Andy Burnham has a big decision – but the opposition is split (Image: Getty)
As yet, we don’t know what he’ll do. Burnham is likely to be in two minds himself. Calling an early general election is a massive opportunity, but it’s also a mighty risk. Get it wrong, and his dream of being PM for 10 years could end almost before it’s begun. Yet some in Westminster reckon he may call an election for as soon as November 19, just two months away, and there are compelling reasons to do that.
Britain is walking into a winter energy crisis, as the Iran war drives up the oil price. If Burnham has cleared an election, he has five years to win voters back. A quick win would also give him the mandate he lacks, and allow him to ditch restrictive Labour manifesto pledges not to hike income tax, National Insurance and VAT. At which point, he can unleash a “socialist tax-and-spend blitz” and wreck the UK economy for good.
One big downside is that the nation has had a taste of Labour, making it harder to emulate Sir Keir Starmer‘s 2024 ‘loveless landslide’, which was largely a protest against the hated Tories. Many of his 400 or so Labour MPs may lose their seats, and Burnham will have their careers on his conscience. Burnham may be tempted to ride his luck though, as he did when standing in the Makerfield by-election, which swept him to Number 10.
Get personal finance news, money saving tips and advice plus selcted offers and competitions
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.
When Burnham looks at the rival parties, he must fancy his chances. Kemi Badenoch may wipe the floor with him at Prime Minister’s Questions but the Tories still won’t clean up. Reform is benefiting from the small boats shambles, but Nigel Farage is currently bogged down in the crypto crisis. Green Party leader Zack Polanski’s star has faded, although it will shine brightly if he wins the upcoming Holborn and St Pancras by-election on October 8, and takes a seat in Westminster.
One thing might deter him. A trick that worked before, for the Tories. Former Labour leader Gordon Brown knows all about this, as does Burnham, who was an adviser at the time. After ousting Tony Blair as PM in 2007, Brown was himself preparing to call an early general election.
Then Tory chancellor George Osborne came up with a killer policy: raising the inheritance tax (IHT) threshold from £300,000 to £1million. The Daily Express launched its death tax crusade, and Brown lost his nerve. He was dubbed ‘Bottler Brown’ and next year the financial crisis finished him off. But the IHT pledge was the moment that sealed his fate.
Today, Badenoch has exactly the same trick available to her. In some respects it could be even more attractive. With the £325,000 nil-rate threshold frozen since 2009, IHT is hitting more and more families. From next year, most unused pension pots could become liable to IHT thanks to Rachel Reeves, driving bills still higher.
Promising to axe IHT altogether could win support for the Tories, but I’m not totally convinced. Labour would call it a tax break for the rich. Reform already has. Robert Jenrick dismissed it as a “desperate play” that would primarily benefit the wealthiest.
Which leaves just one more option. We now have two parties of the right. Some kind of Tory-Reform coalition could see off Burnham. He may retaliate by announcing his own pact with the Greens, but I doubt it will be as powerful.
But it might be the only way of preventing Burnham from sweeping all before him. Just one problem. Both Badenoch and Farage have ruled it out. Which gives Burnham another reason to go to the country, and fast. If the right is split, there’s nothing to stop him, and five more years of misery will follow. Or if Burnham has his way, 10 years.
Andy Burnham Plots Snap Election – Only One Thing Could Stop Him
Andy Burnham has found himself at the centre of growing speculation over whether Britain could face an early general election, only weeks after he entered Downing Street as prime minister.
The dramatic possibility has fuelled debate across Westminster because Burnham inherited a huge Labour parliamentary majority following the 2024 general election. There is therefore no immediate parliamentary necessity for him to ask voters for a fresh mandate.
Yet political commentators have questioned whether a new prime minister with an ambitious programme might eventually decide that securing his own electoral mandate would give him greater freedom to reshape government policy.
At present, however, there is no confirmed announcement that Burnham intends to call a snap election. Recent reporting has described the idea as speculation rather than an established government plan.
Why the election rumours have started
Burnham’s arrival at No 10 was itself the result of an extraordinary sequence of political events.
He returned to Parliament through the Makerfield by-election on 18 June after stepping down as Greater Manchester mayor. Burnham won the seat for Labour with 54.8 per cent of the vote, defeating Reform UK’s candidate, who received 34.5 per cent.
He subsequently became Labour leader and prime minister following Keir Starmer’s resignation.
That unusual route into Downing Street has created an obvious political question: should a new prime minister seek a direct mandate from the country?
Burnham himself previously addressed the issue. During a Reddit question-and-answer session before becoming prime minister, he said he would not call a general election if he entered Downing Street.
That statement is an important counterpoint to current speculation.
Nevertheless, the political circumstances have changed since then, and some commentators have argued that Burnham could eventually reconsider if he believes an election would strengthen his ability to pursue his programme.
The argument for waiting
One of the strongest arguments against an early election is the size of Labour’s existing parliamentary majority.
Burnham inherited a government with a working majority of roughly 166 seats. An election would therefore involve considerable political risk because Labour would be asking voters to replace an existing mandate with a new one.
ING analysts described a snap election as a possible “wildcard” but noted the potential danger of giving up such a large majority. They also highlighted the possibility that an election could create uncertainty for financial markets.
