Josh Simons resigned his Makerfield seat this week. Andy Burnham confirmed within hours he would seek the NEC’s permission to stand, and the NEC has now cleared him to do so. A constituency most people couldn’t have placed on a map last week has become the most consequential by-election in a generation.
The question now is whether the Liberal Democrats should stand a candidate.
My answer is no, but not as an act of charity toward Labour. As a conditional offer, grounded in a straightforward calculation about what is most likely to advance the things we actually care about.
What the numbers say
Recent local elections in the Makerfield wards returned Reform on 50%, Labour on 23%, and the Greens on 11%. Britain Predicts models a general election baseline of Reform 41%, Labour 28%. Without Burnham as the Labour candidate, Reform takes this seat. With him, accounting for a substantial personal-vote bonus, the same model produces Labour 39%, Reform 36%. A narrow Labour hold. Remove that bonus, split the non-Reform vote further, and Farage’s people win.
Liberal Democrats have almost no presence in Makerfield. Standing a candidate here costs us very little in votes or resources. What it costs, if Reform wins, is something much more significant.
Why Burnham is different
Previous calls for Liberal Democrats to stand aside for Labour have rightly been treated with scepticism. The usual pitch (don’t split the progressive vote) asks us to subordinate our values to Labour’s convenience, with nothing concrete in return. That is not a case worth making.
This one is different, because the policy overlap is not vague and it is not new.
Burnham has been the most consistent internal Labour advocate for proportional representation, saying at the IPPR in January that it is “an idea whose time has come”. He built the Bee Network, the first integrated, publicly controlled bus and tram system outside London, using exactly the franchising model Liberal Democrats have advocated for years. He co-authored the Hillsborough Law, which Liberal Democrat MPs and peers backed comprehensively. He has championed a National Care Service, free at the point of need and integrated with the NHS, since 2010, a position that mirrors what Liberal Democrats delivered in Scotland over two decades ago and have campaigned for nationally ever since. He has called for Land Compensation Act reform, a fairer property levy, and an elected senate of the nations and regions to replace the Lords.
These are not rhetorical positions adopted for a by-election campaign. They are commitments Burnham has held across different offices and different political climates, often against the grain of his own party. They sit at the heart of what the Liberal Democrats stand for.
The ask
Standing aside is not the same as endorsing. And it should not be unconditional.
Before the writ is moved, the Liberal Democrats should make their position public: we are prepared to stand aside in Makerfield, and in doing so we are calling on Andy Burnham to confirm, specifically and on the record, where he stands on proportional representation, on a National Care Service, on bus franchising as a national model, and on replacing council tax with a fairer property-based levy.
If he confirms those positions, we can tell our members and voters exactly what the sacrifice was for. If he declines, we stand our candidate and let Makerfield decide.
This matters beyond the tactical. A conditional stand-aside models a different kind of politics: one in which parties with overlapping values make common cause transparently, without pretending to be the same party, and in which co-operation has a price that is stated openly rather than negotiated behind closed doors.
What we stand to lose
A Reform win in Makerfield would remove the only figure in British politics currently polling net positive from the Labour leadership contest. It would confirm that there is no seat in the north of England Reform cannot threaten. And it would shift the political centre of gravity further toward a politics that makes proportional representation, integrated public services, serious wealth taxation, and housing reform less likely, not more.
Burnham is not a Liberal Democrat. He backed the Iraq War, he voted to renew Trident, he opposes cannabis decriminalisation, and his framing on immigration has been about service pressure rather than rights. The overlap is real but it is not total, and it would be dishonest to pretend otherwise.
But politics is a choice between available options. In Makerfield this summer, the question is not whether Burnham shares all our values. It is whether the things we care most about are more likely to happen with him in Parliament, or with a Reform MP in his place.
On proportional representation alone, the answer should be clear enough.
Stand aside. But make him say so first.
* Tanya Park is a Lib Dem County, Borough & Town councillor in Eastleigh, Hampshire and writes at A Just Society, a liberal policy project making the case for radical progressive policies grounded in liberal principles.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Liz Saville Roberts to Give the David Lloyd George Memorial Lecture at Gwyl Cricieth Festival
Labour deputy claims that Farage is a threat to democracy
Knaptoft: The very heart of England
We do have a two-tier policing system but it is not what our homegrown racists think it is.
