Could Andy Burnham call a general election before Christmas 2026? In this video, I examine the rumours and ask why an early election might appeal to a Prime Minister whose government already has a substantial parliamentary majority.
Burnham inherited Labour's majority from Keir Starmer, but he does not have his own electoral mandate. I consider whether an election now could give him that mandate and potentially secure another five-year term, or whether it would be an extraordinary political gamble.
With the Greens, Reform and Lib Dems on the ropes and the Tories newly confident, but not with much extra support, he may take a gamble on going to the country.
That said, Labour could lose its majority in an early election while potentially remaining the largest party. That raises the possibility of a hung parliament and negotiations with parties such as the Liberal Democrats and SNP.
That could make electoral reform crucial. The Liberal Democrats might demand proportional representation in return for their support, while other parties could have their own conditions. But Burnham might calculate that losing Labour's majority now could still provide longer-term political opportunities.
There is also the economic situation to consider. I argue that the world economy faces significant risks between now and the currently scheduled election in 2029, and any serious downturn could transform Britain's political landscape and consign Labour to history as punishment for ending up in charge when a crash happens again, unless PR happens first. Burnham might realise that and want to get the order of events right to secure Labour's long-term future.
I also look at David Cameron's 2010 coalition with the Liberal Democrats as a possible precedent. A coalition lasted for five years before Cameron subsequently secured a Conservative majority in 2015.
None of this means an early election will happen. But there are political reasons why Burnham might consider going to the country sooner rather than later. The question is whether he believes the opportunities outweigh the considerable risks.
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
Is Andy Burnham going to call an early general election? There are rumours swirling around that there might be an election in the UK before Christmas 2026. The Tories say they're preparing for it. There are signs that Labour is as well, but why is Burnham going to do that?
Labour has a substantial parliamentary majority already, inherited from Starmer, of course, but that does not give Andy Burnham his own electoral mandate. Could an election now strengthen his political position? Might it provide the long-term security that Labour wants? Is this a gamble that could instead destroy Labour's long-term future? Those are questions that need to be asked because they seem to be relevant at this very moment.
The rumour of the election is growing because Kemi Badenoch is driving forward the idea. Her party is rising in confidence. And at the same time, Labour is pushing its Election Reform Bill through the House of Lords very fast, as though they want it in operation for an election if they decide to call one, and there are rumours that Andy Burnham's closest advisers are in favour of just such a thing.
At the same time, it is being said that John Healey, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, may deliver a stopgap budget this October. That's because the real desire is to issue a full budget next spring when Burnham is back in office with a government of his own choosing. So could there be preparations for an election in progress, although we haven't been told about it? I think that is at least possible. And there are four developments that might encourage Burnham to act now.
His bounce appears to be going well. Voters returned a Labour MP last week in the Holborn and St Pancras by-election, in the process rejecting Zack Polanski, the leader of the Green Party, in his attempt to get to the House of Commons. And that does suggest to Labour that they are beating off the Greens, which only earlier this year looked to be very hard for them to do. And that might then provide Labour with an opportunity to rebuild its electoral support, which could be the basis for this election campaign.
At the same time, the Tories are growing more confident, and Burnham may now see them as a threat in a way he has not done to date.
And, Reform's popularity appears to be declining. Nigel Farage is in trouble. Questions are being asked about his financial probity, and that is having an impact. For the first time in a long time, Reform does not look like a government in waiting. They look like anything but that, in fact. But Nigel Farage has repeatedly demonstrated an ability to recover, so Burnham might be choosing this moment as opportune to beat Farage once and for all, and to then have the opportunity for PR before another election emerges sometime in the early 2030s.
And let's come to that last point, and that is that the Lib Dems also appear to be in a little disarray over their leadership.
The fact is that right now, the Lib Dems, the Greens and Reform are all in trouble. The SNP is doing a little better in Scotland. I should mention that. And the Tories are overly confident, and he may want to act before Kemi Badenoch claims any sort of advantage. And so there are real reasons why he might be tempted to go to the polls right now.