The argument for waiting is straightforward: Burnham already has the parliamentary numbers required to pass legislation.
Calling an election would not be necessary simply to govern.
Instead, it would be a strategic choice based on whether he believed a new mandate would help him implement policies that could otherwise face political resistance.
Burnham’s different political model
The prime minister has presented himself as an advocate of a different approach to government.
In his first major policy speech, Burnham spoke about changing the way Britain is governed and placed considerable emphasis on decentralisation and greater powers for regions and mayors.
ITV reported that he had promised to “do things differently” and described his agenda as an attempt to “fix politics”. His proposals included changes to the relationship between central government and local authorities.
This approach reflects the political experience Burnham gained during his time as Greater Manchester mayor.
His supporters point to the region as evidence for the case for devolving power away from Westminster. His government has also discussed measures involving social care, housing, transport and regional economic development.
An early election could therefore become a means of seeking public approval for a broader programme.
But again, there is no evidence at present that Burnham has formally decided to use an election for that purpose.
Reform UK applies pressure
The most vocal demand for an immediate general election has come from Reform UK.
Nigel Farage argued in July that Burnham had entered Downing Street without winning a nationwide general election and called for voters to be given the opportunity to decide who should govern the country.
Reform described Burnham’s arrival as lacking a fresh national mandate and demanded an immediate election. Those statements represent Reform’s political position rather than evidence that an election is actually being planned by the government.
The issue also reflects the wider contest between Labour and Reform.
Burnham defeated Reform’s candidate in Makerfield, but the result also showed Reform establishing itself as a substantial challenger in the constituency. The party won 34.5 per cent of the vote, compared with Labour’s 54.8 per cent.
That result has given Reform an additional reason to keep pressure on the new prime minister.
The wider polling picture
Polling has also contributed to the discussion, although polls should not be interpreted as forecasts of an election result.
An August review by the Electoral Reform Society noted that the question of an early election was being discussed against a changing political landscape following Burnham’s arrival in Downing Street.
Meanwhile, an August poll by Lord Ashcroft examined public attitudes towards Burnham and his early agenda, including questions about his plans for the economy, public services and political reform.
The significance of these measurements is that they provide snapshots of public opinion rather than guarantees about what would happen at a future election.
If Burnham were to call an election, the campaign itself could change public attitudes considerably.
What could stop an early election?
The simplest obstacle is political arithmetic.
Burnham already controls a large Commons majority. Unless circumstances change substantially, Labour has little parliamentary reason to risk an election before the end of the normal parliamentary term.
A second consideration is the government’s legislative programme.
Burnham has outlined major ambitions involving decentralisation, public services, social care, housing and economic policy. An early election would interrupt that programme and force ministers to spend months campaigning rather than governing.
A third issue is the possibility of losing seats.
ING’s analysis noted that an early election could reduce Labour’s existing majority substantially. Even if Labour remained the largest party, a smaller majority could make Burnham’s legislative ambitions more difficult to implement.
That makes the decision considerably more complicated than simply asking whether a new prime minister wants a personal mandate.
The electoral reform question
Burnham has also indicated that he wants to examine changes to Britain’s electoral system.
Almost 100 Labour MPs were reported in August to be supporting a proposal for a national commission examining electoral reform. Downing Street said Burnham remained committed to electoral reform appearing in Labour’s next manifesto, although it stopped short of backing the particular commission proposed by MPs.
That issue could become important in any discussion about an early election.
Britain’s current Westminster elections use the first-past-the-post system. Burnham’s support for examining alternatives could lead to debate about whether the rules governing future elections should change.
But there is no indication that electoral reform itself requires an immediate general election.
The “one thing” that matters
The headline question about what could stop Burnham from calling an election ultimately comes down to whether his government believes it can achieve its objectives without seeking a new mandate.
There is currently no confirmed snap-election timetable.
Indeed, Burnham’s earlier public commitment not to call an immediate election remains relevant.
The speculation instead reflects the unusual circumstances of his arrival in Downing Street and the scale of the political changes he has promised.
A prime minister can govern with an inherited parliamentary majority. But if Burnham wants to make major changes that go substantially beyond the platform on which Labour won the 2024 election, pressure for a new mandate could become part of the political debate.
That does not mean an election is inevitable.
It means the question of democratic legitimacy could become increasingly important if the government’s programme moves significantly away from the previous administration’s commitments.
A high-stakes political calculation
For Burnham, the choice would ultimately involve competing considerations.
Waiting would allow him to use Labour’s existing majority and give his government time to demonstrate that its policies can deliver results.
Calling an election would provide an opportunity to seek a direct mandate from voters, but it would also expose Labour to the possibility of losing parliamentary seats and reducing its ability to pass legislation.
Reform UK will continue to argue for an early contest, while other parties will have their own interests in determining when voters return to the polls.
For now, however, the evidence points to political speculation rather than a confirmed Burnham election plan.
The most important development will therefore not be the rumours circulating around Westminster, but any formal decision by Downing Street to change course.
Until that happens, Britain’s next general election remains a future possibility rather than an announced event. Burnham’s immediate challenge is to govern with the substantial parliamentary majority already available to him while attempting to deliver the political programme he promised after taking office.