18/6/2026 by-elections - including Makerfield

[Cross City]

A good result for the country and another indication as to what I've been saying here for over a year... Reform will not win a GE and tactical voting will ensure it. Same happened in France with LePen, and in Slovenia, Spain and the Netherlands.

 

[Purple Train]

Better results for Burnham than even the most optimistic (at least for him) polls suggested. Not all that surprising given Reform put up another one of their “interesting“ candidates though…

Yes, I was quite surprised too. There was clearly a very organised tactical voting campaign, which is pleasing. But the fact that Burnham would still have won without it is a very good result for Labour.

And now we wait for the leadership infighting to restart...

 

[Cross City]

Anyone thinking Burnham will go striding into Westminster with a leadership challenge straight off isn't seeing things right. Burnham will get a cabinet job to keep him simmering for a while.

I think the quicker he challenges (and probably wins) the better IMO. People have short memories so being PM before the year's out means a decent stretch to the next GE.

There's little point delaying the inevitable.

 

[Rab Smith]

I think the quicker he challenges (and probably wins) the better IMO. People have short memories so being PM before the year's out means a decent stretch to the next GE.

There's little point delaying the inevitable.

I agree. Starmer will be troubled by the inevitable challenge but will try to stave off an immediate challenge.
To quote Sun Tzu, Keep your friends close and your enemies closer!

 

[AlterEgo]

Better results for Burnham than even the most optimistic (at least for him) polls suggested. Not all that surprising given Reform put up another one of their “interesting“ candidates though…

Indeed. The candidate's self-described sexism and desire to sniff a celebrity's anus may well have cost them votes, but you never know what's a red line with Reform voters.

 

[Snow1964]

I think the quicker he challenges (and probably wins) the better IMO. People have short memories so being PM before the year's out means a decent stretch to the next GE.

There's little point delaying the inevitable.

I am guessing he will go to Westminster on Monday, will not find it hard to find 81 (20%) of Labour MPs to sign a leadership challenge.

He can't challenge without the 20% backing of MPs, but my guess is will have that by middle of next week.

Of course House of Commons has summer recess in just under 4 weeks (16th July) so possibly Starmer will hold on through the summer. Anyone know how long these challenges take (presumably longer if there is second candidate eg Wes Streeting)

 

[The exile]

Yes, I was quite surprised too. There was clearly a very organised tactical voting campaign, which is pleasing.

I suspect this is one place and time where/when there would be absolutely no need to “organise” any tactical voting.

 

[Cross City]

I am guessing he will go to Westminster on Monday, will not find it hard to find 81 (20%) of Labour MPs to sign a leadership challenge.

He can't challenge without the 20% backing of MPs, but my guess is will have that by middle of next week.

Of course House of Commons has summer recess in just under 4 weeks (16th July) so possibly Starmer will hold on through the summer. Anyone know how long these challenges take (presumably longer if there is second candidate eg Wes Streeting)

I think I've seen an article on the BBC site that says he already has the necessary support.

 

[Western Lord]

The media were desperate for Burnham to win. If you turned on the news over the past few weeks all you would hear would be Burnham, Burnham, Burnham, (the full list of candidates is on our webiste), Burnham, Burnham, Burnham. The BBC's Chris Mason even had to insert the full list of candidates bit when interviewing the PM at the G7.

 

[DarloRich]

I thought Burnham would win. I was surprised by the size of the win. I notice Tricky Dicky Tice is out on the media stump this morning saying his supporters voted for Burnham and is presenting that as a win. Where is Nige? Counting his crypto?

Not sure how admitting people you thought would vote for you but actually voted elsewhere is a positive but you know post truth and all that!

( the actual truth is Reform, again, selected a complete drongo who was creamed by the press and shown up to be whopper especially with women.)

 

[Gloster]

The media were desperate for Burnham to win. If you turned on the news over the past few weeks all you would hear would be Burnham, Burnham, Burnham, (the full list of candidates is on our webiste), Burnham, Burnham, Burnham. The BBC's Chris Mason even had to insert the full list of candidates bit when interviewing the PM at the G7.