David Murray
Tristan Ward
Tony Ferguson
David Garlick
54 Comments
Good thinking.
A longer version, which includes a similar plea to the Green Party, can be found on my Substack here – https://ajustsociety.substack.com/p/stand-aside-but-make-him-earn-it
Forgive me for being harsh, but I have no reason to trust Burnham here, when I was in Labour I remember that Starmer campaigned on being an “Electable Corbyn” to the Left of the Party before gently reneging every promise he’d made, and he also had the background to suggest he was being truthful.
Bare in mind that the National Executive Committee is largely controlled by the Blue Labour faction of Social Conservatives has decided to approve Burnham despite blocking him last time; this should be a red flag that some sort of deal has been made, particularly as it was a Right-Leaning MP that stepped down alongside the fact Streeting and Starmer have backed him to run, which would theoretically not work in either of their favours based on LabourList polling.
Given Starmer has been rumoured to get a Cabinet position as Foreign Secretary after being deposed we should be clear that this is essentially a stitch-up from Labour to impose a candidate on Makerfield to save their own political project, and we should run against them on this basis.
Afraid I have to disagree on this. Firstly, I don’t believe that Burnham will stick to his PR position in parliament – this by election is a stitch up of the local electorate, with one labour MP trying to pick his successor – that’s hardly something someone commited to political/electoral reform would back.
Standing aside will mean that, yet again, we miss an opportunity to clearly present why liberal democracy matters. Standing means we are part of the conversation, making a clear case against nationalist populism. Standing aside means we vacate the stage.
Tanya this is well reasoned, considered and an excellent argument that I might well agree with in another situation. I can’t with Burnham. My fundamental reason is that he is untrustworthy. When Labour were in government he was their equivalent of Chris Philp, and would go on any media to defend any policy. He is also fundamentally illiberal – I remember his stance on ID cards and detention without trial. He is a social conservative, he will bow to the anti trans rights brigade and the anti-migrant rhetoric so beloved of tabloid Labour. He is also the only politician I have heard flip flop mid answer (on selective education during the 2015 leadership debate). I have never understood his appeal and can think of many better Labour people across their internal spectrum.
Thank you though for putting this up, and to Ciaran for the contrary case. These are always questions we should ask openly, so well done š
No thanks and hopefully the Green Party and Conservatives will not stand aside either. Democracy is about giving the voters of Makerfield choice, not restricting it. It’s important to challenge other parties, put forward a clear vision, message and espouse Lib Dem policies. Not to give Labour a free reign when most of their MPs do not support PR and it’s not their policy.
This is a byelection like no other. There are various reasons to want Burnham to win and standing aside would put pressure on him to stick to his views on electoral reform. If the Lib Dems do stand and get a few hundred votes, far more of these will come from Labour than Reform. So I would not stand.
I agree with you on my issues, Tan, but not this one, I’m afraid. This is the same Burnham who, when last in government, supported ID cards and failed twice to become Labour leader. We should never allow ourselves to become a “pro-democracy, but only sometimes” party, especially when the party we’re considering standing aside for is a socially conservative outfit that has to be dragged, kicking and screaming, towards socially liberal positions.
Thank you all for the pushback – this is exactly the debate worth having. But I want to name what the realistic choice is whilst we’re debating Andy Burnham’s character. That choice is between Andy Burnham and a Reform MP. I’d rather have an untrustworthy Burnham in Parliament than Farage’s candidate. That’s not an endorsement, it’s simple arithmetic.
@Rosemary: if the NEC approval looks like a stitch-up, the answer is to make him pay a price for it publicly before the writ moves. Demand he confirms his positions on PR, on social care, on property taxation, on the record. If he won’t, we stand our candidate and say so. That’s leverage. Standing aside for nothing is naivety. Standing a candidate and finishing fourth or even fifth while Reform wins is a point well made and a seat badly lost.