But the opinion polls suggest that whatever he decides to do, Labour would lose its majority if he called a general election at this moment. YouGov, Electoral Calculus, and More in Common are all offering different forecasts of what might happen, and none of these is necessarily reliable; events are moving very quickly. But the trend is that Labour would win around 250 seats out of the 650 in the House of Commons, a loss of 150 seats or so. But they could win up to 280, and that would be enough to leave them in a position to form a coalition.
Reform could win between a little below a hundred seats ,or up to 150, depending on who you look at. And the Tories are in a range from 120 to 160 broadly speaking, swapping places with Reform.
The Liberal Democrats are forecast to obtain around 70 seats.
The SNP's representation in Parliament could go up by 20 seats, but the Greens might even decline.
The point is this: a hung parliament looks inevitable, whatever Burnham does, but that may not put him off calling an election. Labour is likely to remain the largest party in any future government, if he were to call an election now, and the Liberal Democrats would be the most obvious coalition partner for Labour in that situation.
Support from the SNP might also be necessary, and we have to recognise that there will be conditions attached to all the support. The Liberal Democrats would undoubtedly demand a proper form of proportional representation as a condition of their support. The SNP might want a referendum on the future of Scotland. But Burnham may be able to give these things if he then secures a five-year term, which would let proper electoral reform come in, which he says he wants anyway, because that will provide a long-term secure basis for Labour representation in parliament, which first-past-the-post may not.
Now, it's also possible that Burnham might lose the opportunity to form a government. The Conservatives and Reform could create an alliance, although they say they never would.
The one thing we really know is the Greens are not currently forecast by anyone to play a major parliamentary role.
So the parliamentary arithmetic of this decision that Burnham would have to make is very difficult, but he cannot avoid the possibility that things may now be as good as they ever get for him, and this might therefore be the moment to strike.
And when we think about that, David Cameron may be offering Andy Burnham an interesting precedent.
Cameron formed a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats in 2010. That government remained remarkably stable until 2015, against all expectations. Cabinet ministers stayed in office. Policy, of a sort, was delivered even if it was austerity in the form of George Osborne's worst idea ever, and Cameron subsequently won an outright parliamentary majority. Burnham might see a coalition government now as a similar stepping stone to a win in the early 2030s.
A reduced majority, or even a coalition, might be preferable to defeat later, which could happen if he doesn't bring in proportional representation before the 2029 general election, which is scheduled. The fact is that waiting until 2029 could then be a much bigger gamble for Andy Burnham than having an election now.
And let's be clear. What Andy Burnham knows, but is not acknowledging, is that the world economy is facing considerable risks right now. Economic conditions could deteriorate significantly before 2029. If they do, he will be punished in an election that year. This is the other great factor he has to take into account. No government that sits over a collapse ever does well in the subsequent election. Labour could face growing public dissatisfaction if he doesn't go to the polls now.
And Reform might recover its electoral strength if he does not. A collapse could well benefit Nigel Farage. Burnham's opportunity to secure another term could then diminish. An election now might therefore appear the safer option to Burnham. And he would know as a consequence that he would have to deliver PR after an election, and that might be the only thing that could save a Labour Party representation in parliament at the next election if there's a crash very soon.
He has therefore got wins to secure even if he loses his majority. But the question is: what does Andy Burnham actually want to achieve? Here the parallels with David Cameron might be relevant again. He was another person who arrived in 10 Downing Street without having any clear idea as to what he wanted to achieve. I've also got no message from Andy Burnham so far that he has any real understanding of what his big ideas are, and Burnham's cabinet is as short of ideas as he is.
So he knows he might be able to form another government now, but he doesn't know how to govern. In that case, a coalition could provide Burnham with an amazing excuse, just as it did David Cameron. Coalition government would inevitably limit Burnham's freedom to act, and the Liberal Democrats, if they were daft enough to become a partner in government, again, would be blamed for blocking Labour's proposals.
Labour would then have the opportunity at a subsequent election to claim they could have delivered, but for those nasty Liberal Democrats. And so a lack of policy ambition, which is what Andy Burnham is suffering from, could be more easily disguised at a subsequent election. This might be the thing that Burnham needs. A coalition government could cover for his incompetence, and that incompetence is, I think, real.