Some parts of the media possibly, but I can’t remember any ringing endorsements from the Telegraph, Mail, etc. They may not be TV, but they still have a considerable role in setting the tone. I haven’t got a TV (and wouldn’t watch it with a barge pole if I did have one), but I wonder if GBNews was that enthusiastic for a Burnham win.

 

[AlterEgo]

The media were desperate for Burnham to win

They're going to love the slapping fight between him and Starmer. Burnham isn't a bad bloke but he is a melt.

Vote for NPC or vote for Big Melt, what a superb choice. If only they could both lose.

 

[johntea]

My money is on the podium being set up outside Number 10 later for some waffle from Kier (including the odds on favourite 'let me be clear') although perhaps nothing *too* extreme announcement wise...yet

 

[Harpo]

My money is on the podium being set up outside Number 10 later for some waffle from Kier (including the odds on favourite 'let me be clear') although perhaps nothing *too* extreme announcement wise...yet

Starmer has lots of first priorities. I suspect the unnecessary mayoral contest in Manchester will be today’s - accompanied by lots of Starmarites prefacing every sentence with ‘look’.

 

[gg1]

The full breakdown of the vote for the 6 main parties is interesting:
Labour 54.8%
Reform 34.5%
Restore 6.8%
Conservative 2.2%
Green 0.7%
Lib Dem 0.4%

Or put another way, 98% of the left/centre vote went to Labour, 79% of the right wing vote went to Reform, imferring left/centre voters have a better understanding of the concept of tactical voting than the right. There's the obvious caveat it's only one constituency but an encouraging sign if you're in the 'anyone but Reform/Restore' camp.

 

[Cross City]

imferring left/centre voters have a better understanding of the concept of tactical voting than the right.

Who'd have guessed that people who vote for parties centred around individualism, self-preservation and self-sufficiency are the same people who won't change what they do for the greater good.

 

[Harpo]

Who'd have guessed that people who vote for parties centred around individualism, self-preservation and self-sufficiency are the same people who won't change what they do for the greater good.

We have a democracy that lets people decide, by a simple majority, the policies that they wish to see. The majority appears to have decided what their choice of ‘greater good’ looks like. Other views are clearly in the minority.

 

[3141]

In the past ten years we've had six Prime Ministers: Cameron, May, Truss, Johnson, Sunak, Starmer. It looks as if we may be about to get a seventh. Changing Prime Minister that frequently does not help in addressing the longer-term issues that the country faces.

Of course the media just love stories about dissatisfaction with the political leadership and plots to oust the PM. They, and the MPs who feed them this stuff, really ought to get a grip on reality.

If Burnham does become Prime Minister, he really needs to get on with the job. The NHS, Defence, money for services and situations that have been under-funded for many years. But no-one wants to pay more in taxes, especially income tax. Taxes on employers can have the wrong results. Burnham would have three years to demonstrate that he knows where he's going. If not, there's a strong possibility that Reform might lead the next government. The unusual absence of Farage from the front row over the past few days isn't enough to form the view that they are running out of steam.

 

[The exile]

In the past ten years we've had six Prime Ministers: Cameron, May, Truss, Johnson, Sunak, Starmer. It looks as if we may be about to get a seventh. Changing Prime Minister that frequently does not help in addressing the longer-term issues that the country faces.

Of course the media just love stories about dissatisfaction with the political leadership and plots to oust the PM. They, and the MPs who feed them this stuff, really ought to get a grip on reality.

If Burnham does become Prime Minister, he really needs to get on with the job. The NHS, Defence, money for services and situations that have been under-funded for many years. But no-one wants to pay more in taxes, especially income tax. Taxes on employers can have the wrong results. Burnham would have three years to demonstrate that he knows where he's going. If not, there's a strong possibility that Reform might lead the next government. The unusual absence of Farage from the front row over the past few days isn't enough to form the view that they are running out of steam.