@Tanya Sadly I think the time for those discussions about a progressive alliance were to be made before the NEC approved him, the fact they are only being engaged retroactively should tell you all you need to know about his loyalties to progressivism, especially given he has already backtracked on PR to supporting AV, despite it already having been rejected alongside being less proportionate.
We owe nothing to him and cannot meaningfully hold him accountable if he breaks his promises as he would hold majority as leader, and our stepping aside would make us complicit in those potential failures. If he can’t win without us stepping aside then that reflects on his abilities and not us.
Ed Miliband has stated he is likely to run against Streeting if Andy loses and will assumedly follow a similar agenda, so there is little for us to gain in standing aside and much more to lose.
My feelings on this matter are along the lines of Churchill’s (a long-time anti-communist) remark that , “If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons,” regarding his decision to ally with the Soviet Union after Germany invaded Russia in June 1941…
The very idea of the Mail, Express (and the rest of the right wing media) headlines, if Reform defeated Burnham, is horrifying and would be a major step on the ladder for a Reform government..
If Burnham is so “progressive” as to deserve the votes of Liberal Democrat supporters, it is up to him to make that case, not us. This whole argument is based on the fallacy that a party can herd all its supporters into another candidate’s column. Some of us may think that Reform is “naughty” and Burnham is “nice” but even voters who are inclined to vote for us may not see the world that way. We might just as well argue that standing a candidate would split the anti-Burnham vote and help keep Reform out.
And we think Burnham Iāll keep his promise on PR ? Any evidence that he is a man of consistent principles ? He is the worst type of politician, motivating largely by personal ambition, to give him a hand up in his plan for world domination is preposterous.
It is fundamentally wrong to deny voters the option to vote Liberal Democrat. And disrespectful to make assumptions about how they might vote if there is not a Liberal Democrat candidate. They could go any way, and we have no realistic way of knowing.
There are only two likely outcomes: Labour win by not much, or Reform win by not much. The latter would be a boost for Reform, and In my view doing everything possible to avert the disaster of Reform in power should overshadow any other consideration at this moment. The best chance of doing that here is to deny them the seat, and the best chance of doing that is not to contest. I don’t buy the idea that in the absence of a Lib Dem candidate more Lib Dem voters would vote Reform than would vote Labour, Doesnāt matter what you think of Burnham, doesn’t matter whether or not an “ask” is granted. Reform must be defeated.
@ John Stewart “The best chance of doing that here is to deny them the seat, and the best chance of doing that is not to contest.”
To achieve victory by doing nowt. Now that’s a clever plan. Good job we didn’t do that after Dunkirk.
If everybody saying that we should stand a candidate in Makersfield is committing to spend time in Makersfield supporting the LibDem candidate, then it might make sense. Applications to stand as the Candidate close tomorrow. Any volunteers?
The party will then decide if you have a strong enough story to beat Reform, and the Greens. This just at a time when many are saying that LibDems do not have a sufficiently compelling national story.
We should always stand a candidate. It is our duty to give the electorate the opportunity to vote Liberal Democrat. Burnham is no Liberal or Social Democrat
This is clever thinking but will it work? Will Burnham stick to any promises he may give us? Will the voters see that we are aiming to gain something from not standing or will they feel we are trying to make them vote a certain way rather than leaving the choice to them?
His position on PR is that it should be in the next Labour manifesto. If he presents that as a democratic requirement, it would be hard to argue against that. What he could easily give us is STV for local elections. It could be done without an extra boundary commission for most of the country. It could also be done without any of their MPs voting to lose their seats.
And AV for mayors.
You seem to have sparked a lively debate, Tanya, but I’m surprised at the level of disagreement with what you say. How could it be right for us to campaign in a seat we can’t win, when Reform might win by a margin smaller than the number of votes we get?
Some think we ought to distrust Burnham, but for me the important matter is the general election in 2029. If he replaces Starmer there will a Labour bounce, and it might last until 2029. Without it, Starmer or Streeting will lead Labour to defeat by Reform.
We should take the long view, that 2029 is what matters, and we will either have Farage grinning at the door of number 10 (a nauseating prospect), or a coalition between Labour and us, or the Greens, or both. Labour performing better under Burnham will be good for the country and possibly good for the Lib Dems (we’re going to be squeezed, whatever happens). Doubts that the King of the North won’t be what he’s cracked up to be are fair enough, but would he be worse than Starmer ?
