Burnham’s dilemma: A free ride on Starmer’s majority, or risk an election to seek his own

LONDON — It is an unwritten rule in British politics that a new prime minister who takes over mid-term will soon want a general election to win a majority they can call their own. 

That is the position Andy Burnham will find himself in, if, as expected, he succeeds Keir Starmer in three weeks’ time. 

The calculation is never straightforward — and for Burnham, the dilemma is particularly acute. If he sticks with what he’s got, he will leave himself vulnerable to accusations that he is illegitimately squatting in No. 10 on a majority he played no part in winning.

And the alternative — calling an early general election to secure his own mandate — would be a massive gamble that seems certain to cost Labour scores of seats, with the party lagging far behind Nigel Farage’s populist right Reform UK.

Yet, if polls show a “Burnham bounce” — and analysis suggests voters do prefer him to Farage for the role of PM — an early contest might give Labour its best chance against Reform UK. The popularity of new leaders tends to wane with time.

It’s a quandary many previous leaders will recognize and remember, often with a shudder. As they have shown repeatedly in recent years, British voters have a habit of upending prime ministers who fancy the odds of a casual dalliance with democracy.

Theresa May triggered a snap election in 2017 after nine months in the job, expecting her 25-point poll lead at the beginning of the campaign would give her a massive landslide. But a disastrous few weeks on the stump saw her lose the small majority she had inherited.

Ten years before that, Gordon Brown took over from Tony Blair and flirted with calling an election only to pull out after polling indicated it would be too difficult, earning him the nickname “Bottler Brown.” He lost anyway, three years later.

And even before he won the Tory leadership to replace May in 2019, Boris Johnson and his team had their eye on a popularity bounce that would give him the chance to call an early election and secure a majority to do what he wanted. For Johnson, the bet paid off, and he won a big majority of 80.  

For Burnham, the question of legitimacy is most acute of all. 

Missing in action

May, Brown and Johnson had all been cabinet ministers and leading figures in their parties for years before they took over as PM mid-term.

Burnham, by contrast, is on the verge of walking into Downing Street without even having been a candidate at the election that gave Labour the massive majority he is set to command in the House of Commons.

The nature of Labour’s majority doesn’t help him either. Starmer’s victory was the most disproportionate in history: He won almost two-thirds of the seats in the Commons with just one-third of the votes in the country. Even before Burnham arrived at Westminster, there were questions over the fairness of Labour’s dominant position in parliament. 

Opposition parties on the right, like Reform UK and some Conservatives, are now demanding an immediate election if Burnham takes over. It is in Farage’s interests, of course — his party currently leads opinion polls and is on track to be by far the biggest after the next election. 

For what it’s worth, Labour MPs hate the idea of an early polling day, fearing they will be all-but wiped out in places like Scotland. One said a snap vote would definitely amount to “throwing seats away.” 

“If he gets a big, big bounce and the other parties decline, it will be very tempting for him, for example, if we’re 15 points ahead in October,” said this MP, who, like others in this article, was granted anonymity to speak frankly. “I can tell you though the mood among Labour MPs is that we very much do not want him to go for an early election.” 

Not another one

Burnham’s backers are well aware he will face an onslaught of demands to give voters a say and criticism for having no mandate as soon as he walks into No. 10 Downing Street. That’s partly because he made the same argument, calling for an election, when Johnson announced his resignation in July 2022.

“It’s what we’re going to be hit with and we need to be prepared for that and able to counter it,” said one Burnham ally of the call they expect to face to go to the country. “But I seem to remember it working out well for the Tories when they replaced [Margaret] Thatcher with [John] Major mid term.” Against expectations, Major won the subsequent election in 1992.

The Burnham ally insisted the public tends to be more understanding of leadership changes than they are given credit for. That may turn out to be true, though the reason might not be sympathy so much as weariness. 

Any PM calling a snap vote would do well to keep in mind the words of one voter, who nine years ago summed up the mood of a nation already tired of endless political drama. The country had seen a referendum on Scottish independence in 2014, a general election in 2015, a Brexit referendum in 2016 and May had just called a snap election in 2017. 

The voter, who was identified only as “Brenda from Bristol” in a television interview, became a viral hit when she gave her reaction to May’s announcement of a snap vote: “You’re joking,” said Brenda. “Not another one. Oh, for God’s sake, honestly, I can’t stand this. There’s too much politics going on at the moment.”

A YouGov poll this week found 48 percent of respondents thought there should be an election when Starmer’s replacement is in post, compared to 35 percent who said there should not be one.

But another poll by More in Common this month suggested there was no clear desire from the public for the next PM to call an election: 43 percent thought the new leader would have a mandate and should just “get on with the job,” compared to 37 percent who disagreed and wanted an election.

“I think people balance just absolute exhaustion with seemingly endless political chaos with the idea that a new prime minister needs a new mandate,” said Luke Tryl, Executive Director of More in Common UK. “It’s like Brenda from Bristol is the voice of the nation now.” 

If there’s one thing jaded British voters dislike more than not getting a vote on who becomes their prime minister, it might just be voting.