There is a case for arguing that parties can put up a candidate to be prime minister should they win the election and that once they have been invited by the monarch to form a government they remain PM until that government falls. If the party wishes in that time to choose a new parliamentary leader, that’s up to it, but that person does not become Prime Minister.

 

[eoff]

Is it within the realms of possibility that Starmer would call (or threaten to call) a general election if challenged and argue any party leadership election and change of PM needs to legitimised?

 

[SuspectUsual]

Is it within the realms of possibility that Starmer would call (or threaten to call) a general election if challenged and argue any party leadership election and change of PM needs to legitimised?

It’s certainly possible- as PM he has the right to call an election whenever he chooses. But is it likely? With Labour struggling in the polls calling an early election is very likely to mean a change in the governing party.

Or to look at it another way, if he can’t be prime minister, would Starmer prefer Burnham or (say) Farage?

 

[The exile]

It’s certainly possible- as PM he has the right to call an election whenever he chooses. But is it likely? With Labour struggling in the polls calling an early election is very likely to mean a change in the governing party.

Or to look at it another way, if he can’t be prime minister, would Starmer prefer Burnham or (say) Farage?

Does he? Surely it requires aparliamentary motion of some kind (even the annual recesses do, don’t they). The result would normally be a forgone conclusion, but not if he were going against the wishes of the party. He is only a “first among equals” not a President - he can lay down office whenever he chooses, but surely not force a dissolution against the will of Parliament? Something very wrong if he can….
It would also place the King in an awkward constitutional dilemma, which the system tends to try to avoid.

 

[125Spotter]

Surely it requires aparliamentary motion of some kind (even the annual recesses do, don’t they). The result would normally be a forgone conclusion, but not if he were going against the wishes of the party. He is only a “first among equals” not a President - he can lay down office whenever he chooses, but surely not force a dissolution against the will of Parliament? Something very wrong if he can….
It would also place the King in an awkward constitutional dilemma, which the system tends to try to avoid.

As it stands today, it doesn't require a parliamentary motion. Parliament cannot constitutionally or legally force a vote on it as parliament is not constitutionally or by statute involved in the decision to dissolve and call a GE; repealing of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 (FTPA) restored dissolution as an entirely prerogative act, reserved to the monarch acting in Council (i.e. at a formal meeting of the Privy Council), by convention on the advice of the PM. The PM has the practical ability to secure a dissolution by advising the Crown to dissolve Parliament, and such advice is conventionally followed.

When the PM issues such advice, they are acting in their capacity as the personal holder of that office with the standing to tender that advice to the monarch. (The monarch appoints the PM personally.)

The PM may, of course, face political consequences for such an action – but there's no legal hurdles presently applicable to constrain use of this power, and the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022 specifically makes use of the power non-justiciable (can't be subject to judicial review). Parliament could, of course, legislate to constrain a PM to require a Commons supermajority or resolution before requesting dissolution (which the FTPA's early election provisions effectively did).

In theory the monarch retains a reserve power to refuse dissolution in exceptional circumstances, but in practice, the exercise of such a power in modern Britain would be such an extreme constitutional step that it is generally considered highly unlikely.

 

[sor]

It’s certainly possible- as PM he has the right to call an election whenever he chooses. But is it likely? With Labour struggling in the polls calling an early election is very likely to mean a change in the governing party.

Or to look at it another way, if he can’t be prime minister, would Starmer prefer Burnham or (say) Farage?

It isn't an absolute right though. The "Lascelles Principles" were originally used to determine if the monarch should grant the request, though Parliament now suggests there is a simplified version:

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld5802/ldselect/ldconst/100/10005.htm

In restoring the pre-Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 position, the United Kingdom is returning to a position where the Prime Minister (by virtue of commanding the confidence of the House of Commons), can advise the monarch to dissolve Parliament at a time of their choosing.

The circumstances in which a Prime Minister might seek a dissolution are underpinned by two core constitutional principles:

(1)The Prime Minister holds that position by virtue of their ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons and will normally be the accepted leader of the political party that commands the majority of the House of Commons.

