If Andy Burnham thinks his ‘new PM bounce’ can spark a Brexit U-turn and march Britain back into Europe, my day in his Ashton-in-Makerfield constituency paints a very different story. Earlier this week, Burnham told MPs he will push for new post-Brexit deals at an upcoming EU summit, wanting “deeper cooperation” – and has hinted at slapping a ‘let’s re-join the EU’ vow on his next general election’s Labour manifesto. But in June this year – in a successful move designed to take down their ailing leader Sir Keir Starmer – a shock by-election in Ashton-in-Makerfield, in Greater Manchester, saw regional mayor Burnham elected their new MP. And having visited his constituency this week, which voted 65 % to leave the EU in the 2016 referendum, if Burnham thinks a Brexit U-turn is the flavour of the month, he’s got another thing coming.
Three damning words summed up everyone’s thoughts that I spoke to in Makerfield on a sunny Tuesday afternoon, whether they love Brexit or eventually want to return to the EU: “Why right now?!” The former coal-mining town near Wigan has voted in a Labour MP in every election for the last 120 years – and voted in Burnham this summer, although many argue serious cross-party tactical voting to keep out Reform and get rid of Starmer was at play.
In 2016, during the referendum, 65% of Ashton-in-Makerfield voters said they wanted to leave the EU, making Andy Burnham’s new constituency the 75th biggest ‘Leave’ seat in the UK. On May 7, 2026, Reform caused shockwaves by winning 24 of the 25 council seats up for grabs in Wigan, Greater Manchester, giving the stunned, dominant Labour Party a bloody nose.
The voting implies that while Burnham is a popular figure due to his long stint as Mayor of Greater Manchester, Labour generally is not popular on the streets of Makerfield. In early June, I visited what was once the ‘Bryn Labour Club’, a 115-year-old local hub with a bar, snooker tables and darts – and a sign by the door that quips: “No D*ckheads!”
But it’s now called ‘Bryn Community Club’ and boasts a Union Jack that proudly flutters outside – and inside, regulars ahead of the by-election told me: “We’re voting Reform UK.” I visited the town’s pubs and bars and all the talk was of their run-down services, lack of jobs, vape shops, the cost-of-living crisis, deprivation, drugs and small-boat crossings.
On Tuesday this week, I returned to Makerfield, and the feelings about a Brexit U-turn were stronger than ever – surprisingly on both sides of the argument. They all felt – with petrol prices sky-high, a soaring benefits bill, rising energy prices, the cost-of-living crisis, stagnating wages, and 1.78 million people unemployed in the UK – that now is simply not the time for a divisive referendum that could split the nation down the middle.
We all remember the debates, demonstrations, protests and negativity sparked from both sides by the referendum that then PM David Cameron offered the UK. We’ve also seen the bitterness and rancour among neighbours and communities in Scotland in their own 2014 referendum to remain a part of the UK.
They say these referendums should be once-in-a-generation votes for a reason, because they spark years of enmity and ill-feeling among communities and pitch friend against friend. Who did not see at the time Facebook friends posting comments like “If you voted for Brexit feel to block me” as the referendum fallout raged across social media?
What is alarming and unsettling is that just three months into a new job as PM, this is what is filling Burnham’s thoughts – when it should be on making Britain better and stronger. On Tuesday, charity worker Joanne Lait, 60, said of a new Brexit vote: “I’m not sure. Why now of all times? He’s only been in the job for three months. People round here are fed-up of politics to be honest.”
While shopper Marian Caldwell, 81, a retired theatre sister nurse, argued: “Labour should be concentrating on helping the poor, those struggling to make ends meet and supporting farmers to grow produce to feed our nation. “Why revisit Brexit now? It makes no sense! It’s simply not the right time. It’s crazy.”
A little common sense goes a long way – maybe Marian should be in 10 Downing Street instead?
Andy Burnham Is About to Face the Biggest Fight of His Premiership – He May Not Be Forgiven
Andy Burnham’s premiership is approaching a critical moment, as the promises that helped him win public support begin to collide with the political realities of governing Britain. After entering Downing Street with a message of renewal, fairness and a fresh start for Labour, the Prime Minister now faces a series of decisions that could define his leadership for years to come.
Burnham remains a popular figure compared with many of his political rivals, but the early optimism surrounding his arrival in office is no guarantee of lasting success. His honeymoon period is beginning to fade, public expectations are rising, and the opposition parties are eager to expose any gap between his promises and his results.
The biggest danger may not come from a single parliamentary confrontation or a dramatic rebellion within Labour. Instead, it could emerge from a combination of difficult economic choices, disagreements over Brexit, pressure on public services and the growing frustration of voters who believe successive governments have failed to deliver meaningful change.
