I keep hearing people say things like this right now:
I hate Labour, but I'd vote Burnham to keep Reform out.
I admit that if I were voting in the by-election in a fortnight's time, I might think that, and in the current UK political environment, I think this sentiment captures something important about the state of our politics.
We know that many people who have traditionally voted Labour are deeply disappointed with the party. They dislike its caution, its inability to challenge austerity, its failure to deliver a Green New Deal, its unwillingness to talk honestly about the economy, and its apparent lack of vision. Some have already deserted to the Greens. Others have stopped voting altogether. And yet Andy Burnham appears to be providing an exception to the revulsion with Labour, and I use that word revulsion wisely.
Why is that happening? It has been put to me in conversations that this is because many voters think he still sounds like a Labour politician in the traditional sense. They may not agree with everything he says, but they think he understands public services, local communities, social security, and the government's role in improving people's lives, and they say he has proved that in Manchester. As a result, some people seem to have suspended their general disbelief in Labour when it comes to Burnham.
That creates an interesting political possibility. Is this just about this by-election, where the need to beat Reform is so overwhelming, or is it indicative of something bigger? If, in other words, Burnham were ever to become Labour leader, or even the dominant voice within the party, might he attract back voters who have drifted away in despair? More importantly, might he simultaneously undermine Reform UK's appeal?
The fact is that, as we know, a significant part of Reform's support appears to come from people who are not committed to its ideology, but from those who want to register a protest against the political establishment. What would happen if those potential Reform voters were offered a candidate they might regard as authentic, practical, and prepared to challenge Westminster orthodoxy? Might some then decide they no longer need Reform as a vehicle for their anger, as it seems some previously did in Gorton and Denton?
The fact is that, under the first-past-the-post system, tactical voting is already important, and may become more so, and this question is, as a result, very relevant.
Might Burnham be good for Labour by reclaiming Reform voters?
And might it also be possible that voters who currently dislike Labour might nonetheless vote for a Burnham-led Labour Party because they see it as the most effective way to stop Reform gaining power?
What I know, from my conversations, is that any such vote for Labour of that second sort would not be based on enthusiasm. It would, instead, be based on a judgement not about which option offered the best chance of producing a desirable outcome, but what might best prevent an outcome feared more than Labour's dismal indifference. That is a terrible basis for voting, but many see it as necessary in the face of the neo-fascism of Nigel Farage's Reform Party, let alone Rupert Lowe's Restore Party.
Whether that sentiment grows remains to be seen, but the fact that this situation has developed is itself revealing. When people say, “I hate Labour, but I'll vote Burnham”, they are really saying something else. They are saying that leadership, authenticity, and narrative still matter, and they will vote for anyone who offers the best chance of it wherever they are.
In Scotland, the SNP is where people are going in that quest. In Wales, it is Plaid Cymru. In England, it might be the Greens, LibDems, and even Labour, depending on the constituency.
And perhaps that fact matters rather more than the party labels. People are taking the fight against extremism, racist politics, and hate into their own hands since Labour, in particular, is not delivering proportional representation right now.
Labour should take note then. Whatever support they or Burnham get is decidedly conditional. There is no love being shown. There is simply a reluctant acceptance that sometimes, but not always, Labour provides the best means of defence against fascism, but no one pretends they would not prefer better options, and they wish Labour would deliver them.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I think people should vote for what they really believe and strengthen the party they truly support. If this means that Reform goes from 5 to 6 MPs, what difference Will this mean? Labour still has a massive parliamentary majority and the complete shambles will just carry on as usual.
I think the issues are rather bigger than that and I am disappointed you have not noticed.
An important point to make. But will the party relent and help a new leader set a different path – back the words with actions?
I know Burnham has been popular in his role in Manchester, but I’m not convinced he would change Labour, or be allowed to do so even if he wanted to. Labour under it’s current leadership (& their secretive backers) have killed every hope.
I think if there is the correct change at the top with the improvements in public services and community that Richard describes that will change Labour from the vapid, self interested cabal run organisation it is now. For a start for a new Leader to be elected they will need MPs, Unions and grassroots members to vote for them. Let’s hope the first step is Burnham being elected. The thought of a Reform government in three years time is terrifying.
