Andy Burnham might win a snap election, but his colleagues could lose (Image: Getty)
Burnham is only PM because predecessor Keir Starmer was such a flop, allowing him to run the country off the back of just 24,927 Mancunian voters in Makerfield. He wants to do radical things, but lacks a mandate to do them. An election victory would transform that, giving him five years to bend the country to his will. And there are other pressing reasons why he might call a snap election, possibly before Christmas or early in the spring.
Right now, Burnham is hemmed in by a Labour manifesto he had no say in writing. It includes a pledge not to increase the big three taxes: income tax, National Insurance or VAT. That makes it hard to raise serious money for his planned transformation of social care and dream of building loads of new council houses. If he won an election based on his own manifesto, there’d be nothing to hold him back.
Burnham has another reason to consider a snap election. His political honeymoon is just about holding up. Labour is leading in the polls, Green Party voters are giving up on Zack Polanski, and the right-wing vote is split between Nigel Farage’s Reform UK and Kemi Badenoch’s Tories. Farage has been knocked by the row over crypto donations. Badenoch is winning admirers, but still has a long way to go. This could be a good time for Burnham to go over the top, while his opponents are weak and divided.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
But there’s a problem. There’s absolutely no way he’ll match Labour’s 2024 landslide, which left Labour with more than 400 MPs. That was a freak result, largely driven by voters wanting to punish the Tories after 14 years of failure, rather than enthusiasm for what Starmer was offering.
After more than two years of left-wing tax and spend, the electorate’s appetite for another five years may be rather dimmed. Burnham can survive that, provided he wins a substantial majority, but many of his MPs won’t. Even if Labour forms the next government, they won’t be part of it. They’re likely to be mown down in platoons. It could be a bloodbath.
Understandably, many won’t relish the prospect. Especially those with wafer-thin majorities, and there are plenty of them. Labour won a staggering 131 seats with majorities below 5,000, leaving them highly vulnerable. There could be a lot of grumpy MPs if Burnham calls an election, knowing he’s just truncated their spell at Westminster. They’ll never forgive him for it.
There’s also the risk Labour won’t win at all. Rather than becoming a transformative leader, Burnham could end up a historical footnote. The PM who blew himself up, and took his party with him. But he might still go for it, and here’s why.
The UK economy is on the brink, and it isn’t alone. The US, France, Germany, Japan and a host of other countries are also struggling. Inflation is rising, an energy shock is looming, and the IMF is urging Britain to make spending cuts to balance the books. If crisis intensifies, it could finish Burnham’s honeymoon for good.
So the PM may have to go for that snap election, even at the risk of sacrificing his own backbench MPs. Because if he dithers, the slaughter could be even worse. Calling a snap election would be brave. It might also be brutal. Burnham may decide he has to do it anyway.
Why an Early Election Could Put Labour MPs in Danger
The argument begins with the size of Labour’s victory in the 2024 general election. The party won more than 400 seats, securing a commanding majority after 14 years of Conservative government. Yet a large parliamentary majority does not mean every Labour MP has a secure position.
Many MPs entered Parliament amid a fragmented political landscape in which the Conservative vote collapsed, smaller parties gained ground and tactical voting helped Labour candidates in a number of constituencies. Some won by relatively narrow margins, leaving them vulnerable if voters change their minds at the next election.
An early election would force those MPs to defend their seats sooner than expected. Candidates who believed they had several years to establish themselves locally could suddenly face an intensive campaign, with little time to demonstrate results or rebuild relationships with disillusioned voters.
The political consequences could be serious even if Labour remained the largest party. A reduced majority would limit Burnham’s freedom to pass legislation, while the loss of experienced MPs could weaken the party’s parliamentary organisation.
However, the outcome would depend on how voters responded to Burnham’s leadership, Labour’s record in government and the policies presented in a new manifesto. The 2024 result alone cannot establish how the next election would unfold.
Burnham Wants a Mandate of His Own
One of the strongest arguments for an early election is that Burnham inherited a political situation shaped by his predecessor. The policies in Labour’s existing manifesto were written before he became prime minister, limiting the extent to which he can claim that voters directly endorsed his personal programme.
A new election would offer an opportunity to present a different set of priorities. These could include changes to taxation, public spending, social care, housing and Britain’s relationship with Europe.
The existing manifesto commitment not to raise income tax, National Insurance or VAT has also been a constraint for a government seeking to fund ambitious domestic reforms. A new manifesto could give Burnham the opportunity to explain whether he intends to retain those commitments or seek a different approach.
That would not guarantee a free hand. Any government must still deal with economic conditions, public borrowing, parliamentary arithmetic and the expectations of voters. But an election fought on a clearly defined programme would allow Burnham to argue that his proposals had been presented openly to the electorate.
The challenge is that a personal mandate must be earned. Voters would need to judge the government’s record and decide whether the promised changes justify another term in office. A new election could strengthen Burnham’s authority, but it could also expose weaknesses that have so far been contained within Labour’s large majority.
The Economy Could Decide the Timing
The economic outlook is another factor in the argument over whether Burnham should call an early election.
Households continue to pay close attention to living costs, mortgage expenses, energy bills and the value of their wages. Businesses are concerned about demand, investment, taxation and the predictability of government policy. Public services, meanwhile, require funding while ministers face pressure to demonstrate that spending produces tangible improvements.
