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 is entering a critical period in his premiership, with a series of politically sensitive decisions threatening to turn early momentum into a battle for public trust. From Britain’s relationship with the European Union to welfare reform, pension policy and questions surrounding Manchester City, the prime minister faces challenges that could test not only his political judgement but also his ability to keep his own party united.

Burnham has presented himself as a leader prepared to confront problems that previous governments have struggled to resolve. His supporters argue that Britain needs a change of direction and that difficult reforms cannot be avoided indefinitely. His critics, however, believe that he is opening too many controversial fronts at once, risking a backlash from voters who want immediate improvements to their everyday lives rather than another round of political arguments.

The danger for Burnham is that a government elected on promises of renewal could quickly become associated with uncertainty, division and unpopular choices.

Brexit Could Become a Defining Battle

One of the most significant challenges facing Burnham is his determination to reconsider Britain’s relationship with the European Union.

On 12 October, he called for a new trade agreement with the EU, including closer cooperation on food standards, carbon emissions trading and youth mobility. A UK-EU summit was scheduled for 20 November to discuss potential areas of agreement. His argument is that the current arrangements are not delivering the economic benefits Britain needs. Reuters reported on his proposals.

For businesses facing additional administrative burdens, closer cooperation could offer practical advantages. Supporters believe that reducing barriers to trade would help British companies, strengthen investment and create opportunities for younger people.

Yet Brexit remains one of the most emotionally charged issues in modern British politics. For millions of voters, leaving the EU was not simply an economic decision. It was a question of sovereignty, democratic accountability and national identity.

Burnham therefore faces a difficult balancing act. He must demonstrate that closer European cooperation would benefit Britain without appearing to dismiss the result of the 2016 referendum.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch and Reform UK leader Nigel Farage have every incentive to portray his approach as a retreat from Brexit. Farage has already challenged Burnham over the possibility of returning to the EU, arguing that voters would resist such a move.

Burnham has maintained that any major change would require public approval. Nevertheless, opponents could use every negotiation to argue that his government is gradually moving towards arrangements voters previously rejected.

If the economic benefits are slow to appear, the political cost could be substantial. If the negotiations succeed, Burnham may claim a major achievement. But if they disappoint, he could find himself accused of reopening old divisions without delivering a convincing reward.

Pensioners Could Become Another Major Test

Pension policy presents a different but equally sensitive challenge.

Older voters often place considerable importance on the state pension, financial security and the protection of benefits they have come to rely upon. Any suggestion that the government might change established pension arrangements can therefore provoke strong reactions.

Burnham has raised the possibility of moving away from the pensions triple lock towards a double lock as part of a wider programme of reform. The triple lock currently increases the state pension annually according to the highest of earnings growth, inflation or 2.5 per cent. Replacing it would raise difficult questions about how pensioners’ incomes should be protected in the years ahead.

Supporters of reform argue that the government must consider long-term affordability, particularly as the population ages and pressure on public spending increases. They contend that responsible decisions made now could help preserve the sustainability of the pension system.

Opponents would ask why pensioners should bear the consequences of financial pressures they did not create. Many older people already face rising household bills, housing costs and concerns about access to social care.

The political risk is clear: even a proposal intended to improve the long-term finances of the country could be interpreted as a broken promise by people who depend on the state pension.

Burnham will need to explain precisely what any change would mean, who would be affected and how the government would protect those with limited incomes. Without that clarity, opponents could frame the debate as a choice between fiscal responsibility and keeping faith with older citizens.

Manchester City Controversy Raises Questions About Judgement

Another difficult issue concerns Burnham’s historic connection with Manchester City and his public comments following developments in the club’s Premier League financial case.

The matter attracted political criticism after Burnham expressed concern about the possibility of the club’s owners selling up. Critics argued that his remarks risked appearing too sympathetic to a powerful football institution while questions about financial rules remained unresolved.

Downing Street subsequently stressed that Manchester City was not above the rules and that the appropriate consequences should follow any wrongdoing. The controversy prompted questions about Burnham’s judgement and the distinction between his personal attachment to a football club and his responsibilities as prime minister. The BBC reported on the reaction.

For many supporters, football is about community, identity and pride. Burnham’s concern for a major institution associated with Manchester may therefore resonate with people who fear that regulatory disputes could damage jobs, investment or the wider local economy.

But a prime minister must also demonstrate that rules apply equally, regardless of an organisation’s popularity or influence.

Burnham has said that his dealings with Manchester City’s owners have been made public. The important question is whether the explanations offered are sufficiently clear to reassure people who expect impartiality from the head of government.

The issue does not automatically establish wrongdoing by Burnham. However, it illustrates how an apparently personal or regional matter can become a national test of political credibility.

At a time when voters are already sceptical about political privilege, even the perception of special treatment can become damaging.