For Burnham, the challenge is clear: he must convince the country that his government can improve everyday life without asking voters to accept sacrifices they were never told to expect.
The Brexit Battle That Could Divide Britain Again
One of the most politically sensitive questions facing Burnham concerns Britain’s future relationship with the European Union. Any attempt to deepen cooperation with Brussels risks reopening divisions that have shaped British politics for more than a decade.
Supporters of closer European ties argue that Britain needs a more practical relationship with its largest neighbouring economic bloc. They believe cooperation on trade, employment, security and energy could help businesses and improve the country’s long-term economic prospects.
But Brexit supporters see the issue very differently. For them, leaving the EU was a democratic decision that should not be gradually reversed without a clear mandate from voters. They fear that closer alignment could bring back restrictions and obligations that the referendum was intended to end.
This presents Burnham with a difficult political calculation. He may believe that Britain can improve its economic prospects by building a closer relationship with European partners, but the public could interpret an aggressive change of direction as a betrayal of the referendum result.
The argument is particularly sensitive in communities where voters supported Brexit because they felt ignored by political leaders in London. Many wanted stronger local economies, better-paid employment and greater investment in neglected towns. They may be willing to consider practical agreements with Europe, but that does not necessarily mean they want another divisive national debate.
If Burnham appears to prioritise constitutional arguments over household finances, his opponents will have an opportunity to portray him as disconnected from ordinary people.
The Prime Minister therefore needs to explain exactly what he wants from the relationship with Europe, what benefits Britain could receive and where he intends to draw the line. Without that clarity, even relatively modest proposals could become a much larger political confrontation.
The Cost-of-Living Crisis Remains the Real Test
For millions of households, the most important political question is not whether Britain should move closer to Brussels. It is whether families can afford their bills, whether wages are keeping pace with prices and whether public services are becoming easier to access.
Burnham has made economic security a central part of his political message. His government has promoted measures intended to ease pressure on households, including action on electricity bills, transport costs and businesses facing difficult trading conditions.
Such policies can offer immediate relief, but the broader challenge is much harder. Britain continues to face difficult choices over public spending, taxation, economic growth and the future of essential services.
Voters will judge Burnham on the difference his policies make to their lives. A reduction in one bill may be welcomed, but it will not necessarily compensate for rising housing costs, expensive food, insecure employment or lengthy waits for medical treatment.
There is also a danger that expectations have become too high. A new prime minister can generate optimism simply by appearing different from the person who came before. Maintaining that optimism requires results, and results take time.
If families feel that their financial circumstances have barely improved after months of promises, the political mood could change rapidly.
Burnham cannot simply blame the previous government indefinitely. Although he inherited serious problems, voters will increasingly expect him to take responsibility for the decisions made under his own leadership.
That is when the language of renewal becomes a test of credibility.
Public Services Could Become His Greatest Political Headache
The state of Britain’s public services presents another major challenge. The NHS, social care, local government, transport and housing all require attention, yet the government cannot meet every demand immediately.
Burnham has argued for a stronger role for the state in providing essential services. His approach reflects a belief that some areas of everyday life should not be left entirely to market forces, particularly when failures can affect millions of people.
The difficulty lies in the cost and implementation of such ambitions.
Bringing struggling services or companies under public control may appeal to voters frustrated with private providers. However, public ownership does not automatically solve problems involving investment, management, efficiency or accountability.
The crisis surrounding Thames Water illustrates the dilemma. The company faces severe financial difficulties, while the government must consider how to protect customers and the environment without exposing taxpayers to unlimited liabilities. Burnham has indicated a willingness to examine more radical options, including arrangements that could increase the state’s role.
Such decisions could become an early test of his governing philosophy. If the government intervenes successfully, supporters will argue that public control can protect essential services. If the process proves expensive, legally complicated or ineffective, critics will accuse Burnham of making promises before understanding the consequences.
The same challenge applies to housing and social care. These are long-term problems requiring money, staff, planning and political cooperation. Announcements may generate headlines, but improvements will be measured in homes built, appointments delivered and vulnerable people receiving support.
Burnham must demonstrate that his government can turn ambitious principles into practical outcomes.
Labour Could Become Its Own Worst Enemy
The Prime Minister also faces a challenge inside his own party. Labour contains politicians with different priorities, competing policy ideas and contrasting views about how quickly the government should change direction.
Some will want Burnham to move further and faster, particularly on public ownership, workers’ rights and investment in struggling communities. Others may worry that expensive commitments could damage the government’s financial credibility or alienate voters who are already concerned about taxation.