All of these factors make an early election more plausible to me. Burnham has got reasons to act now rather than wait until 2029. The loss of Labour's majority might be a price worth paying. A coalition could offer political stability and an excuse for inaction at the same time, and that might suit Andy Burnham, a Prime Minister with few apparent policy ideas, but a massive desire to stay in Number 10.
So will Andy Burnham gamble on an election before Christmas? I clearly do not know. I am not party to his intimate thinking on this issue, but the political opportunity exists even though the risks are substantial. Cameron's experience suggests that the gamble could succeed. Burnham might calculate he's got more to gain than lose, and perhaps having someone else to blame for inaction is the attraction for him.
My suggestion is, watch this space. This may not happen, let's be clear; that's a possibility, but don't dismiss the idea either. And the fact that Andy Burnham has said it won't happen means nothing. That's about as reassuring as the average football chairman's comment about faith in the manager is. Everything is possible. Burnham might go to the country very soon. Batten down for a potential general election. This could be interesting.
That's what I think. What do you think? You might think I'm completely barking up the wrong tree. If so, answer the poll we've got down below. Let us have your comments. Please do like and share this video. Please do subscribe to the channel. Please do hit that bell button. And please, if you'd like to support our work so that we can produce more of these videos, please do make a donation. There's a Ko-fi button, or a coffee button, whichever way you wish to say it, down below. That's the way you can help us.
Poll
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!
Maybe. Doesn’t seem very likely though. Didn’t work out well for Teresa May.
Not doing it worked out badly for Brown. Burnham will recall that.
True enough. Brown, perhaps, had a chance of a majority had he been decisive. So he lost support from the back benches when he was seen to have bottled it. May thought she could get a majority, not unreasonably given the polls, so she didn’t bottle it. She lost her large majority, lost support from the back benches, and was replaced. Sunak – what was he thinking? Burnham is unlikely to get a majority given the polls. He wouldn’t please his back benchers – cue another change of leadership after an election. But, hey, yes, he might still be crazy enough to do it
I’ve pretty much given up trying to second guess politicians – for the same reasons as your subsequent post.
Perhaps Burnham is “flooding the zone”, by creating rumours that he might call an election, to distract from his lack of a plan?
Could we have another option to vote for? “Yes, but it won’t make any difference”?
The current government appears to observe the ‘fiscal rules’ as promised before the last election. They must loom large as a problem for Burnham. Might Labour drop that commitment?
No.
They have said so.
The issue surely is, since he has come to power, what has he actually done for people that they can feel is better for them. What constitutes a tangible benefit to voters since he has got the job?
Then look at around you. It is all very well saying that by next year we will have done this and that. What has he delivered in the short term to help him out in a snap election? And then consider Farage’s war chest of money he has been given.
Until he does something that delivers genuine relief, why would most people trust him at all? And he is so constrained by the orthodox, in-built Neo-lib straitjacket.
Let’s be clear – the real bit of courageousness he has to deliver is something to the relieve the cost of living crisis if he wants an election before Xmas. Or will he go Right, and do something about immigration as a blood sacrifice to a baying mob?
I mean, look what we’ve come to, eh?
He does not know how to deliver.
Hence the need for a distraction.
Burnham will have to move quickly. There may be some hint of an election because we just had a very large glossy double A3 leaflet from our Labour MP saying what a wonderful record they have and how they have transformed the Town centre despite Tories controlling the local authority!
What’s the point of an election? There will be no change in neoliberal dominance, or of Tinkerman’s policies.
Tinkerman does not need a mandate he just needs the balls to improve the lot of the majority of the UK population.
If there is an election my view is that Labour will be wiped out with Deform doing much better than expected.
Do not trust political polls. or special advisers Those polled are not honest and the samples too small.
The risk to the UK is Trump and the US neocons trying to “destroy” Iran before Christmas. Iran retaliating, destroying the Gulf state oil/gas production systems. Then an instant global depression.
I think it’s unlikely this year. Twenty-five working days must elapse between the dissolution of Parliament and polling day under the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022. It would take us into late autumn or winter.
