The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[Magdalia]

There are only 100 or so marginal constituencies which really decide the outcome of elections.

This isn't what happened in the 2024 General Election, when about 250 Tory MPs lost their seats.

It is unlikely to happen in the next General Election either.

Even if Burnham wins, it is likely there will be a strong Reform showing in his constituency - so will Labour MPs be happy with a PM who may get unseated at the next General Election?

In the 2024 General Election, Streeting's majority in Ilford North was 528.

 

[zero]

This isn't what happened in the 2024 General Election, when about 250 Tory MPs lost their seats.

It is unlikely to happen in the next General Election either.

Yes, but Labour only took 182 seats from the Tories, and if this number had only been 100 (given that Labour took 36 from SNP) they would still have had a working majority. Though a few more would have been needed to be comfortable.

 

[weeklycommuter]

As Prime Minister and head of the UK Government Sir Keir Starmer has to take ultimate responsibility for these policy and delivery failures that led to a set of mid-term election results which were far worse for the Labour Party than they would have been had the policy and delivery been better. If Sir Keir Starmer is replaced as Prime Minister by Andy Burnham or anyone else the new Prime Minister will need to ensure fast delivery of policies that ease the unpopularity of the Labour Government if they are to avoid the same fate.

On the railways, the Labour Government has shown with the fares freeze they have clearly got the message that with public ownership of passenger train services voters expect affordable fares. However, delivering this requires some changes which the Labour Government has so far failed to deliver.

Many passenger train services, CrossCountry being the worst example, are operated with rolling stock that does not have enough seats. This rolling stock needs to be replaced now, not in ten or twenty years time, with new rolling stock that has enough seats to fully meet demand with affordable fares with an end to setting fares to price off passengers.

Voters and their MPs are complaining about the failure to start running passenger trains between Oxford and Milton Keynes. There needs to be an instruction from the top of Government to get this passenger train service running now without further delay. The Labour Government needs to ensure the needs of passengers always come first.

A decision is needed at the top of Government to start a rolling program of overhead electrification as this is essential for more efficient and lower cost operations and rolling stock with more capacity for more affordable fares.

The reason for building and spending very large amounts of taxpayers' money on High Speed Two is to deliver a big increase in capacity for freight and passenger train services on the West Coast Main Line route by building two new tracks London to Birmingham and Crewe to take most long distance high speed trains off the existing West Coast Main Line. To deliver this, the new High Speed Two railway must bypass the Shugborough Tunnel bottleneck and join the West Coast Line just South of Crewe, not at Handsacre Junction. It also requires a big increase in the number of seats on long distance passenger train services on the West Coast Main Line route, not the same number or fewer seats than now.

The Labour Government needs to deliver this, not bionic duckweed and empty political slogans about renationalisation. This is one of several areas in which voters are clear the Labour Government has failed to deliver. Perhaps not top of the list but it still matters.

 

[HSTEd]

I agree with this. Labour seem to have talked themselves into a ridiculous position - elements of the PLP have undermined and wrecked the position of the current PM all on the hope that Burnham will be successful. What if he isn't? They will still have to change PM given the damage the PLP have inflicted on him but everyone will know that the replacement PM is 'Team B' which will fatally undermine their position as well. Even if Burnham wins, it is likely there will be a strong Reform showing in his constituency - so will Labour MPs be happy with a PM who may get unseated at the next General Election?

There are precious few labour MPs that aren't at risk of getting unseated at the next general election.

Even Starmer is at serious risk of losing his seat.

Continuing with Starmer guarantees annihilation at the next election, and even more importantly that nothing of consequence will be done before then.
It's not enough to "wait until an obvious successor emerges" because Starmer will not permit such a successor to emerge.

The same way as he has desperately been trying to stop Burnham getting back into Parliament, he will go out of his way to destroy anyone who might emerge as a challenger.

He will also likely try to prevent any national party resources being provided to Burnham in the hope that reform win and he can cling to power.