If today’s papers are right, that Streeting has chosen this moment to announce that Labour will reverse Brexit because he knows he can’t defeat Burnham by any other way than ensuring that Reform win the byelection – which does seem very plausible – they ought to be looking for someone else to challenge Starmer if Andy Burnham fails to get back into parliament. Devious tactics used by Starmer to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn were tolerated because although Jeremy is a principled man, he wasn’t a very good leader. But if Streeting succeeds in pulling the rug out from under the most popular potential party leader he won’t be forgiven – or shouldn’t be.
Having a PM who can only hold his seat by not talking about Europe doesn’t strike me as a great result.
Labourās leadership is split over the Rejoin issue. Streeting appears to have said what we all know to be true – Brexit has cost us jobs investment and political clout. Burnham is ambivalent on this fundamental truth. He canāt not be, given his seat and personal power base. Therefore I would rather see Streeting elected, Ć divided Labour Party (north vs south) and a more pro Rejoin stance from Greens and Liberals which would suck pro EU voters to LDs. I suspect LD voters will back Burnham but the strategic choice is to get Streeting in if we really want to resolve the UKās economic drift, no?
@ Andy,
“Devious tactics used by Starmer to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn were tolerated…..”
Tolerated by whom? Only the right wing establishment.
They were not tolerated by those who were either expelled or resigned from the Labour Party resigned in disgust after the fraudulent nature of the way Starmer rose to power became apparent to all. It was noticeable, at least in my own constituency, during the 24 election that the number of Labour activists was well down on previous campaigns. It was a similar story, by all accounts, elsewhere.
This does help to explain why the Labour vote was nowhere near as high as predicted and was actually lower than in the two previous elections. Hence the term ‘sandcastle majority’.
Starmer has split the party and we’re seeing the consequences right now.
There seems to be an assumption on LDV that the next Labour leader will be either Streeting or Burnham. I agree that Burnham would be a dead cert if he were to win his by-election; but, if he doesn’t it’s likely, IMO, to be Angela Rayner. Ed Miliband is another possibility. It’s quite likely Andy won’t win in Makerfield. I still can’t see Streeting winning the leadership though. The decision, remember is one for Labour members. MPs only have the same voting power as any other member.
The bookies are normally not too far off the mark. They have the following odds:
Andy Burnham 8/11
Angela Rayner 5/1
Wes Streeting 7/1
Ed Miliband 13/2
For those who like a flutter, my tip is a few pounds on Angela.
@ Peter Martin Some echoes of history from over 100 years ago with the Asquith/Lloyd George split ? Sorry to say it, Peter, but all of this stuff is very very bad news for the future of the Labour Party with, IMHO. no obvious alternative Leader in sight.
@Peter Martin
“For those who like a flutter, my tip is a few pounds on Angela.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx219y4qy0qo
“Former Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner has resolved her tax affairs with HMRC following an investigation, settling Ā£40,000 in unpaid stamp duty.
The MP for Ashton-under-Lyne said she had been “exonerated” of the accusation she had “deliberately sought to avoid tax” in a statement on Thursday.”
She may have been ‘exonerated’ but is she open to accusations of having been very careless about owing an amount of tax which I believe is more than most people’s gross annual income?
@ David,
I don’t think the parallel is quite the same as when the Liberal Party split with the National Liberals, alternatively the Liberal Nationals, end up joining the Tories. This party continued to exist in a legal sense until 1968. There was also an independent group of Liberals led by Lloyd George.
For one thing the breakaway party led Jeremy Corbyn has had a launch which can only be described as a complete shambles. It should have been set up well before the last election. Much of the potential support is now with the Greens. For another, the Greens will undoubtedly have their place but they don’t have a base in the organised working class. Their popularity in areas like Gorton is probably only going to be temporary.
There’s no sign of the Trades Unions moving their support away from the Labour Party. There are certainly turbulent times ahead for the Labour Party but they will always be the party of the broader labour movement. Many on the left claim that it is already dead but it won’t die as long as the Trades Unions stick with it.