People may currently regard Burnham as authentic, practical, and prepared to challenge Westminster orthodoxy, but if he does become leader he will have less than 3 years to prove that he is those things. If he doesn’t produce the changes that are needed the voters will not be interested in him. It really ought to be that simple.
I suspect that if/when Andy Burnham becomes an MP, expectations will change. They’ll change even more should he become leader. Far more will be demanded of him if he is to rebuild support electorally for Labour. He will have to show he understands the people’s needs and their problems. Above all, he must provide solutions quickly. He will, most importantly, need to show he is not a creature of the Square Mile.
At present he is simply an unknown quantity, in my view, until he is on the Westminster stage. But he gives hope, which is in very short supply.
Locally for Makerfield and more broadly in Manchester, Burnham has a track record to point to, where people can decide whether he has done the right things.
Nationally, as a potential Labour leader and future PM, that drops back, and instead it’s a question of policies and protest.
Essentially, you could argue that Burnham is a protest vote WITHIN the Labour party, and Reform is a protest vote OUTSIDE it (and Restore is a protest vote for racists).
Most likely, where someone leaned towards Labour in the past but is disillusioned with the current leadership, they may lean towards their protest vote going to Burnham. Where someone was a swing voter or leaned towards the Tories or further right, or they still feel strongly pro Brexit, then any protest vote would go towards Reform (or Restore).
That would likely mean reclaiming former Labour voters from Reform, but it’s less likely to get former Conservative voters off Reform. And a fair few of the former Labour voters have started looking more at Green and Lib Dem policies and candidates, so Burnham doesn’t have a clean run at those.
However, in a Labour leadership election, it’s the disillusioned Labour members that would count, so that would give Burnham a good shot there, and if he became PM he would have a couple of years to prove he’s a change candidate or not. If he changes enough, those disillusioned Reform voters may want to give him some more time, if he’s too cautious then even reclaimed Labour voters may revert back to a protest vote for Reform.
“I hate Labour, but I’d vote Burnham to keep Reform out.”
In 2020 many US voters said, “I really do not care for Joe Biden but I HATE Donald Trump and HATE-HATE his MAGA cronies”!
Biden won the election! There is hope!
Burnham doesn’t have much charisma and whilst that should not matter, it is going to be a huge problem for him. A brief look at the last two times Burnham stood for the leadership (2010 and 2015) shows just what a poor performer he is and I don’t think he will get the same forgiveness for that nationwide as he gets in Manchester.
I would even go further. I think in a leadership contest, Wes Streeting will beat him because only Labour members can vote. Burnham will have a flat campaign, remind them of Starmer, scare them and they will opt for Streeting.
It’s even possible that a third candidate emerges (and they could certainly find someone with a stronger track record than Burnham or Streeting). Steve Reed and Peter Kyle both have stronger track records in office for example.
My money though is still on Rayner in a leadership contest.
All polling shows Streeting would be wise not to turn up
You may be right about Burnham, but Streeting would be very much worse
Same for Rayner
Corbyn might have been advised not to show up in 2015, based on the polls.
I think when it comes to a leadership contest, Burnham will fall flat on his face.
Streeting is the best media performer. I wouldn’t vote for him myself (after what has happened to the Labour left, I will stay Green thank you very much) but I still think it will come down to him and Rayner. Burnham will be found wanting at the first hustings.
The leadership electorate is Labour members + affiliated organisations, incluing trade unions.
Labour members will remember Starmer’s dishonest left-leaning leadership pitch, and how he tacked right, when elected leader, preparing for 2024 GE.
Burnham is tacking right NOW (to win Makerfield By-Election) – on Europe, Reeves’s fiscal rules, immigration (approving Shabana Mahmood’s policies, U-turning on his opposition to the NRTPF (No Recourse to Public Funds) rule, transgender issues, and public ownership of utilities and transport.
He has to do a calculation about how to pitch himself for a leadership election’s different electorate, if succeeds with that right wing tack in the By-Election.
I remember well the hopeful, but IMHO naive Labour assurances that Starmer would pitch left again once he was PM. Will Burnham pitch left again for the leadership vote then right again for the GE? How many U turns before he gets dizzy?