The next election will be framed as a binary choice (Burnham or Farage). That might be presented to the electorate on Thursday 6 May 2027.
One other aspect in regard to Scotland. There is significant pressure, in light of the UK government’s refusal to allow another referendum, for the SNP to treat the next GE as a de facto referendum. Burnham may see calling it early as a chance to wrong-foot them.
There’s much talk in Scotland that Burnham (widely and aptly known here as the ‘Prime Minister of England’) is planning a visit to Scotland which will take place while the SNP is holding its annual Conference. If this happens, what are his motives?
Is he trying to steal media cover from the SNP (shouldn’t be hard as 95% of the media in Scotland are against Independence, yet polls show public support for Independence currently sitting between 55 and 60% (once 2014 weighting is removed) and before any campaigning begins?
Or is he trying to dodge having to come face to with John Swinney, or is he merely trying to avoid his lack of knowledge of Scottish affairs and politics becoming public knowledge? The timing of the visit has the sleekit Douglas Alexander’s finger-prints all over it. One thing is certain: if Burnham and Alexander do make a State Visit during the Conference, they can expect the same sort of public greeting that Boris got.
Much to agree with.
I wish the government would do some governing – like abandoning “austerity” and the “household analogy” (for the benefit of the people).
An ELECTION? As we say in Bristol, “What? ANOTHER one?”.
As the good lady in Bristol said ” What ANOTHERR one?”
Seriously, the government has to give 25 days notice of a general election which it will not do until at least after the budget on 28th October. Usually there are an addition 8 days before the actual dissolution, total 33. The earliest probable date of the announcement is therefore 2nd November, leading to polling on 5th December. I would think that is too close for comfort to Christmas.
I do, however, agree that Burnham should go to the country sooner rather than 2029, and much sooner.
Johnson did it…
Your memory is far better than mine. But Johnson had a much greater need because there was deadlock on his negotiations the the EU. That put much more pressure on him. And it was even more difficult for him because he first had to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act (according to Google Gemini).
However, I fear you may be worryingly right.
Something that you have overlooked are the 25 or so constituencies with the highest percentage of Muslims. How will they play out in a snap general election? Four of them have an independent Muslim MP, and several others were near misses by independent Muslim or Workers Party candidates in the 2024 general election, so a possibility exists that more of them will return independent Muslim MPs.
Alternatively, they could return Green Party MPs. Overall public support for the Green Party may be tumbling following the Burnham Bounce and the controversial Zionism is racism motion at the conference, but support for the Green Party has increased amongst Muslims since Zack Polanski took over as leader. A significant increase in concentrated localised support easily translates into more MPs under the FPTP election system even if overall national support decreases significantly.
I agree
This current is ignored by mainstream pollsters, and I fell for that.
Sorry.
Mainstream pollsters definitely have a blind spot when it comes to voting patterns of certain ethnic and religious groups. Especially if they are geographically concentrated. It’s where traditional swingometers fail.
Voting patterns can be complex. In constituencies with sizeable, but not exceptionally high, Muslim populations, it is plausible that a high proportion of Muslims will vote Green Party. More so if there is a higher than average proportion of progressive voters and younger voters. In constituencies with Muslim populations over 30%, then it is plausible that a high proportion of Muslims will vote for independent candidates. More so if there is a lower than average proportion of progressive voters and the constituency is a weak Green Party area.
There may even be tactical voting Labour by non-Muslims, who normally support Conservative or Reform UK, in some constituencies in order to try and stop independent and Green Party candidates from winning.
The Muslim vote could be significant; however, at the last GE there was no guarantee that the Muslim vote would act homogenously. In Leicester East the vote split between the independent candidate, Claudia Webbe and the LD candidate, a Muslim, allowing a Tory win. Whilst in Leicester South Shockat Adam took the seat from Labour, comfortably. The Muslim vote in Leicester E may not have been sufficient if it had voted homogeneously to beat the Tory candidate.
I do not support the principle of religious parties, although they have every right to do so. If they wish to gain a stronger voice, especially where they do not command a majority of the vote, as in Leicester E, then they are more likely to win more representation when standing as part of a party such as the GP, or YP which have wider popular appeal ( Shockat Adam is one of four YP MP’s). However, this may also mean that the Muslim vote will split on class lines..