Streeting wants to reverse Brexit. Burnham doesn’t, at least not for generations. For those who consider Brexit to be a tragic and continuing disaster, the choice is clear. Even at the cost of Reform winning a constuency, Burnham must not become PM. Reversal of Brexit is the big issue.
@Non-Conformist Radical. Sorry, but I thonk you’re wrong about Raynor. She took advice and paid what she was told she owed. She was wrong footed by an obscure law relating to family trusts, that even her advisors struggled to understand. It’s my bet that those criticising her would have done exactly the same. She quit, which is more than most politicians do when they break the ministerial code. It’s not a fair description to say she was careless. Very unfortunate would fit the case much better. Very busy people accept the advice they are given, because they are busy. 99 times out of 100 that works out OK.
The real question you should be asking is Angela Raynor up to the job of being PM. She would certainly be more decisive than Starmer and might actually have some principles.
The mood against Reform is reminiscent of AfD. The Alternative for Germany (AfD) has grown rapidly since it was formed in 2013. That similar distaste of AfD has seen attempts to ban it, declare it illegal, refuse to debate with it, refuse to form a coalition with it. None of these attempts have worked. Indeed it could be argued that the very fact that the elitist German political establishmentās disgust of AfD has proved a bigger inducement for disenfranchised German voters to give the German establishment a bloody nose?
So if an anti-populist, ātoys out of the pramā hasn’t worked against the AfD, why would it work with Reform?
@ Nonconformist Radical,
The Ā£40k probably won’t make much difference to Angela Rayner’s support. Starmer managed to get away with Ā£730k in expense donations, for his leadership campaign, not being declared to the Electoral Commission. He and his team were also fined about Ā£14k but nothing much came of it. It was 2% of the total so would have been shrugged off as just another expense.
I realise that this was because large sections of the mainstream were sympathetic to Starmer and it might be different with Rayner. Even so, unless HMRC pushes to take the matter to court, I doubt it will hurt her too much.
There’s a more comprehensive discussion on the “riders and runners” for the leadership race on this link from the Economist.
https://www.economist.com/interactive/2025-british-politics/leadership-contest
Bring back Harold Wilson. He knew how to win elections and could relate to ordinary folk.
@James Thellusson, on a personal note, as a trans woman, having Streeting as our PM is not something I would ever wish for. :/
Please donāt do this.
Iāve just watched the Burnham speech at the Great North conference. Until I lost the will.
It seems super clear that voters of Makerfield are being pursuaded to put him in based on a promise of focus on their area. re-nationalising āeverythingā to achieve it, with no plan on how to do it. The examples of success he gave were all on granular council issues. Thereās zero talk of macro economic let alone global issues. Itās like putting a parish council chairman in charge of district purely so that his/her patch gets top priority.
Except far more dangerous.
Sorry but we back him at our peril.
In the last fifty years how many times has Labour stood down to make sure the Liberals had a clear run against someone worse?
The argument for Liberal Democrats to stand aside in Ashton-in-Makerfield repeats a familiar mistake: assuming liberal politics in northern England should retreat whenever Labour claims only it can stop the right. Northern Liberal Democrats should reject that logic.
Reformās rise is not simply the result of āvote splittingā. It reflects deep distrust of political establishments that appear stitched together through elite deals. A public stand-aside arrangement between Labour and the Liberal Democrats would risk reinforcing exactly the anti-politics narrative Reform thrives upon.
The claim that Liberal Democrats have āalmost no presenceā locally is also backwards. Parties build presence by contesting difficult seats, not avoiding them. If Liberal Democrats abandon northern working-class constituencies whenever pressure mounts, they effectively concede that liberal politics belongs only in southern England and affluent suburbs.
Andy Burnhamās policy overlap with the Liberal Democrats is real, but overstated. His support for proportional representation remains rhetorical unless he is willing to challenge Labour leadership directly to achieve it. Liberal Democrats have heard warm words on electoral reform from Labour figures before, only to see reform abandoned when power is at stake.