Welfare Reform Could Divide Labour

Burnham also faces pressure to demonstrate that his government can control the welfare bill while protecting people who genuinely need support.

During Prime Minister’s Questions on 14 October, he faced questions from Badenoch about benefits and indicated that reducing the welfare bill remained an objective. The BBC’s account of the exchange highlighted how welfare policy has become part of the wider political contest between Labour and the Conservatives.

The challenge is that welfare reform involves competing priorities. The government wants to encourage employment, improve the public finances and ensure that assistance reaches those who need it. Yet changes to eligibility, assessments or payments can have serious consequences for disabled people, low-income households and families already struggling to cover essential costs.

If the government moves too aggressively, Labour risks alienating voters who believe its purpose is to protect vulnerable citizens. If it acts too cautiously, critics will accuse it of avoiding difficult decisions and allowing public spending to rise without sufficient control.

There is also a question of political unity. Labour contains MPs and supporters with differing views about how welfare should operate and how far reform should go. A proposal that reassures one group may anger another.

Burnham must therefore demonstrate that any changes are based on evidence, clear objectives and proper safeguards rather than a desire to satisfy opponents in the short term.

Energy Policy and the Cost of Living

Energy is another area in which political promises can collide with practical realities.

At Prime Minister’s Questions, Badenoch challenged Burnham over decisions concerning North Sea oil and gas developments, including the Rosebank and Jackdaw fields. The argument reflects a broader disagreement about energy security, investment, environmental commitments and the future of domestic production.

For households, the most immediate concern is affordability. People want reliable supplies and bills they can manage. Businesses want predictable costs, while workers in energy-producing regions want confidence that employment opportunities will not disappear without credible alternatives.

Burnham must reconcile these competing expectations. Supporting domestic production may reassure people worried about energy security, but it can create tensions with environmental commitments. Restricting development may appeal to those seeking a faster transition to cleaner energy, but opponents will question whether Britain is making itself more dependent on imported supplies.

There are no painless answers. What matters politically is whether the government can explain its decisions and show that they form part of a coherent long-term strategy.

If energy costs remain high or investment decisions appear inconsistent, the government could face criticism from both sides of the debate.

The Union and Britain’s Future

Burnham’s recent approach to Scotland also illustrates the scale of the political challenge before him.

During his visit north of the border, he emphasised the benefits of the United Kingdom and challenged arguments for independence. His position places him in direct political competition with the Scottish National Party, which continues to seek another independence referendum.

The difficulty is that defending the Union requires more than speeches about shared identity. Voters need to see practical benefits from remaining part of the United Kingdom, including economic opportunities, effective public services and a sense that their concerns are being heard.

Burnham’s willingness to argue for closer European cooperation while opposing Scottish independence could also invite questions about consistency from political opponents. He will need to explain why he believes certain powers and relationships should be strengthened while others should remain within the UK.

His success will depend on whether he can translate his arguments into tangible results rather than allowing constitutional disputes to dominate the national conversation.

Could This Become the Fight He Cannot Afford to Lose?

Taken together, these challenges reveal the central problem facing Burnham: the government is attempting to reshape several major areas of policy while voters remain concerned about the immediate pressures affecting their lives.

Brexit, pensions, welfare, energy and the Union are all important issues, but each carries a different political risk. Attempting to address them simultaneously creates opportunities for the government to demonstrate ambition. It also gives opponents multiple ways to attack its judgement and priorities.

Burnham’s critics will argue that he risks confusing bold leadership with unnecessary confrontation. His supporters will counter that difficult problems cannot be solved simply by avoiding controversy.

Neither argument will ultimately be settled by political rhetoric. Voters will judge the government by results: whether living standards improve, public services become more effective, economic opportunities expand and promises are matched by credible decisions.

The danger is that one controversial policy could become a symbol of wider disappointment. A change to pension protections, a perceived retreat on Brexit or an unresolved question about political judgement could overshadow achievements elsewhere.

But it is too early to conclude that Burnham has already lost public trust or that voters will never forgive him. Political opposition can be fierce without necessarily representing the views of the entire electorate. Equally, an announcement that generates headlines does not guarantee a lasting electoral backlash.

The coming months will be crucial. Burnham must show that he understands the concerns of ordinary households, can maintain discipline within his party and is willing to explain difficult decisions honestly.

His greatest fight may not be against Farage, Badenoch or any single rival. It may be against the gap between the scale of his ambitions and the patience of the public.

If his policies deliver visible improvements, the controversies could eventually be remembered as the unavoidable price of reform. If they instead leave voters feeling poorer, ignored or misled, his opponents will have a powerful argument that the government has asked for patience without offering enough in return.

For Burnham, the choice is becoming increasingly clear: turn bold promises into measurable results, or risk allowing a series of difficult political battles to define his premiership for all the wrong reasons.