If economic conditions deteriorate, the government’s political position could become more difficult. Rising inflation or an energy-price shock could erode household confidence and intensify disputes over public spending. A prolonged period of weak growth could also make it harder to finance Labour’s ambitions.
An early election might allow Burnham to seek public approval before those pressures become more severe. Yet calling an election during economic uncertainty could also expose the government to criticism that it was prioritising political strategy over practical solutions.
There is no guarantee that an election held sooner would be more favourable to Labour than one held later. The economy could improve, worsen or remain difficult to predict. The timing decision would therefore involve considerable uncertainty rather than a straightforward calculation.
The government would also need to demonstrate that its programme could deliver sustainable growth. Announcing new ambitions would not, by itself, resolve the structural problems affecting productivity, investment and public finances.
Brexit Could Become a Major Election Battleground
Burnham has already reopened one of the most contentious issues in British politics: the country’s relationship with the European Union.
In October, he argued that Britain should examine options for closer cooperation with the EU, including the possibility of eventual rejoining. He also outlined more immediate goals involving food standards, emissions trading and opportunities for young people to live, work and study abroad. A UK-EU summit is scheduled for November 20. <Cite refs={[“turn839863news11″,”turn839863search2”]}/>
The approach marks a more expansive position than the cautious policy adopted by his predecessor. It also creates political risks in constituencies where voters strongly supported Brexit.
Burnham argues that the country should consider the economic and strategic consequences of its current relationship with Europe. His critics contend that reopening the question could prolong division and distract from domestic priorities.
If an early election were called, Labour would need to decide how explicitly to place European policy at the centre of its manifesto. A commitment to closer trade cooperation might attract voters who believe Brexit has damaged economic opportunities. A promise to pursue eventual EU membership could provoke a stronger reaction among those who remain committed to leaving.
The Conservatives and Reform UK would have opportunities to challenge Burnham on sovereignty, immigration and the obligations that closer European integration might involve.
An election would not settle every question about Britain’s future relationship with Europe. It could, however, provide an opportunity for parties to explain their positions and allow voters to evaluate competing proposals.
Some Labour MPs May Never Forgive the Decision
The most personal consequence of an early election could be felt inside Labour itself.
MPs who have built their careers around their constituencies may resent being required to fight another campaign before the expected end of the parliamentary term. Some could lose their seats, while others might find themselves spending months defending their records rather than developing policy or serving their constituents.
The resentment could be particularly intense if MPs believed the election had been called primarily to strengthen the prime minister’s authority. A decision intended to consolidate leadership could create tension among colleagues who felt their own political futures were being sacrificed.
That does not mean every Labour MP would oppose an early contest. Some might welcome the opportunity to seek a fresh mandate, particularly if they believed the government had made progress or that the opposition parties were poorly positioned to challenge them.
Others could calculate that delaying an election would give the government more time to deliver visible improvements and allow vulnerable MPs to strengthen their local support.
The parliamentary party would therefore face a difficult choice between supporting the prime minister’s strategy and protecting its own members from unnecessary risk.
Even if Labour remained in government after an election, a substantial loss of seats could leave lasting divisions over who was responsible for the result.
Could the Gamble Backfire?
The most serious risk is that Burnham could misjudge the electorate.
A prime minister may believe that an election offers an opportunity to secure a mandate, but voters do not necessarily reward a government simply for asking for one. They may instead use the opportunity to express dissatisfaction with taxation, public services, immigration or the economy.
A fragmented opposition could make the contest unpredictable, but it would not eliminate the possibility of substantial losses for Labour. Nor would criticism of the Conservatives or Reform UK guarantee that voters would support the government.
An early election could also shorten the time available to demonstrate results. If voters believed Labour had not delivered meaningful improvements, a new manifesto might struggle to overcome dissatisfaction with its existing record.
Conversely, waiting too long could expose the government to a different set of risks. Economic pressures might intensify, internal disagreements could deepen and opponents could gain more time to organise their campaigns.
There is no risk-free timetable. The decision would depend on the government’s assessment of its performance, the state of the economy, public opinion and the strength of its parliamentary position.
A Defining Decision for Burnham and Labour
The prospect of an early general election highlights the tension between a prime minister’s desire for political authority and the interests of the party that sustains the government.
For Burnham, an election could provide the opportunity to present his own programme and seek a mandate for major policy changes. For Labour MPs, it could mean defending vulnerable seats sooner than anticipated, with potentially serious consequences for their careers and the party’s parliamentary strength.
The argument that some colleagues would never forgive him reflects the possible depth of resentment if an early contest resulted in heavy losses. But that remains a scenario, not an established outcome. No election result can be inferred from the size of Labour’s previous majority alone.
The wider question is whether Burnham believes the benefits of seeking a new mandate would outweigh the risks of destabilising his own party. He would have to consider not only his personal authority but also the government’s ability to deliver its programme after the votes had been counted.
Ultimately, an early election would be a major decision with consequences extending well beyond Downing Street. It could reshape Labour’s parliamentary party, influence the direction of the Brexit debate and determine how much political room Burnham has to pursue his priorities.
The choice is not simply between acting boldly and waiting cautiously. It is between different kinds of uncertainty, each carrying its own potential costs. Whether Burnham chooses to call an election or continues with the existing Parliament, the central test will be whether his decisions deliver results that voters can see and judge for themselves.