Leicester East is a unique constituency in the grand scheme of things. It has a large Muslim population but it also has a large Hindu population. In recent years, Hindus have gravitated towards the Conservatives. Therefore, it is probably the only constituency with a large Muslim population where the Conservatives are a serious player. It is also one with strong sectarianism between Muslims and Hindus rather than just conflicts between Muslims and the white non-Muslim British population.
It appears to be a weak constituency for the Green Party, and the Green Party appears to have a limited appeal to Hindus. It’s certainly a constituency to watch at the next general election.
Your Party is dead as a dodo. I’m not sure if Shockat Adam is still a member, but if he is then he doesn’t publicise it. He sits in the Independent Alliance group in Parliament. Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana sit in the Your Party group.
Religious and ethnic minorities are not homogeneous blocks but human beings with their own independent political views.
Parties often complain about their opponents trying to appease an ethnic or religious “block vote” while themselves trying to corner it (“they’re after your gold”.
Here in Bristol South, I am part of the “exiled Scottish White Christian Pensioner Graduate male” vote – a powerful political force hereabouts, often inexplicably ignored by pollsters (cough cough).
🙂
“Religious and ethnic minorities are not homogeneous blocks but human beings with their own independent political views.”
Very true. Which makes catering for this demographic very challenging. There are some parallels between this and Scottish folk who support independence – their economic views encompass a spectrum from verging on communism to Thatcherite Tories in tartans.
As a general rule, the independent Muslim candidates are aware that a sizeable proportion of Muslims are self employed, run businesses, or are professionals – so support this demographic. The pro-Palestinian political left either aren’t aware of this, or hold ideas of creating a proletarian paradise on earth, which will alienate many Muslims.
I think Bambi’s whole doe-eyed appeal and his Manchesterism may come under the microscope with regard to his relationship with Abu Dhabi and Man City FC. An election may enable a distraction from real scrutiny.
Agreed
Andy Burnham’s honeymoon period could end very quickly. With El Niño and the war in Iran likely to cause food shortages and significant food price inflation, worsening the cost-of-living crisis, could he call an early election to avoid a potential drop in Labour support?
Response to Riaz’s assertion that “….Scottish folk who support independence – their economic views encompass a spectrum from verging on communism to Thatcherite Tories in tartans.”
It’s obvious that Riaz has no knowledge or understanding of Scottish politics. Until Scotland becomes a sovereign nation, the independence movement is effectively above and beyond party politics, especially the politics of Westminster-based English parties. The SNP, with some help from the Scottish Greens, is the only viable vehicle to undertake the task of achieving independence and, once achieved, the aim is not to provide the SNP with a one-party regime: There will be an election open to all parties registered in Scotland, not Westminster. It’s called Democracy.
Until then, the process of extricating ourselves from the UK is open to all (recent polls show a majority in favour of Indy), but Communists and especially “Thatcherite Tories in tartans” are vanishingly few in number (if any).
Thanks, Ken.
I made a moderation error there.
Replying to Riaz
the “Pro Palestinian Left” are also not a homogeneous group and do not all desire a “proletarian paradise on earth”. This is why a Party umbrella makes more sense if compromised goals are to be achieved. Many of those on the Left have resigned from YP as they were unwilling to accept compromising on various issues, one being the influence of Muslim MP’s of which there were 5 when Your Party was first initiated. Since then 2 MP’s have resigned, but 4 still remain, including Shockat Adam who sat at a YP meeting with Jeremy Corbyn in the last two weeks on the subject of Kicking Palantir out of the NHS. Whether the 4 MP’s remain as candidates for YP at the next GE remains to be seen. The same applies with Your Party, but membership has now recovered back to 60,000 members.
As you rightly point out, Leicester E is a complex situation where Hindu’s outnumber Muslims, that does not automatically translate into sectarian votes; and as I understand, the current MP is currently experiencing reselection issues, which makes a non sectarian party all the more desirable if it hopes to win a majority vote.