 

[The Ham]

Many passenger train services, CrossCountry being the worst example, are operated with rolling stock that does not have enough seats. This rolling stock needs to be replaced now, not in ten or twenty years time, with new rolling stock that has enough seats to fully meet demand with affordable fares with an end to setting fares to price off passengers.

The thing is XC could have noticeably more capacity without increasing the number of coaches being leased, and even if the lease costs are higher per coach other factors (such as track access charges) could potentially offset thee extra.

GWR and LNER could also lengthen their 5 coach sets to 9 coaches and transfer the excess fleet to XC as part of the aabove.

 

[Magdalia]

Yes, but Labour only took 182 seats from the Tories, and if this number had only been 100 (given that Labour took 36 from SNP) they would still have had a working majority. Though a few more would have been needed to be comfortable.

The point is that, if only 100 marginal constituencies decided elections, Labour wouldn't be worried about losing its majority next time.

 

[HSTEd]

The point is that, if only 100 marginal constituencies decided elections, Labour wouldn't be worried about losing its majority next time.

This is probably one of the first times in a century that more than 100 constituencies have mattered.
This is indicative of a very large scale political realignment akin to the interwar realignment that broke the Liberal party as a significant force and saw its replacement by Labour.

 

[The Ham]

This is probably one of the first times in a century that more than 100 constituencies have mattered.
This is indicative of a very large scale political realignment akin to the interwar realignment that broke the Liberal party as a significant force and saw its replacement by Labour.

Indeed, the other factor is the fact that 5 parties got more than 10% of the votes cast (as even prior to that even 4 getting more than 10% was unusual).

Whilst 10% may not sound like much, when there's 5 parties that's 1/2 the average (in the same way that 25% would be half the average if there were two main parties).

 

[weeklycommuter]

There are precious few labour MPs that aren't at risk of getting unseated at the next general election.

Even Starmer is at serious risk of losing his seat.

Continuing with Starmer guarantees annihilation at the next election, and even more importantly that nothing of consequence will be done before then.
It's not enough to "wait until an obvious successor emerges" because Starmer will not permit such a successor to emerge.

The same way as he has desperately been trying to stop Burnham getting back into Parliament, he will go out of his way to destroy anyone who might emerge as a challenger.

He will also likely try to prevent any national party resources being provided to Burnham in the hope that reform win and he can cling to power.

The Labour Party National Executive Committee has agreed that Andy Burnham can seek selection to be the Labour candidate in the Makerfield by-election.

The view of Labour Party members I know is the Labour Party Leader should be whoever is likely to have the best chance of winning the next general election because the Labour Party can only deliver policies by being in Government. This was the reason for supporting Sir Keir Starmer to be Leader of the Labour Party in 2020.

The result of the 2024 general election confirmed that the Labour Party made the right choice in the election of the Leader of the Labour Party in 2020. However, if Andy Burnham is selected as the Labour candidate in the Makerfield by-election and wins the by-election he will have shown he can win back voters from Reform UK. The Labour Party has to win the red wall constituencies in the Midlands and the North of England to win a general election and the party to defeat at present is Reform UK. At the next general election, the Labour Party will want to have the Leader who has the best chance of winning that general election and that may not necessarily be the Leader who won the 2024 general election.

 

[Acfb]

I think Labour can narrowly hold the Makerfield by election by about 2% over Reform. The party is united around Burnham which is good and Burnham's popularity should offset the unpopularity of Labour. I think Starmer will stagger on until 2027/28 and then Burnham may replace him then.

 

[Trackman]

I think Labour can narrowly hold the Makerfield by election by about 2% over Reform. The party is united around Burnham which is good and Burnham's popularity should offset the unpopularity of Labour. I think Starmer will stagger on until 2027/28 and then Burnham may replace him then.

I so too.
Was this Burnham's old stomping ground as an MP?

 

[W-on-Sea]

I so too.
Was this Burnham's old stomping ground as an MP?

Adjacent to it. He was MP for Leigh.

 

[Thirteen]

Dumb question but assuming Andy Burnham becomes a MP, does it mean the Mayoral election for GM have to be brought forward to replace him or will they simply put in one of his deputies for the remainder of his term.

