police were deployed from 9am near the Cenotaph

www.bristolpost.co.uk

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jan 2026 ==


If Brown had called an election when he was going to, it would have done.

And even then, even with everything going on, Cameron didn't win either.


No, Labour's problem is they're trying to out-Reform Reform, and Reform's whole schtick is that everything is broken and everything is wrong and its all the fault of brown-skinned people.

Immigration as a subject is being blown way of proportion. 36,000 people arrived by small boats in 2024, about 39,000 in 2025. More people go and watch Leeds United every week. Not that you'd think it with the media coverage. We've just had a period of 28 days with no arrivals by small boat at all.

I agree with the point about small boat arrivals. Though extrapolating anything from the months with terrible weather does little.

There is absolutely no need for Labour to go big on immigration. The only justification for going big on immigration is that it is lower cost than actually doing something about the left-behind places of the North. I say lower cost, because the long-term costs of pursuing anti-immigration policies are far higher than building a few new railway lines / schools / employment zones etc.

 

[Gloster]

There was a protest in Bristol last week which summed it all up. The right-wing 'Bristol Patriots' organised a protest against Labour and Starmer. The left-wing organised a counter-protest which they named 'We hate Keir Starmer more than you.'

So they are up to the ’you really have to hate the Romans’ stage already.

 

[Bevan Price]

The thing Labour most need to do is to convince a lot of people that, whilst the current situation is far from perfect, life under a Reform government would probably be a catastrophe for much of the population. With a leader who seemingly "approves" of Trump, do we really need Trump-like policies in UK? Tax policies that favour the rich. Do we really believe that NHS would remain "free" ? And scrapping aims to reducing greenhouse gases, instead increasing profits for oil/gas companies. And how would he treat railways and other public transport -- reduce investment for a start; maybe another Beeching ??

 

[Topological]

The thing Labour most need to do is to convince a lot of people that, whilst the current situation is far from perfect, life under a Reform government would probably be a catastrophe for much of the population. With a leader who seemingly "approves" of Trump, do we really need Trump-like policies in UK? Tax policies that favour the rich. Do we really believe that NHS would remain "free" ? And scrapping aims to reducing greenhouse gases, instead increasing profits for oil/gas companies. And how would he treat railways and other public transport -- reduce investment for a start; maybe another Beeching ??

You mean like the Democrats did?

Negative politics can only go one way, and it is not towards the incumbent.

Labour need to show that they do deliver and that they have actually got a vision to make things better. People are desperate to Make _ Great Again. If the main parties will not offer that vision then we end up with a government that will.

This is not about rationality, it is about evidence and currently Labour are proving themselves no better than the Conservatives and without the ability to be Conservative like the Conservatives. It is time for Labour to evidence that they can deliver.

 

[Bevan Price]

You mean like the Democrats did?

Negative politics can only go one way, and it is not towards the incumbent.

Labour need to show that they do deliver and that they have actually got a vision to make things better. People are desperate to Make _ Great Again. If the main parties will not offer that vision then we end up with a government that will.

This is not about rationality, it is about evidence and currently Labour are proving themselves no better than the Conservatives and without the ability to be Conservative like the Conservatives. It is time for Labour to evidence that they can deliver.

It can take a long time to sort out a mess, and sometimes things get worse before they get better. People get impatient and people often want to sack the government before their solutions have time to work. And if anyone thinks Reform will do things any better. in my opinion, they are very misguided.

By analogy, just look at how many football supporters want to get rid of club managers prematurely before they get chance to bring lasting success.

 

[Topological]

It can take a long time to sort out a mess, and sometimes things get worse before they get better. People get impatient and people often want to sack the government before their solutions have time to work. And if anyone thinks Reform will do things any better. in my opinion, they are very misguided.

By analogy, just look at how many football supporters want to get rid of club managers prematurely before they get chance to bring lasting success.

This is where you need spades in the ground, demonstrable and irreversible actions that prove change is being made.

People have become tired of "we will" and switched on to the changing of policy after an election.

Concrete steps to actually cement commitments to the left-behind communities would be the best possible indicator that Labour were different.

While we like the NHS, sadly spending there does not have any direct benefit unless you actually build a new hospital. So that could be a clear focus.

I think we should build more prisons. Again a tangible sign that something is being done on crime.

What we get instead are lots of reasons why things cannot be done. But I gaurantee that there is a long list of areas where private investors would happily lend to government without it having any impact on the credit rating. What investors need is payoffs, debts for current spending are not investments, but tangible steps to a better future are.

For all the faults at least Truss went with an ideology. It is time Labour started to go with theirs.