Who owns him? Who has bought him? What does he really believe? How many tacks can a politician get away with as he sets his course for 10 Downing Street?
Can Reform & Restore be exposed for what they are, to enough voters by 2029?
I believe there is only one way to truly counter appeal of the right to left-behind communities – to use power and resources of our sovereign government to respond to real frustrations about incomes, prices, jobs, accommodation, health and social care, plus transport and utilities, – and of course, PR. But promises won’t cut it. Only delivery – with a climate focus in every government department that doesn’t punish the poor, but invests in a greener future to bring them greater prosperity.
2 yrs wasted so far.
As for Streeting, he is the Liz Kendall of this leadership battle. A victim of political grooming.
Many thanks. Much to agree with.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jun/04/i-wouldnt-flinch-burnham-on-social-care-markets-brexit-and-the-prospect-of-a-general-election
He’s changed from U-turns and tacking, to something more akin to “oscillation” in these latest responses, in his latest “leftward” (?) oscillations revealed in this article’s references to bond markets, the EU, and fiscal rules. Shall we call him “Janus” now, as he tries to face in two directions simultaneously? (but he is clear, no place for Corbyn – I wonder who ordered that uncharacteristic single-minded unambiguous clarity?)
Also, depressing to see him discussing social care, without understanding how government spending is financed – hence his resort to variations on “death tax” solutions as a means of “financing” social care.
I disagree , Burnham has charisma and comes over as genuine and dedicated to the changes he wants to make. Streeting gives me the creeps and is backed by private healthcare interests, I doubt he will get the nominations he requires to stand.
Steve Reed? The cancer at the centre of Labour?One of the major Labour Together plotters? The hysterical Zionist revolved by Palestinian biscuits? BTW Burnham has just denied Gaza is a genocide.
Having a little experience of goings on in Manchester and been to Burnham meetings to hear him, sadly I say Mr Burnham does not seem Prime Ministerial material. Or at least not the one myself, and I suspect many respondees here, would like.
A Metro-Mayor at best, his thinking seems not strategic; he’s not radical, and he’s not going to push back against neoliberalism. Internationally, his thinking seems limited. He wanted the war on Iraq; he’s been a long-standing friend of Israel and opposes BDS. Closer to home, to elaborate on his ‘Manchesterism’ credentials, I offer this post, more serious than it looks:
https://www.thecanary.co/uk/2026/05/27/zoe-bread-manchesterism-andy-burnham/
A plausible scenario is that Burnham wins the seat, eventually a leadership election follows & he wins. Then after a while spent re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, he calls a general election that a ‘refreshed, it’ll-now-be-different-this-time, Labour’ wins. So, yes good for Labour but really, we just end up stuck with, at best, tactical thinker, with shades of new-Labour and neoliberalism (All ‘till 2032!).
FWIW, probably better he lost (Unlikely because MSM will turn this into a ‘celeb fest’). So what, if another Reform MP is found wanting. Quite possibly, Reform will prove itself a busted-flush & inept before the next election, by which time there maybe substantial voter kick-back on neoliberalism and fighting wars, such that the Green Party gain serious influence in Parliament (If it hasn’t burnt down by then, owing to decades of neglect – in which case, MPs might get a chamber with non-polarising seating layout & 21st C proper work stations!).
Sorry to sound downbeat. We need a revolution but one not possible to deliver via Burnham.
PS. Richard I’m meeting more people following your website.
Noted
I think we will have to disagree on this one
And thanks re your last point
On the calling a General Election, Labour should want to keep Reform out of our for as kind as possible if it’s going to happen anyway, and key things that may harm Reform include accumulating evidence of failure in the councils they won, plus the corruption and racism evident in some of their members.
Any Labour strategist that suggests any early elevation should therefore be fired.
The only exception would be if there is a post-Iran (or post-Trump given his health) economic lift to exploit. Since we’re facing record low oil reserves and a crunch still to come, that seems unlikely at present.
Burnham is just a softer left Blairite who appears to have gone on a bit of journey as Mayor of Manchester where he’s edged more to the left than he used to be. As soon as I heard him walking back his criticism of the bond markets and agreeing to carry on with Rachel Reeves fiscal rules I realised nothing will change. He’s been noticeably quiet on Gaza too, but he is a Labour Friend of Israel after all and he at least supported calls for a ceasefire before other senior Labour figures.