Likewise, support for bus franchising or social care reform does not justify withdrawing from democratic competition. Liberal Democrats advocated many of these policies long before Burnham adopted them.
Most importantly, voters deserve a genuine choice. If liberal politics is to recover in northern England, it will not happen by standing aside. It will happen by standing and fighting.
Would you rather have a Labour leader who is quiet on Europe but open to electoral reform or one who wants to reverse Brexit but is less willing to work with other progressive parties? This seems to be the main question. I think Lib Dems should probably lean towards the former especially if they are the best person to take on Reform.
Great article Tanya. I totally agree and I am dejected to see so many disagreeing. With Farage and Reform UK, we face the prospect of a far-right government for the first time in modern history, a government that would deport genuine refugees, oppress minorities and ruin our country. For five years, our Prime Minister would be a man who has been accused of direct racial bullying by dozens of school contemporaries and makes videos for rightwing groups saying: āIf in doubt, kick āem out.ā The nightmare looms. What if āgiving people a choiceā meant we got 600 votes and Reform won by 500? Weād have enabled this demagogue to gain momentum in the most important by-election in decades. And why ā because Burnham supported ID cards and has backtracked on PR? As John Stewart says: ādoing everything possible to avert the disaster of Reform in power should overshadow any other consideration at this moment.ā 100%. Please wake up everyone.
When there are mutterings that our party is failing in urban areas, it is ironic that people are suggesting we should stand aside in precisely the sort of urban seat where we ought to be building up support.
We should stand. A by-election is a by-election, simple as that. And this one is artificially created to try to get a particular person into Parliament. Voters don’t like that ā heard of Patrick Gordon Walker? There was a reason Sunak gave David Cameron a peerage rather than try to get him into the House of Commons when making him Foreign Secretary.
Given the above, and Labour’s present unpopularity in government, there is likely to be an Anyone But Labour vote. It is wrong to assume that Lib Dem voters will automatically transfer to Labour if we don’t stand. More likely they’ll either vote Green or stay at home.
So can we please forget trying to play 4D chess with the electorate as pawns? It’s nearly always backfires. We should fight it, and run a straightforward campaign as we would any by-election.
The answer Jen is almost certainly zero. Labour simply regard us as irritants that should be squashed.
Ian and Alex are of course correct. No more defeatest talk about not standing please. As an approved candidate I have already been invited to put my name forward for the by-election. I will decline the opportunity, as campaigning from Greece would be difficult.
Great article Tanya. I totally agree and I am dejected to see so many disagreeing. With Farage and Reform UK, we face the prospect of a far-right government for the first time in modern history, a government that would deport genuine refugees, oppress minorities and ruin our country. The Prime Minister would be a man who has been accused of direct racial bullying by school contemporaries and makes videos for rightwing groups saying: āIf in doubt, kick āem out.ā The nightmare looms. What if āgiving people a choiceā meant we got 600 votes and Reform won by 500? Weād have enabled this demagogue to gain momentum in the most important by-election in decades. And why ā because Burnham supported ID cards and has backtracked on PR? As John Stewart says: ādoing everything possible to avert the disaster of Reform in power should overshadow any other consideration at this moment.ā 100%. We need to wake up.
@David Vigar: “What if āgiving people a choiceā meant we got 600 votes and Reform won by 500?”
In that case the chance that in the situation where the Lib Dems hadn’t stood at least 501 of those LD voters would have voted for the 2nd-placed candidate (rather than a different 3rd-or-lower candidate, or wouldn’t have shown up to vote at all) and absolutely none of them would have voted Reform instead is so slim as to be irrelevant.
What if you would have got 450 votes and Labour would have won by 50, but by not standing the “it’s a Lab-Lib establishment stitch-up” argument gets 100 more people to vote Reform? What if you attract some former Conservative voters who were never going to vote Labour but without a Lib Dem candidate will drift to Reform and that makes the difference? Hypotheticals like this can go around all day but aren’t worthwhile.
Who is Labour leader is a matter for the Labour Party. We shouldn’t get involved in Labour’s current psychodrama. @cim is right that we cannot be sure where our vote would go if we don’t stand. Our purpose is not to tilt the Labour leadership election scales in favour of a particular candidate. It’s to maximise our strength as a party. We should just get on and do that.