 

[JamesT]

Dumb question but assuming Andy Burnham becomes a MP, does it mean the Mayoral election for GM have to be brought forward to replace him or will they simply put in one of his deputies for the remainder of his term.

My understanding is that being elected as an MP disqualifies him from being mayor, forcing a by-election.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Dumb question but assuming Andy Burnham becomes a MP, does it mean the Mayoral election for GM have to be brought forward to replace him or will they simply put in one of his deputies for the remainder of his term.

The following indicates there must be a by-election to elect a new mayor if it is more than six months before the end of the mayor's term of office. The by-election must take place within 35 working days which is about 7 weeks. The mayor elected in the by-election will serve until the next scheduled election.

The Combined Authorities (Mayors) (Filling of Vacancies) Order 2017

Part 6 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (“the 2009 Act”) provides for the establishment of combined authorities for the areas of two or more local authorities in England. Combined authorities are bodies corporate which may be given power to exercise...

www.legislation.gov.uk

Filling of vacancies in the office of elected mayor
3.—(1) This Order applies where a vacancy in the office of elected mayor of a combined authority occurs before expiry of the mayor’s term of office due to—
(a) the death or resignation of the mayor;
(b) the mayor’s election being declared void; or
(c) the office being declared vacant.
(2) Where the vacancy occurs at least six months before the expiry of the mayor’s term of office, it shall be filled at a by-election to be held on the day determined in accordance with article 6.
(3) Otherwise, it shall be filled at the election to be held on the day determined by reference to paragraph 2 of Schedule 5B to the 2009 Act.

Filling of vacancies: by-elections
6.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), an election to fill a vacancy referred to in article 3(1) shall be held—
(a) in a case in which the vacancy arises because of the mayor’s election being declared void or the mayor’s office is declared to have been vacated, before the end of the period of 35 days beginning with the day on which the vacancy is be taken to have occurred (as determined in accordance with article 4);
(b) in any other case, before the end of the period of 35 days beginning with the day on which notice in writing of the vacancy has been given to the proper officer of the combined authority by two local government electors for the area.
(2) The day of election under paragraph (1) shall be fixed by the combined authority returning officer; and in computing a period for the purposes of that paragraph, the following shall be disregarded—
(a) a Saturday or Sunday;
(b) Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, Good Friday or a day which is a bank holiday under section 1 of, and Schedule 1 to, the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971(13) in England; and
(c) any day appointed as a day of public thanksgiving or mourning.
(3) Where, between the giving of notice of the poll and the completion of the poll, a day is declared to be a bank holiday or a day of public thanksgiving or mourning, paragraph (2) shall not operate to invalidate any act which would have been valid apart from that paragraph.

 

[HSTEd]

It's pretty clear Streeting only brought it up in attempt to lose Burnham the by-election, because that is his only chance to be leader.

Indeed, at this point I think Streeting's only chance to be in the cabinet is to be prime minister.

 

[weeklycommuter]

It's pretty clear Streeting only brought it up in attempt to lose Burnham the by-election, because that is his only chance to be leader.

Indeed, at this point I think Streeting's only chance to be in the cabinet is to be prime minister.

The following report in Labour List makes clear that Wes Streeting would heavily lose a Labour Party leadership election against Sir Keir Starmer, securing just 23% support against 53% for Sir Keir Starmer and 24% don't know. The report makes clear that by contrast Andy Burnham would win convincingly with 61% support compared to 28% for Sir Keir Starmer and 11% don't know.

Streeting would lose leadership contest against Keir Starmer, poll reveals - LabourList

Wes Streeting would lose a leadership contest against Keir Starmer in a landslide result, according to exclusive polling…

labourlist.org

14th May 2026
Streeting would lose leadership contest against Keir Starmer, poll reveals

Wes Streeting would lose a leadership contest against Keir Starmer in a landslide result, according to exclusive polling by LabourList.
With the party seemingly on the brink of a leadership battle between the Health Secretary and the Prime Minister, polling conducted by Survation revealed that Streeting would secure just 23 percent of support among Labour members, compared to 53 percent for Starmer.
Support for Starmer in such a head-to-head has reached a new high, with Starmer holding a 34-point lead over Streeting, compared with a virtual dead heat in November last year.

