bilateral
TopicsAbout← Feed
BySRSam Reyes·CMCal Morrow·EQEliza Quinn·DPDana Park
LOCALMay 15, 2026

What does Makerfield make of by-election and can Burnham win?

Josh Simons, the sitting MP for Makerfield, has announced he will resign from Parliament to make way for Andy Burnham — the Mayor of Greater Manchester — to stand in the resulting by-election, expected in 2026. Labour's National Executive Committee has formally granted Burnham permission to enter the candidate selection process, reversing course after previously blocking him from standing in the Gorton and Denton by-election by an 8–1 vote in January 2026. Burnham is widely seen as a frontrunner to succeed Keir Starmer as Labour leader, but must first re-enter Parliament.

XLinkedInFacebookThreadsWhatsAppReddit
⚡The liberal argument represents the dominant position. A significant liberal faction disagrees — see The Divide below.

Can Andy Burnham's star power as Greater Manchester mayor swing a working-class by-election, or does Makerfield's base have other priorities? The race tests whether local celebrity translates to parliamentary seats.

Not familiar with this story? Get context →
Local election results predict parliamentary outcome
Liberal
The 50% Reform vote in Makerfield local elections is real, but it is a verdict on Starmer's Labour — not a forecast for a Burnham by-election. Local council contests historically overstate swings by ten to fifteen points, turnout is lower, and protest votes are cheaper when there's no risk of actually changing government. The question isn't whether Reform can hit 50% against a rudderless national party. The question is whether they can hold it when Andy Burnham — with sixteen years of roots in this exact corner of Lancashire — is on the ballot.
Conservative
You're conceding the 27-point gap exists and asking us to trust that personal credibility will close it. But Burnham's 'roots in Lancashire' is doing a lot of work in that argument — he left Leigh for the mayoralty in 2017, nearly a decade ago, and the communities that have since swung to Reform have watched wages stagnate, hospitals struggle, and Westminster promise things it didn't deliver under every party including his. A ten-to-fifteen point correction on the local result still leaves Reform winning or tied in a parliamentary contest.
Liberal
That ten-to-fifteen point correction isn't a rounding error — it's the difference between a Labour hold and a Labour collapse, and it assumes nothing else changes. Burnham isn't just a nostalgic name; he's the only senior Labour figure who can point to an actual delivery record in the room where Reform is making its pitch.
Conservative
A delivery record in a devolved mayoralty with central government funding is not the same as a national programme — and if the margin of victory is three points, every Reform candidate in every northern seat will use Makerfield as proof that even Burnham couldn't stop the tide.
By-election vacancy: sacrifice or stitch-up
Liberal
Josh Simons stepping aside is being framed as a stitch-up, but consider the actual alternative: Labour's most credible potential leader stays stranded outside Parliament while the party drifts into irrelevance. That isn't democratic purity — it's just drift with better optics. Simons was elected to represent Makerfield, and no one is pretending otherwise, but the idea that manufacturing a vacancy to give voters a genuine choice between Burnham and the status quo is somehow less legitimate than leaving a vacuum is a procedural argument masquerading as a principled one.
Conservative
You're calling it a sacrifice, but Simons didn't volunteer — he was asked to vacate a seat his constituents elected him to fill so that a leadership hopeful could use it as a career vehicle. The voters of Makerfield didn't choose this by-election. They chose Josh Simons in 2024, and now they're being told that choice has been superseded by internal Labour arithmetic. That's not accountability working correctly — that's the Westminster machine treating a constituency as a spare room.
Liberal
The constituents of Makerfield are about to get a direct vote on whether they want Andy Burnham as their MP — that is more democratic accountability, not less, and the alternative you're implying, Simons serving out a term in a collapsing party while Reform consolidates, serves no one in that constituency.
Conservative
If the process were genuinely about accountability, Labour would have let Burnham contest a safe seat in an open selection — instead, they blocked him from Gorton in January and reversed course for Makerfield in May, which looks less like principle and more like panic management with a human shield.
Burnham's popularity reflects real record
Liberal
Burnham sits at +4 net favourability while Starmer is at -46, Rayner at -33, and Streeting at -28. That gap isn't a personality quirk — it's nine years of actually running something. NHS integration in Greater Manchester, measurable reductions in rough sleeping, a transport system people use. The public can tell the difference between a politician who has delivered and one who has only managed, and right now Burnham is the only senior Labour figure they trust.
Conservative
A +4 rating is the ceiling, not the floor — it means more people dislike him than like him, just slightly less dramatically than the rest of the cabinet. And the mayoral record you're citing operated with significant central government support, devolved powers, and a regional mandate that doesn't translate automatically into a national programme. Running Greater Manchester well is genuinely impressive. It doesn't tell us whether he can reverse a party haemorrhaging votes across an entire political coalition.
Liberal
You're right that +4 isn't a mandate — but in a field where everyone else is deeply underwater, it's the only positive number that exists, and the question isn't whether Burnham is perfect, it's whether there's anyone else Labour could put on that ballot who would even make it competitive.
Conservative