Jen asks:
“In the last fifty years how many times has Labour stood down to make sure the Liberals had a clear run against someone worse?”
Mick Taylor replies:
“The answer Jen is almost certainly zero. Labour simply regard us as irritants that should be squashed.”
I’m sure both Mick and Jen know this is not how it is done. It’s done by letting it be known that the party isn’t going to actively campaign.
For example, as acknowledged by Sir John Curtice, there was a large swing to the Liberal Democrats in the Tiverton and Honiton byelection of 2022 due to tactical voting by previously Labour voters who wished to avoid a Conservative MP.
I’ve always thought it was a waste of money to stand a candidate in these circumstances, but both Lib Dems and Labour want to play it this way.
I seem to remember that the Labour vote was actually lower than the party membership in one by-election so it’s not simply a matter of the voters making up their own minds. There are plenty of nods and winks to ensure everyone knows what is expected of them.
I grew up just a few miles outside the Makerfield constituency border. It’s a area which has suffered economic decline due to the loss of local industry and coal mining. It’s a few miles to the east of Wigan so anyone who had read George Orwell’s ‘Road to Wigan Pier’ will know about the social conditions of the prewar period which then shaped the politics of the postwar period and lasted until the end of the century.
They aren’t much different those found across large parts of the North.
There is a working class which is culturally conservative but economically socialist. Voting Labour was automatic when it was seen that the Labour Party was this way too. Ian McCartney got 74% of the poll in 1997. But not now. The Labour party itself is now widely seen as being too liberal culturally and too neoliberal economically.
The EU question is a difficulty. This is one reason why the LibDems should should either not bother with the constituency or make a full scale attempt to explain what it is that local people should like about it. They are right, IMO, to be eurosceptical. They wouldn’t be if the EU was buzzing. It isn’t though. It’s economically stagnant.
Andy Burnham knows all this as well as anyone. Heās trying to distance himself from his previous pro EU remarks. His opponents wonāt let him get away with this, and he will have his work cut out in this campaign.
Any other election at any other time, stand for sure. But these are clearly not normal times. The passion of principal over pragmatism is, to me, worthy but misplaced. Not all LD supports will lend their vote to Burnham, but I don’t see them flocking to Reform. A protest vote against the current Labour administration is ironically a vote for Labour. Think of this poll as a French Presidential election. Round 1 vote for who you want, round 2 vote against who you don’t want. We are already at Round 2.
For those who think a Burnham win might lead to PR, think again. Burnham supports the Supplementary Vote (SV) system instead of committing to a clearly proportional model. SV is a majoritarian preferential system used for single-winner elections. Voters mark a first and second preference; if nobody wins 50%, all but the top two are eliminated and second preferences are redistributed. London mayoral elections used it before the government switched them to first-past-the-post. Under SV, larger parties still tend to dominate and seat shares can remain very disproportional.
We are not Labour. I don’t see why we should help them out after everything they’ve done to us over the years. Burnham would have no problem in campaigning for our demise like many of his predecessors. I don’t understand the current mood to ‘unite the left’ against Farage. You beat Farage by setting out a positive, Liberal agenda – which should look entirely different to the very un-Liberal Labour Party or the populist Greens.
If we don’t have candidate in Makerfield, it will be a declaration that we accept that we are no longer a national party.
It appears that Andy Burnham will say anything at the moment in order to win this election, so you cannot trust him. And secondly, as you say, you have little support in Makerfield, so why would the Labour Party agree to be controlled by the LibDems when policymaking in these important areas. If people really supported all your policies then they would vote LibDem and you would win the seat!
Burnham, Polanski and Davey all have flaws. None of them are planning mass expulsions of non-whites from the UK, none of them are planning to make a killing out of cryptocurrency. Burnham, Polanski and Davey can avert a disastrous future for Britain if they can find a way to work together. It seems that the Greens may see sense on this. Let’s hope the Lib Dems can do likewise.
https://www.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2026/05/24/electoral-reform-could-be-key-to-winning-the-makerfield-by-election-and-the-next-general-election/