.jpg)
News
Burnham’s
dilemma: A free ride on Starmer’s majority, or risk an election to seek his own
Polling
indicates voters aren’t desperate for Andy Burnham to secure a fresh mandate,
but don’t much like the way Labour are choosing a leader either.
Analysis
June 26,
2026 4:01 am CET
By Tim
Ross and Andrew McDonald
LONDON —
It is an unwritten rule in British politics that a new prime minister who takes
over mid-term will soon want a general election to win a majority they can call
their own.
That is
the position Andy Burnham will find himself in, if, as expected, he succeeds
Keir Starmer in three weeks’ time.
The
calculation is never straightforward — and for Burnham, the dilemma is
particularly acute. If he sticks with what he’s got, he will leave himself
vulnerable to accusations that he is illegitimately squatting in No. 10 on a
majority he played no part in winning.
And the
alternative — calling an early general election to secure his own mandate —
would be a massive gamble that seems certain to cost Labour scores of seats,
with the party lagging far behind Nigel Farage’s populist right Reform UK.
Yet, if
polls show a “Burnham bounce” — and analysis suggests voters do prefer him to
Farage for the role of PM — an early contest might give Labour its best chance
against Reform UK. The popularity of new leaders tends to wane with time.
It’s a
quandary many previous leaders will recognize and remember, often with a
shudder. As they have shown repeatedly in recent years, British voters have a
habit of upending prime ministers who fancy the odds of a casual dalliance with
democracy.
Theresa
May triggered a snap election in 2017 after nine months in the job, expecting
her 25-point poll lead at the beginning of the campaign would give her a
massive landslide. But a disastrous few weeks on the stump saw her lose the
small majority she had inherited.
Ten years
before that, Gordon Brown took over from Tony Blair and flirted with calling an
election only to pull out after polling indicated it would be too difficult,
earning him the nickname “Bottler Brown.” He lost anyway, three years later.
And even
before he won the Tory leadership to replace May in 2019, Boris Johnson and his
team had their eye on a popularity bounce that would give him the chance to
call an early election and secure a majority to do what he wanted. For Johnson,
the bet paid off, and he won a big majority of 80.
Missing
in action
May,
Brown and Johnson had all been cabinet ministers and leading figures in their
parties for years before they took over as PM mid-term.
Burnham,
by contrast, is on the verge of walking into Downing Street without even having
been a candidate at the election that gave Labour the massive majority he is
set to command in the House of Commons.
The
nature of Labour’s majority doesn’t help him either. Starmer’s victory was the
most disproportionate in history: He won almost two-thirds of the seats in the
Commons with just one-third of the votes in the country. Even before Burnham
arrived at Westminster, there were questions over the fairness of Labour’s
dominant position in parliament.
Opposition
parties on the right, like Reform UK and some Conservatives, are now demanding
an immediate election if Burnham takes over. It is in Farage’s interests, of
course — his party currently leads opinion polls and is on track to be by far
the biggest after the next election.
For what
it’s worth, Labour MPs hate the idea of an early polling day, fearing they will
be all-but wiped out in places like Scotland. One said a snap vote would
definitely amount to “throwing seats away.”
“If he
gets a big, big bounce and the other parties decline, it will be very tempting
for him, for example, if we’re 15 points ahead in October,” said this MP, who,
like others in this article, was granted anonymity to speak frankly. “I can
tell you though the mood among Labour MPs is that we very much do not want him
to go for an early election.”
Not
another one
Burnham’s
backers are well aware he will face an onslaught of demands to give voters a
say and criticism for having no mandate as soon as he walks into No. 10 Downing
Street. That’s partly because he made the same argument, calling for an
election, when Johnson announced his resignation in July 2022.
“It’s
what we’re going to be hit with and we need to be prepared for that and able to
counter it,” said one Burnham ally of the call they expect to face to go to the
country. “But I seem to remember it working out well for the Tories when they
replaced [Margaret] Thatcher with [John] Major mid term.” Against expectations,
Major won the subsequent election in 1992.
The
Burnham ally insisted the public tends to be more understanding of leadership
changes than they are given credit for. That may turn out to be true, though
the reason might not be sympathy so much as weariness.
Any PM
calling a snap vote would do well to keep in mind the words of one voter, who
nine years ago summed up the mood of a nation already tired of endless
political drama. The country had seen a referendum on Scottish independence in
2014, a general election in 2015, a Brexit referendum in 2016 and May had just
called a snap election in 2017.
The
voter, who was identified only as “Brenda from Bristol” in a television
interview, became a viral hit when she gave her reaction to May’s announcement
of a snap vote: “You’re joking,” said Brenda. “Not another one. Oh, for God’s
sake, honestly, I can’t stand this. There’s too much politics going on at the
moment.”
A YouGov
poll this week found 48 percent of respondents thought there should be an
election when Starmer’s replacement is in post, compared to 35 percent who said
there should not be one.
But
another poll by More in Common this month suggested there was no clear desire
from the public for the next PM to call an election: 43 percent thought the new
leader would have a mandate and should just “get on with the job,” compared to
37 percent who disagreed and wanted an election.
“I think
people balance just absolute exhaustion with seemingly endless political chaos
with the idea that a new prime minister needs a new mandate,” said Luke Tryl,
Executive Director of More in Common UK. “It’s like Brenda from Bristol is the
voice of the nation now.”
If
there’s one thing jaded British voters dislike more than not getting a vote on
who becomes their prime minister, it might just be voting.
.jpeg)
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário