I have not, as regular readers will have noted, commented much on the Makerfield by-election. I expect the reason is clear. There has been relatively little to say.

We knew that this would be a contest between Andy Burnham, rather than Labour, and Reform. Perhaps the only surprise has been that the Restore candidate is supposedly winning around 8% of the vote, which is more than the margin between Labour and Reform in the latest opinion polls.

Lessons from the by-election

From the by-election itself, whatever the result, three stories emerge.

The first is that Andy Burnham has a brand in Manchester which everyone else in Labour must stand in awe of. But, the point has to be emphasised, it is personal and almost certainly non-transferable. In other words, significant as it is at this moment, it will not work for Burnham again. If he wins here, he is thereafter a national politician. And if he loses here, his brand is broken in Manchester. This is, therefore, a one-off event. It will not be repeated. It is not available to anyone else. There is no national lesson for Labour to learn as a consequence, therefore.

Second, Reform is a force in British politics, yet it is apparent that they have not run a good campaign and did not select a good candidate. Their weaknesses are as apparent as any strength they have as a result of the alienation of people from Westminster government, whether run by the Tories or Labour.

Thirdly,, there is an openly racist and deeply neo-fascist factor in this election. We cannot pretend otherwise. It might just let Burnham win by splitting the far-right vote, but the reality is that it exists, and we cannot pretend otherwise. On this occasion, the existing political parties do not know how to deal with it. Its rise does signal the need for what I call a politics of care. There is no sign at all that those existing political parties understand that.

The after effects - proporrtional representation 

That, then, is the scene in Makerfield. What will the scene be tomorrow morning? There are, in many people's eyes, only two scenarios to consider, but I think that is wrong. I think that there are at least four.

The first thing to note, the reality of which will become clear in the morning, is that the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Greens have hardly featured in this election, whether by choice or not, although they are very clearly capable of winning seats elsewhere. The message is obvious, and is that people are not voting for candidates they want, but are instead voting against candidates they dislike.This is not a secure foundation for democracy in the UK. Democracy is about representation, and when people are forced to vote against candidates by voting for those whom they can tolerate but would not otherwise choose, democracy in the UK is in a very poor place. We need proportional representation, and we need it now.

The after effects - political funding

Secondly, whatever happens, Restore has proved that it can have a national presence in this by-election and, given the enormous amount of funding that Rupert Lowe's party appears able to depend upon, much of it seemingly emanating from Elon Musk, the extreme toxicity of this party might be a factor in elections to come.

However, the fact that Restore is being funded by far-right individuals from outside the UK again indicates that our democracy is in a deeply dangerous place. The same is also true of Reform. They, too, rely exceptionally heavily on foreign-based billionaires with toxic products to sell.

The message from this election, then, is that donations from people outside the UK must be banned within UK politics. In addition, donations from all companies and from individuals above an agreed low limit must also be banned, whilst it should become a criminal offence to take part in an arrangement that disguises such flows of funds. If our democracy is to be representative, which is essential, the distortions within it that these donations create must end, for good.

The after effects - Reform

The third scenario to consider is what happens if Reform wins, and it might.

Ignore, for a moment, that a deeply unsavoury person, with attitudes that will be considered offensive by many people across the UK, will have been elected to Parliament. He will not have been the first, or the last, of his type. After all, Lee Anderson is already in Parliament, representing Reform.

Ignore, too, the issue around money just mentioned.

And ignore as well the fact that Nigel Farage has been so reluctant to appear during this campaign because of his lack of willingness to address questions around his own personal donation of £5 million prior to his return to politics in 2024, meaning that he did not participate in this campaign to the full, and that it was lacklustre as a result.

Ignore, as a consequence, as well the fact that the limitations of Reform as an electoral machine without Farage are exposed as a consequence.

Consider instead that, despite all these noted facts, Reform will have secured the support of a very large number of people in Makerfield. This will be despite the fact that it has revealed its own incompetence. This will also have happened despite the fact that the policies that it is promoting are highly likely to be detrimental to the best interests of most of those people who will have voted for the party.

Three questions arise, then, whether or not Reform wins.

The first requires that serious consideration be given as to why this alienation exists, with an associated demand that the causes be addressed.

The second is why racism is now such a powerful rallying call inside UK politics, and to ask what can be done about it.

The third is to consider why people, and most especially men, are so willing to vote against their own best interests at this moment, knowing that they, or people they know, might suffer as a consequence.

Unless these lessons are learned and acted upon, the far right will remain a force in British politics, and a Reform victory in this situation will only confirm that and increase the possibility of a far-right government in this country in due course.

I stress that I am not saying that a Reform victory here guarantees Reform's continued progress. We know that opposition party by-election victories do not indicate this in the UK political environment. But support on the scale now being indicated for Reform does demand that the issues I note be addressed.

The after effects - Labour

And then there is Labour. This is the fourth situation to be considered.

Let me deal with the easy option first. If Labour lose, the party is over. With the best available candidate, extraordinary resources being thrown at the campaign, and no hiccups of note during the course of it, if Labour cannot win this seat now, it does not matter who its leader is, everyone in the party will know that its time is up, and that it will be time-serving until it faces an election in 2029 at the latest, when almost all of its MPs will be rejected. A loss in this election would signal the end of a century of Labour in government. I find it incredibly hard to interpret such a possibility in any other way.

In that case, let me turn to the more complex possibility, which is that Burnham wins despite, and not because of, Labour. What then?

This is where the situation gets very confusing, so let me stand back and try to cut through the noise.

The signal would be very clear. Burnham stood in this election to challenge Keir Starmer as leader of the Labour Party. We know that challenge will come. The only question is how that process will be managed.

Will Starmer quit? His inclination will be to stay. He has always been politically tone-deaf, but even so, McSweeney, and maybe others, might persuade him to go despite that fact.

Will his hand be forced by ministerial resignations? Burnham is apparently asking those inclined to create such a situation to hold their fire for the time being to give Starmer the room to resign. My suspicion, however, is that the signals of resignations to come will be sent, and not very quietly.

Will the likes of Wes Streeting give up their own leadership aspirations? I suspect so. His performance since his resignation has been weak, at best, and incoherent in general. If he is lucky, he, like Angela Rayner, will return as a minister under Burnham. He would love a high office of state, although Burnham would be unwise to give it to him.

I expect, then, that Burnham will face a coronation, and not an election, and become Labour leader sooner than most people expect. In that case, the question to ask is: so what? What is it that Burnham might offer that Starmer has not, excepting just a little more personality and a hint that he might support proportional representation? The answer, so far, is very clearly nothing at all.

He is neoliberal.

He does not understand economics.

He has no clear left-of-centre instincts.

He says he is aware of the need for fiscal rules and embraces a commitment to them, meaning we can expect no major change in domestic policy.

He is, like Starmer, a long-term supporter of Zionism and, therefore, unlikely to change any foreign policy stance.

Is there, given all this, any chance that the necessary lessons that I have suggested this by-election requires to be learned by Labour and others will happen in a Labour Party under Burnham's guidance? My answer is that I cannot see that happening. In that case, Burnham is as likely, in the event of his winning, to be the last Labour Prime Minister as Keir Starmer is today.

The end - and what happens next

This is a seismic by-election. However, the reality is that the fact that it might deliver a new Prime Minister is not the reason why that is the case. It is seismic for indicating the potential end of Labour, and for raising questions with regard to our democracy which neither Keir Starmer nor Andy Burnham is likely to answer. That is why this election matters.

In itself, it will not provide answers. What it does do is indicate a democracy in a state of flux and raise questions about what happens next.

PDF of article