(2)The monarch should not be drawn into party politics, and it is the responsibility of those involved in the political process to ensure that remains the case. As the Crown’s principal adviser this responsibility falls particularly on the incumbent Prime Minister.

A return to the pre-2011 status quo ante will also restore the position whereby the Prime Minister, having lost a designated or explicit vote of confidence, can either resign or seek a dissolution, which would usually be granted and lead to an election.

The monarch, by convention, is informed by and acts upon the advice of the Prime Minister so long as the government appears to have the confidence of the House, and the Prime Minister maintains support as the leader of that government.

Could be argued that both conditions are not met - there is a question mark over who should lead the party, and an attempt to call an election now would very much be the definition of involving the monarch into party politics

 

[bb21]

The full breakdown of the vote for the 6 main parties is interesting:
Labour 54.8%
Reform 34.5%
Restore 6.8%
Conservative 2.2%
Green 0.7%
Lib Dem 0.4%

Or put another way, 98% of the left/centre vote went to Labour, 79% of the right wing vote went to Reform, imferring left/centre voters have a better understanding of the concept of tactical voting than the right. There's the obvious caveat it's only one constituency but an encouraging sign if you're in the 'anyone but Reform/Restore' camp.

Reform + UKIP defeated by 11.2% at Caerphilly.
Reform + Advance UK defeated by 11.6% at Gorton and Denton.
Reform + Restore defeated by 13.5% at Makerfield.

They just don't seem to be able to break the 10% barrier and get any closer to the victor.

 

[yorkie]

Is it within the realms of possibility that Starmer would call (or threaten to call) a general election if challenged and argue any party leadership election and change of PM needs to legitimised?

Why would this happen?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jun 2026 ==

The media were desperate for Burnham to win. If you turned on the news over the past few weeks all you would hear would be Burnham, Burnham, Burnham, (the full list of candidates is on our webiste), Burnham, Burnham, Burnham. The BBC's Chris Mason even had to insert the full list of candidates bit when interviewing the PM at the G7.

Can you provide some sources please? "The media" isn't one homogenous entity.

 

[nw1]

It's interesting that the opinion polls often underestimate the right wing vote (see also 2015 GE, 2019 GE, Brexit, Trump) but this time they appeared to overestimate it.

Of course factors include Burnham being more popular than the average Labour politician and Kenyon being apparently a bit of a fruity character, but could there even be a "shy Labour" factor?

Nice to see tactical voting work so well also. Hopefully that will be used in the next GE to keep Reform out.

 

[317 forever]

Reform + UKIP defeated by 11.2% at Caerphilly.
Reform + Advance UK defeated by 11.6% at Gorton and Denton.
Reform + Restore defeated by 13.5% at Makerfield.

They just don't seem to be able to break the 10% barrier and get any closer to the victor.

This bodes well for (hopefully) holding back a Reform surge at Westminster. (OK Caerphilly wasn't for Westminster but you get my drift).

I am also less apprehensive than expected about the by-election for GM Mayor. As the previous voting system, the Supplementary Vote, is back this could help Labour beat Reform, especially following this Burnham bounce.

 

[brad465]

This bodes well for (hopefully) holding back a Reform surge at Westminster. (OK Caerphilly wasn't for Westminster but you get my drift).

I am also less apprehensive than expected about the by-election for GM Mayor. As the previous voting system, the Supplementary Vote, is back this could help Labour beat Reform, especially following this Burnham bounce.

I don't believe this system has officially returned yet. Its return is definitely in motion, but won't take effect in time for this specific election.

EDIT: It does appear Supplementary Vote will be used, the confusion is because it only came into force two days ago (18/06/26).

 

[Railwaycat]

They're going to love the slapping fight between him and Starmer. Burnham isn't a bad bloke but he is a melt.

Vote for NPC or vote for Big Melt, what a superb choice. If only they could both lose.

Sorry, but what on earth is a "melt", let alone a "big melt"?