Shaker Makerfield
Very few thought a result as good for Andy Burnham was possible, I certainly didn't – so a bit of credit where it's due.
I said yesterday I probably wouldn’t have anything interesting to say about Makerfield, but I needed a rest from the cleaning and had a few thoughts I’d not seen elsewhere...1
The article was edited 20 June 2025 for typos – I’m turning off my autocorrect.
OK, so this what I think about Makerfield, not that it is terribly original, but I’ve not yet seen it stated quite in this form.
Several things happened that don’t often happen in by-elections.
The turnout was higher than that at the previous general election.
There was a swing to the governing party.
The governing party increased its share of the vote (and did so substantially)
The numerical vote of the wining party was up on the General Election total.
One or other of these things happens from time to time, though the first very rarely, but all four almost never happen at once. Those things make the the by-election and its result exceptional. The exceptions went as follows:
By-elections don’t matter much, the government cannot be changed unless it is about to lose a very small majority. But here there was a clear possibility that the government could be changed, plus the result was not a foregone conclusion.
The main opposition in Makerfield proved toxic to many and has been a vehicle for protest votes. It did not benefit from squeeze on ‘others’. Local elections in the constituency saw a higher Reform share but on a much lower turnout. It is quite possible that those who voted Reform in the locals very largely did so again but they weren’t joined by many who did not vote in the locals. I’ve no proof this happened, but I’ve seen this elsewhere at other times with other parties, much more than once.
There was a clear squeeze on the uncompetitive parties. This is hopeful. Voters who find Reform/Farage unacceptable – between two thirds and three quarters of the electorate – are prepared to vote for democratic alternatives. This is a hopeful sign and the media might wish to take note, but they probably won’t.
Labour supporters, by and large, voted Labour. They were given tacit permission to vote for their preferred party AND against it’s current leader/government in a single vote. This was aided by the styling of publicity and the heavy use of Andy Burnham’s carefully cultivated personal brand.2 Other parties were unable to exploit the obvious division which would normally have proved toxic because it just drew more attention to the Labour candidate (and thus to the contrast with their awful alternative). Topping the numerical vote suggests enough votes cast their ballots FOR something, or someone, rather than simply against Farage.
Big risk, big reward?
It was a personal triumph for Andy Burnham, the well thought out brand he has established, and his effectiveness in his Mayoral role. It is churlish to argue otherwise. Makerfield was a seriously tricky proposition, 13th target on their list of about 250 targets.3 It was a brave decision to run, not exactly a Ming Vase strategy, and the sort of ‘neck on the line’ decision leaders have to make.4 It had been suggested by polling evidence that Burnham was the one Labour politician who could move the needle away from Reform.5 The result in Makerfield showed that to be true – in a single constituency where the stars aligned but he had to notice and point the telescope. It’s a start.6
Even though being a metro mayor is a dream political job, it’s still possible to be rubbish at it but Mayor Burnham was a success. More importantly he was widely perceived as a success. But I suggest the result reveals far more than that. At the heart of Burnham’s vote was a Labour vote which wanted to vote Labour. Those Labour voters wanted a Labour government and a Labour Prime Minister. They don’t see Keir Starmer that way. Every other Labour Prime Minister embodied that brand and their communication and messaging also embodied that. Yes, Tony was different, but he was still seen as modernising Labour – voters liked the different twist. In Andy Burnham they see a Labour man and one that might give them a Labour government. That was their permission to vote FOR something as well as against something.
Beyond these notions all we have is proof of concept. Labour has a proven ability to aim the gun at its own foot – or worse. Keir Starmer is still saying the only things he can say, but he has to know the game is up. If he doesn’t he shouldn’t have been Prime Minister in the first place.
Enough for now. Thanks for Reading
Back on Tuesday, Till then, have a good weekend and take care.
John
PS. In the meantime, as we are doing Manchester, enjoy ‘something borrowed’
(if you can, you don’t have to walk funny or anything). ;-)
No, I’ve not read everything. The internet is very big, you know.
This is praise, not criticism. I’m an old ad man, remember.
There has been a big ‘second party’ vote in Makerfield for some time - check the electoral history here. It is typical Red Wall in that it was something once (mines, mills, etc) but hasn’t been for a very long time, the population has changed, as has their outlook. It’s 20 years since Labour got a higher vote share than last night.
No, it doesn’t prove he would be a good Prime Minister, nothing does. It doesn’t address whether he can re-stitch the holes in Labour’s coalition, nor does it prove he has a governing vision either – how long do you want this to be?
Survation in particular identified this.
There were two by elections in Scotland where Labour got kickings but I won’t make comparisons with the politics of a different country.