These disagreements could become more serious when the government has to make difficult choices.
A party can unite around broad promises while in opposition. Governing requires decisions about which promises receive priority, which programmes must wait and who ultimately pays the bill. Those decisions inevitably create winners and losers.
Burnham’s experience in Greater Manchester may help him understand regional inequalities and the frustrations of local communities. However, running a city-region is different from managing the competing demands of the entire United Kingdom.
He will need to maintain discipline among Labour MPs while persuading them that difficult decisions are consistent with the party’s wider mission.
If backbenchers believe that the leadership is abandoning its principles, rebellions could emerge. If ministers feel that the government is moving too quickly, internal resistance may become harder to contain.
The danger is not necessarily an immediate leadership crisis. It is the gradual loss of authority that occurs when a prime minister appears unable to bring their own party behind a coherent programme.
Nigel Farage and Reform UK Are Waiting for an Opportunity
Burnham’s opponents will be watching every difficult decision closely. Nigel Farage and Reform UK have built much of their appeal around the argument that established political parties have repeatedly failed to listen to voters.
Their message is particularly effective when people believe politicians are concentrating on national debates while ignoring concerns about immigration, public safety, employment and living standards.
Reform can use disagreements over Brexit to challenge Burnham’s credibility among voters who supported leaving the EU. It can also argue that Labour’s promises on public services and economic renewal will eventually be undermined by the cost of delivering them.
The Conservatives, meanwhile, will attempt to present themselves as a credible alternative by challenging the government’s spending decisions, taxation policies and approach to national security.
Burnham may have an advantage because he has developed a reputation for connecting with communities outside Westminster. Yet that reputation also creates expectations. People who believe he understands their problems will be especially disappointed if they see little improvement.
A politician can sometimes survive criticism from opponents. It is much harder to recover when former supporters begin to feel that they were mistaken.
That is why the coming months could prove decisive. If Burnham delivers visible improvements, he may weaken the opposition’s central argument. If progress remains slow, Reform and the Conservatives will have a ready-made case against him.
The Question of Trust
Ultimately, Burnham’s biggest fight may be about trust rather than any individual policy.
Voters are accustomed to political leaders promising a new direction after taking office. They have also seen governments discover that their ambitions are constrained by economic conditions, administrative difficulties and competing demands on public money.
The public may accept that change takes time, but patience depends on whether people believe the government is being honest about the obstacles.
Burnham needs to explain not only what he wants to achieve but also what it will cost, how long it will take and which compromises may be necessary. Clear communication will not eliminate disagreement, but it could help prevent difficult decisions from becoming accusations of dishonesty.
His handling of Brexit will be especially important. Any significant change in the relationship with Europe must be explained in terms of concrete benefits rather than political symbolism. Otherwise, the debate could become another contest between rival identities instead of a discussion about Britain’s future.
He must also resist the temptation to treat popularity as proof that his policies will succeed. Opinion polls can change quickly, particularly when economic pressures become more visible or a government faces its first major controversy.
The latest political mood suggests that Burnham remains competitive, but rising unfavourable opinions indicate that not everyone is convinced. His position is therefore promising without being secure.
A Defining Moment for the Prime Minister
Andy Burnham’s premiership is still in its early stages, and it would be premature to conclude that his political future has already been decided. He has time to establish priorities, correct mistakes and demonstrate that his government can deliver meaningful change.
Nevertheless, the pressure is mounting. Brexit could reopen old divisions, economic difficulties could undermine confidence, public-service reforms could prove more complicated than expected, and Labour’s internal disagreements could restrict the government’s room for manoeuvre.
The most serious danger is that these challenges reinforce one another. If households remain under financial pressure while ministers debate Europe, voters may conclude that the government has lost sight of its priorities. If public services fail to improve, ambitious promises could begin to look unrealistic. And if Labour MPs openly disagree over the direction of policy, the impression of uncertainty could deepen.
Burnham’s response will determine whether this period becomes a difficult but manageable stage of his premiership or a turning point that permanently damages his standing.
He does not need to satisfy every voter. No prime minister can. But he must show that his decisions are guided by a clear understanding of what the country needs and that he is prepared to defend those decisions honestly.
The warning is straightforward: political goodwill is temporary, and public patience has limits.
If Burnham can translate his promises into visible improvements, he may establish a durable political legacy. If he appears to reopen old battles while failing to resolve everyday problems, even supporters who welcomed his arrival could begin to turn away.
The biggest fight of his premiership may therefore be about more than Brexit, Labour unity or the economy. It may determine whether voters continue to believe that Andy Burnham represents a genuine break with the politics that came before him—or simply another leader who promised change and struggled to deliver it.