Andy Burnham’s migrant plans are failing his own “Makerfield Test” . HYN

That was the essence of what, in his by-election victory speech, the man who was soon to become Prime Minister described as his “Makerfield Test”.

The test was Burnham’s way of showing that he was not just another member of the Westminster political establishment.

He was different.

He was an ordinary northern bloke who understood there was a world beyond the SW1 bubble.

What mattered were not the priorities of the metropolitan elites but those of the type of people he had been chosen to represent.

When Burnham secured the premiership, he reaffirmed his commitment to the test and would now be judged on it.

Well, I have news for the Prime Minister.

His proposal to drag Britain back into the arms of the EU fails the test spectacularly.

Voters in Makerfield cherish Britain’s sovereignty and are fiercely opposed to a handover of powers from Westminster to Brussels in a wide range of policy areas.

That is the decisive finding from a survey of electors in the Makerfield constituency conducted by the respected polling outfit Survation for ‘Britain Unbound’, a pro-Brexit organization comprised of leading politicians, activists and commentators from across the party divide.

Full disclosure here: I happen to be a proud member of the organisation’s advisory board.

Our survey sought the views of Makerfield voters on whether economic powers in 10 key areas should be exercised by the British government alone or through either a binding or voluntary arrangement with an international institution, such as the EU.

National sovereignty in all the areas surveyed would likely be affected if Britain were to rejoin the EU or Single Market, or even if some kind of looser “reset” went ahead.

In every policy area, respondents were overwhelmingly in favour of the British government having sole authority to make the decision.

In fact – and this is music to the ears of an old-school Leftist like me – some of the areas where support for national sovereignty polled most strongly were those associated with a traditional Labour programme.

On state aid for regional development, for example, an overwhelming 80% of Makerfield voters wanted decisions determined by their own national government, while for employment law the figure was 75%, railway nationalization 74%, establishing a public energy provider 72% and public procurement 70%.

Burnham tries to convince us that he is serious about reversing the legacy of Thatcherite economic liberalism and using the power of the state to revitalise our industry, public services and communities.

But such a grand scheme would prove utterly incompatible with any sweeping transfer of existing sovereign powers to Brussels.

The EU’s prohibitive rules around state aid, public ownership and procurement would ultimately leave the Prime Minister’s vision in tatters.

And now he can see from the results of the survey that his own constituents don’t support the ceding of the British government’s authority in such areas.

In every other surveyed area, from animal welfare regulations to refusing criminals entry into Britain, and from medicine approval for the NHS to food standards and VAT rates, Makerfield electors decided each time, and never by less than a two-thirds majority, that authority should lie exclusively with their own government.

So, when the Europhiles tell us that Brexit voters are experiencing “buyer remorse” and that a return to the EU fold is inevitable, don’t believe them.

The reality is far more nuanced.

Makerfield voted to leave the EU by almost two to one.

The place therefore serves as a pretty useful bellwether for the mood among Brexiteers.

And the evidence from the survey shows that when they are interrogated on key questions of sovereignty and independence, there is little desire to see their country placed back under the yoke of Brussels.

These voters want democratic accountability.

They want the politicians they elect – and, crucially, can remove – to make decisions on matters which directly affect their lives.

They value sovereignty and independence.

Contrary to the impression given by the EU enthusiasts, a closer relationship with the bloc would not be a straightforward process.

In fact, there would be all manner of complications and drawbacks, especially if a full rejoin were the intention.

How many British voters would, at a time of economic hardship, be willing to see the government begin paying billions again to the EU in annual membership fees? Would Britain be forced to adopt the Euro (as is the expectation for new member states)? Would we be required to scrap the post-Brexit trade deals struck with international partners?

Would we be compelled to sign up to Schengen, and how might that go down with voters who can see that our border system is already in chaos? What about the impact of free movement of workers when a million of our young people are not in employment, education or training? Would voters be willing to accept again the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice?

Europe is a wonderful continent filled with many rich traditions and cultures.

Of course, it is in Britain’s interests to be on good terms with her continental neighbours and to co-operate in areas such as trade and security.

But that does not mean sacrificing our national sovereignty and independence.

The evidence of the survey of Makerfield voters shows that these things matter.

They matter a lot.

Andy Burnham may be about to set British voters at each other’s throats again.

And for no good reason.

By pushing for reunification with Brussels, he risks infuriating millions of Leave-voting citizens and surrendering any hope of delivering on significant chunks of his own programme for government.

It isn’t too late for him to row back.