However, I think he’s the best of a bad bunch as far as potential Labour MPs and he will move the Overton window to the left if he gets in which for me as a Green party voter is why he is easily my favourite choice for the Makerfield by-election. Maybe I’m being overly optimistic but I think a period of a slightly more left leaning version of Labour, where they will nibble at the edges of policy but won’t do anything radically different (so that things continue to get worse albeit maybe at a slower pace) will set the scene for a bigger Green party representation or who knows even a Green party majority. The Greens are the only ones who seem seriously interested in wealth taxes and are offering the possibilities of real change.
Wealth taxes won’t work
Sorry
Fact
I’m a bit confused by that statement Richard as I have a copy of your Taxing Wealth Report 2024 on my hard drive. Or are you defining that as different to Wealth Taxes? It’s a great pragmatic detailed offering but if you don’t want to refer to it as ‘Wealth Taxes’ I think you are going to have a harder time convincing the general public.
Of course I am
I say so in that report.
And it does not propose a wealth tax – as we do not need one. We need increased taxes on high income, income from wealth and gains.
Sorry to be pessimistic but I think the leadership will be decided by the Zionists to fit whatever longer term plan they have to make us one of the United States of Israel.
Burnham doesn’t seem to have the courage even to mention that a UN panel, the ICJ and International scholars have cited war crimes and possible genocide in Gaza.<p>
The CIA/Mossad /MI5 nexus seem to have helped to create the faction running Labour – and Josh Simons was a prime mover in the coup and reported journalists to the security services and Burnham says ‘he will continue to work with’ Simons . Doesn’t look good.<p>
He’s rowed back on any rethinking of fiscal rules, or how bond markets work<p>
Has he admitted his support for Iraq invasion was a mistake – as even Jack Straw has? Dont think so<p>
One can see Richard’s logic, but as a Labour member – I would probably have to go Green.
Tbis move from Burnham is very worryimg and still shows the power of the israeli lobby over Labour.
The pro-Israel Lobby is decisive in our politics, and can’t be ignored. They are already at work inside the Greens, successfully manipulating conference agendas, challenging candidate selections (especially in Makerfield) and smearing Polanski and the party generally.
With regard to Burnham and Israel:
He owes the Makerfield by-election vacancy to Josh Simons – that’s a terrible start, and taints him with the Labour Together “FRAUD”.
He shares the Starmer speech-impediment (can’t say g-g-g-genocide).
He’s LFI.
The Lobby aren’t destroying him with smears – they already have him safely onboard
He’s publicly committed to not re-instating Corbyn – the only thing he IS unequivocal about. Why on earth did he feel the need to say that?
The Jewish Chronicle is ignoring him. Last week they had a pop at a Green candidate on the inside pages, but not much other UK politics. This week there is a lower front page swipe at Unison’s BDS efforts (+ a quote from Luke Akehurst), and an inside page on at antisemitism in Lowe’s Restore party. They aren’t worried about Burnham though. Their lead story this week is Israeli scientists’ cancer breakthroughs.
Burnham & Israel? It’s business as usual, which means complicity with genocide and ethnic cleansing. How else does one succeed in the Labour Party and British public life? Complicity in war crimes has been normalised. Calling it out has become extremism, and is now legally equated with terrorism. We’ve even changed laws to achieve that.
Fa***e can incite riots in Southampton with impunity, but if you wear a pro-Palestine pin in the wrong place, you are in trouble.
Whatever the vote, Israel will win in Makerfield.
Would/will Zack Polanski be allowed any more success than Corbyn?
We never found out in the case of Corbyn
Well the Labour Party (run in Israel’s interests) led the ‘anti-Semitism’ witch hunt, and it is well known within the non-mainstream media that Labour sacrificed the election to prevent Corbyn winning.
Corbyn is fully pro Palestine and Labour has to be pro Israel.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/i-saw-inside-how-labour-staff-worked-prevent-labour-government/
Already we have seen the start of the public demonisation of Polanski.