Being the least-disliked option in a failing party is a low bar to clear, and if the argument for Burnham ultimately rests on 'he's the only one left standing,' that tells you more about how badly Labour has lost the political argument than it does about his capacity to win it back.
NEC reversal signals panic not strategy
Liberal
The NEC's 8-1 block on Burnham for Gorton and Denton in January was factional cowardice dressed up as process. The reversal for Makerfield in May was the right call — not because the internal politics changed, but because the external reality did. Streeting resigned. Starmer hit -46. The northern local elections happened. When the facts change, the decision should change, and reading that reversal as pure panic rather than belated pragmatism ignores that sometimes the panic is correct.
Conservative
You're describing the reversal as 'belated pragmatism,' but the NEC gave no public explanation for blocking him in January and no public explanation for unblocking him in May. That's not an institution responding to new facts — that's an institution responding to internal faction pressure, and using the language of facts to cover it. If the case for Burnham was solid enough to reverse an 8-1 vote in four months, it was solid enough in January, which means the January decision was wrong for reasons they've never admitted.
Liberal
Whether the January block was cowardice or strategy, relitigating it now doesn't change the present situation — the reversal happened, it was the right call regardless of motive, and what matters is whether Burnham can now actually use the opening.
Conservative
An institution that cannot articulate why it changes its own decisions cannot credibly claim to be making strategic ones — and if Burnham wins and then faces the NEC again over something that actually matters, that incoherence becomes his problem, not just a historical footnote.
Reform's rise: protest or permanent realignment
Liberal
Reform's numbers in Makerfield reflect genuine grievance — cost of living, NHS waiting times, a political class that talks about working communities it no longer belongs to. None of that is fabricated. But there's a difference between a realignment that has already happened and one that can still be contested. Burnham is the one figure who might actually contest it, because he governed a post-industrial region through austerity and came out with people's trust intact. The argument isn't that he can make the grievances disappear — it's that he can make the case that Labour can address them.
Conservative
You're framing this as 'contestable' but the 50% Reform local vote happened in a constituency where Labour once won with stonking majorities — that's not a protest waiting to be redirected, that's a community that has already decided the mainstream left no longer speaks for it. Burnham's appeal to the 'northern working class' relies heavily on a political geography that existed when he left Leigh in 2017. The people who've moved to Reform since then didn't move because Labour lacked the right face — they moved because the policies failed.
Liberal
If the realignment were truly permanent, the question of who leads Labour would be irrelevant — and the fact that you're engaging with whether Burnham can close the gap suggests you don't actually believe it's irreversible either.
Conservative
Realignments can be permanent and still take time to fully consolidate — the question isn't whether Burnham can win one by-election in May 2026, it's whether a Labour party that still governs like it's 2005 can hold the northern arc at a general election, and nothing about Makerfield answers that.
Conservative's hardest question
The local election to parliamentary by-election translation is genuinely contested: local council contests historically overstate swings, and Burnham's personal vote from his time as neighbouring Leigh MP could meaningfully close the gap. If he wins convincingly, it challenges the thesis that the realignment is permanent rather than a protest that a credible local figure can arrest.
Liberal's hardest question
The 50% Reform vote in Makerfield local elections is genuinely difficult to dismiss as pure protest noise — even discounting for the local/general election gap, a swing of that scale reflects deep structural alienation that Burnham's personal popularity alone may not overcome. If he wins narrowly on the back of his name and then leads a party that continues losing seats like Makerfield across the north at general elections, the revival narrative collapses exactly when it is needed most.
The Divide
*Labour's civil war over Andy Burnham: saviour of the working-class or just a prettier face on the same failing machine?*
LABOUR CENTRIST
Burnham is the pragmatic figurehead needed to win back Reform-leaning working-class voters and stabilise the party.
“best chance of winning” — Wes Streeting
PROGRESSIVE LEFT
Burnham's personal brand alone cannot reverse Labour's decline without bolder policy restructuring and authentic renewal.
The Verdict
Both sides agree
Both sides accept that Burnham's +4 net favourability is genuinely exceptional among senior Labour figures and represents measurable public trust, not mere marketing—the dispute is entirely about whether one politician's popularity can overcome structural party collapse.
The real conflict
FACTUAL: Whether local election swings to Reform can be reliably translated to by-election outcomes—conservatives treat the 50-point gap as near-determinative, liberals argue documented polling gaps make Burnham's personal vote capable of closing it significantly, but neither side has produced evidence of what closing looks like in this specific context.
What nobody has answered
If Burnham wins Makerfield but his personal vote proves geographically and demographically localised to his Greater Manchester roots, unable to transfer to other northern constituencies Labour is losing, does he become leader of a party that has retained one flagship seat while ceding the arc around it—and at what point does that outcome look less like recovery and more like a personal exception proving institutional irrelevance?
Sources

More debates