Immigration: The Biggest Test of Burnham’s Leadership

Immigration is arguably one of the most important issues facing Burnham’s government. Research published by More in Common in September 2026 suggested that 62 per cent of Makerfield residents considered immigration a major issue. This demonstrates the importance of the subject in a constituency where many voters want stronger border controls and greater confidence in the asylum system.

Burnham has attempted to present himself as a politician who combines firm immigration controls with compassion. He has supported Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood’s efforts to reduce both legal and illegal migration while arguing that Britain should recognise the positive contribution made by migrants.

His position is complicated, however, by his previous record. As Greater Manchester mayor, he supported changes to the No Recourse to Public Funds policy, which restricts access to certain benefits and public housing for migrants without settled status. In May 2026, reports indicated that he had stepped back from his earlier calls to abolish this restriction.

This change has raised questions about whether Burnham is adjusting his principles to respond to political pressure or genuinely developing a new approach to immigration.

His supporters argue that changing policy positions can be a sign of political responsibility when circumstances and public concerns change. Critics, meanwhile, believe that voters deserve consistency and clear explanations when politicians change their positions on important issues.

The Problem of Asylum Accommodation

One of the most visible concerns in communities such as Makerfield is the use of hotels to accommodate asylum seekers.

Local residents may worry about the impact of large accommodation centres on public services, housing availability and community relations. Some also question whether the government is spending taxpayers’ money effectively when asylum applications take considerable time to process.

Burnham has recognised these concerns and has supported efforts to reduce the use of asylum hotels.

However, closing hotels alone will not solve the underlying problem. The government must address delays in processing applications, improve arrangements for returning people who have no legal right to remain and provide appropriate accommodation for those who qualify for protection.

There must also be meaningful consultation with local authorities and residents before large accommodation facilities are established.

The government should publish clear information about accommodation costs, the number of people being housed and the progress made in processing asylum applications.

Without these practical improvements, promises to restore confidence in the immigration system may remain unfulfilled.

Can Burnham Reduce Migration While Protecting the Economy?

Another challenge concerns Britain’s dependence on international workers.

Immigrants make important contributions to several sectors of the British economy, including healthcare, social care, hospitality, construction and agriculture.

The government must therefore distinguish between different forms of migration rather than treating every migrant as part of the same problem.

Employers need access to appropriately skilled workers, particularly in industries experiencing labour shortages. At the same time, excessive dependence on overseas recruitment could discourage investment in domestic training and workforce development.

Burnham’s government must find a sustainable balance between controlling migration and meeting the needs of the economy.

This requires better vocational education, investment in British workers and a more effective system for identifying genuine labour shortages.

Reducing immigration without addressing these underlying issues could create additional difficulties for businesses and public services.

Conversely, maintaining high levels of migration without sufficient investment in housing, infrastructure and public services could increase pressure on local communities.

The government must therefore provide evidence that its immigration policies are economically sustainable as well as politically acceptable.

The Makerfield Test: A Question of Trust

The Makerfield Test was originally presented as a commitment to place the needs of ordinary communities at the centre of national policymaking.

According to More in Common’s research, voters in Makerfield wanted practical improvements in living standards, stronger local representation and policies that addressed everyday concerns.

Immigration is an important part of that discussion, but it should not become the only measure of whether Burnham’s government is successful.

The government must also demonstrate progress on household bills, employment, housing, transport, healthcare and public safety.

A genuinely successful approach would recognise that local communities have legitimate concerns while ensuring that migrants who legally live and work in Britain are treated fairly.

It would also distinguish between refugees fleeing persecution, people arriving through legal employment routes and individuals who have no legal entitlement to remain.

These different circumstances require different policy responses.

The challenge for Burnham is to demonstrate that his government can combine effective border management with a fair and properly administered immigration system.

Conclusion

Andy Burnham’s migration policies face an important test of public confidence. His commitment to a firm but fair immigration system reflects an attempt to balance competing expectations within the Labour Party and among British voters.

However, his changing positions on migrant benefits, asylum accommodation and immigration restrictions have created questions about consistency and political accountability.

The Makerfield Test provides a useful framework for examining these decisions. If the government wants to demonstrate that it understands ordinary communities, it must show measurable progress in controlling irregular migration, processing asylum applications, reducing accommodation costs and protecting public services.

At the same time, immigration policy must recognise Britain’s economic needs and its legal responsibilities towards refugees and other migrants.

Ultimately, the success of Burnham’s approach will depend on results rather than rhetoric. Voters will judge his government by whether it can deliver an immigration system that is controlled, transparent, economically sustainable and fair.

The real test is whether people in Makerfield and communities across Britain can see meaningful improvements in their everyday lives while the country maintains the principles of fairness and the rule of law.