 

[Cowley]

Just like old times and as suggested to us, it’s Brexit discussion time again (apparently).
And that, you will find here…

Brexit matters

I cannot find an open Brexit thread on the website so have opened this one for all and sundry to use.

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Tetchytyke]

The point is that, if only 100 marginal constituencies decided elections, Labour wouldn't be worried about losing its majority next time.

They would.

You need 326 for a majority. They currently have 412 seats. If they lost 100 seats they’d no longer have a majority.

 

[Magdalia]

They would.

You need 326 for a majority. They currently have 412 seats. If they lost 100 seats they’d no longer have a majority.

The effective target for forming a government is lower than 326 because of the speaker, deputy speakers and MPs in Northern Ireland not taking their seats. 312 would probably be enough to form a government.

Labour gained more than 180 seats last time, and the Tories lost 250. A lot more than "100 marginal constituencies" decided the 2024 election, and a lot more than 100 constituencies will be regarded as marginal next time.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The effective target for forming a government is lower than 326 because of the speaker, deputy speakers and MPs in Northern Ireland not taking their seats. 312 would probably be enough to form a government.

Labour gained more than 180 seats last time, and the Tories lost 250. A lot more than "100 marginal constituencies" decided the 2024 election, and that can be expected next time too.

With Reform and Greens potentially taking bigger shares of the vote does this principle still stand though?

 

[The Ham]

Sky News have some polling from Labour members, key summary of the main part of the video is Wes Streeting is in 4th behind Angela Rayner (both on single digit percentages 4% and 8%)

Starmer holds a good margin over them (31%) but Burnham nearly gets a majority (47%).

 

[styles]

Sky News have some polling from Labour members, key summary of the main part of the video is Wes Streeting is in 4th behind Angela Rayner (both on single digit percentages 4% and 8%)

Starmer holds a good margin over them (31%) but Burnham nearly gets a majority (47%).

Pretty much as I'd guess, though I'd expect Streeting to pip above Rayner slightly, but clearly there's not much in it with single digit percentages.

 

[Yew]

Out of curiosity, do we think that the current shenanigans would be happening if it wasn't for the Mandleson scandal, and the Iran war? I've just seen it announced today that net migration is the lowest it has been in non-pandemic years since 2012, and the number of people in asylum hotels has hit the lowest level on record.

Whilst there hasn't been radical change, we've seen improvements in growth, and some cunningly timed new trade deals with the gulf. And it feels to me like it is possible they could have had the country in a reasonable position by the time of the next election.

 

[styles]

Out of curiosity, do we think that the current shenanigans would be happening if it wasn't for the Mandleson scandal, and the Iran war? I've just seen it announced today that net migration is the lowest it has been in non-pandemic years since 2012, and the number of people in asylum hotels has hit the lowest level on record.

Whilst there hasn't been radical change, we've seen improvements in growth, and some cunningly timed new trade deals with the gulf. And it feels to me like it is possible they could have had the country in a reasonable position by the time of the next election.

Well, yes.

Starmer is actually pretty good at government.

He's just not so good at politics.

He's a competent but boring man.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Out of curiosity, do we think that the current shenanigans would be happening if it wasn't for the Mandleson scandal, and the Iran war? I've just seen it announced today that net migration is the lowest it has been in non-pandemic years since 2012, and the number of people in asylum hotels has hit the lowest level on record.

The broken immigration and asylum system, in particular the broken asylum appeals system which leaves asylum seekers waiting for years in accommodation at taxpayers' expense, is clearly the number one reason for the success of Reform UK. The following news report shows that Andy Burnham understands this and supports the changes announced by the Home Secretary in November 2025.

The problem is that the legislation to setup the new one stop asylum appeals system has only just been announced so voters have so far seen no progress.

If the asylum and immigration changes had been announced at the start of the current Parliament in 2024 so the asylum backlog was now very visibly being cleared Reform UK would not have been so successful in the local elections on 7 May 2026 and the Prime Minister would not now be facing a leadership challenge.

Burnham to back Shabana Mahmood’s immigration changes, allies say

Exclusive: Greater Manchester mayor understood to support home secretary’s push to limit legal and illegal migration

www.theguardian.com

Burnham to back Shabana Mahmood’s immigration changes, allies say
Exclusive: Greater Manchester mayor understood to support home secretary’s push to limit legal and illegal migration

 

[Tetchytyke]

Out of curiosity, do we think that the current shenanigans would be happening if it wasn't for the Mandleson scandal, and the Iran war? I've just seen it announced today that net migration is the lowest it has been in non-pandemic years since 2012, and the number of people in asylum hotels has hit the lowest level on record.

Yes.

The people who are obsessed with the small boats and immigrants don't care that numbers are going down. They want the numbers to be zero.

The trouble for Starmer is that he's rubbish at politics. He's trying to impress the people who will never be impressed by him. Even if Starmer gets the small boats down to single-digit figures that will still be failure in their eyes. The 'lowest level on record' is still too high for them. He's like the kid at school who thinks that the bully will stop punching him if he hands over his school dinner money.

But by trying to impress the people who will never be impressed by him, he's managed to successfully anger everyone who already was impressed by him. He's managed to upset many of the Labour people who chose him as Leader. The people who would have defended him and his record have been pushed to one side. Starmer told them to walk through the door and, well, they did.

 

[Harpo]

I've just seen it announced today that net migration is the lowest it has been in non-pandemic years since 2012, and the number of people in asylum hotels has hit the lowest level on record.

Those with vested interests have very successfully embedded the phrase ‘immigration crisis’ and it’s unlikely that those who use it will be bothered by facts.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The following news report shows that Andy Burnham understands this and supports the changes announced by the Home Secretary in November 2025.

Looks like Burnham is going to go down the same rabbit hole, then.

Reform will be delighted.

No matter how tough he is, Reform will still say he's soft on immigration and that Reform will be tougher. Labour say they will detain illegal migrants so Reform, because they're tougher, say they will detain them in concentration camps and they'll put those concentration camps in Brighton.

Meanwhile, those on the centre-left who think the whole immigration thing is punching downwards will still migrate towards Green.

ETA: the following from that article just depresses me.

The poll shows roughly half of Labour members believe the party faces a greater risk of losing votes to Reform. Just 15% think vote losses to the Greens are the bigger issue, and 27% said both pose an equal threat.

They're just not getting it, are they? Labour don't need to lose many votes to Green and they'll be toast. Runcorn should have told them that. The local elections, too, should have told them that: from what I've seen there are a sizeable number of seats where Reform's winning margin was less than the number of people who voted Green.

 

[Yew]

The problem is that the legislation to setup the new one stop asylum appeals system has only just been announced so voters have so far seen no progress.

As mentioned above, we've seen the number of people in hotels drop to the lowest on record. That hardly seems to be no progress.

If the asylum and immigration changes had been announced at the start of the current Parliament in 2024 so the asylum backlog was now very visibly being cleared Reform UK would not have been so successful in the local elections on 7 May 2026 and the Prime Minister would not now be facing a leadership challenge.

I can see that the law changes could be faster, but it seems to me that any changes announced in 2024 would have likely been poorly thought through, and have unintended consequences.

No matter how tough he is, Reform will still say he's soft on immigration and that Reform will be tougher. Labour say they will detain illegal migrants so Reform, because they're tougher, say they will detain them in concentration camps and they'll put those concentration camps in Brighton.

Indeed, a lot of objections aren't precisely about immigration, they're about councils not having money, unaffordable housing, bad roads and poor job prospects. It's easy to paint that as "Immigrants are living in the houses, and taking the jobs, and councils are spending all their money on asylum hotels", it'd be nice to see Labour more robustly challenging that simplistic narrative with something that really identifies the cause.