Tag Archives: makerfield by-election

Jake Austin is our candidate in Makerfield

Portrait of Jake AustinJake Austin has been selected as the Liberal Democrat candidate for Makerfield in the upcoming by-election, pledging to champion local issues that matter most to residents. Jake is passionate about revitalising our high streets, ⁠improving public transport across the North West, and providing affordable homes for the next generation.

Jake was born and raised in Hindley, and has lived in Greater Manchester his whole life. Hei is a Liberal Democrat Councillor and works in fundraising.

In 2024, Jake was the Liberal Democrat candidate in the Greater Manchester Mayoralty election, increasing the Liberal Democrat vote share against Andy Burnham from the 2021 election.

Jake said:

Posted in News | Also tagged | 2 Comments

Labour’s internal power struggle could cost taxpayers more than £5 million

Taxpayers are facing a bill likely exceeding £5 million as Labour manoeuvres to bring Andy Burnham back into Westminster ahead of a possible leadership challenge to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer.

According to ITV News Granada, the combined cost of the Greater Manchester Mayoral Election and the forthcoming Makerfield by-election could “reach £5 million”. The report cited official Greater Manchester Combined Authority figures showing the 2024 mayoral election cost £4,719,754, while the Makerfield by-election has an administrative budget of £226,208 before additional freepost and campaign-related public costs are included.

However, that estimate did not include the earlier Gorton and Denton by-election, where Andy Burnham had also sought a route back to Parliament before Labour’s NEC blocked his candidacy.

Government figures previously showed the average cost of running a Westminster by-election was £228,964 as far back as 2016, meaning the real modern-day cost is likely considerably higher once inflation and operational pressures are accounted for.

Using the publicly available figures, the estimated taxpayer cost linked to Labour’s attempts to return Andy Burnham to Westminster is therefore likely to exceed:

  • £4,719,754 for the Greater Manchester mayoral election
  • £226,208 for the Makerfield by-election administration
  • approximately £228,964 or more for the earlier Gorton and Denton by-election

This produces a combined estimated total of at least £5.17 million, before accounting for inflation-adjusted by-election costs, Royal Mail freepost entitlements for candidates, staffing overtime, policing, venue hire, and associated election administration costs.

Surely, at a time when families are struggling with rising bills, councils remain under financial pressure, and public services are stretched, taxpayers should not be expected to foot a multi-million-pound bill to make up for Labour’s poor internal succession planning.

Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged and | Leave a comment

Andy Burnham’s mixed record: Why Greater Manchester deserves better

The argument for standing aside in Makerfield sounds “strategic”, but from a Liberal Democrat perspective it is strategically short-sighted, democratically unhealthy, and misunderstands how Reform is defeated.

Political parties exist to represent voters, not simply to game outcomes between larger parties. If Liberal Democrats believe in liberal values, civil liberties, internationalism and local democracy, then voters everywhere deserve the opportunity to vote for those values. Writing off entire areas risks accelerating decline, not preventing it.

The claim that standing and polling poorly makes the party “look inept” ignores Liberal Democrat history. The party’s biggest advances often began from tiny bases through years of consistent local campaigning. Community politics only works if voters repeatedly see Liberal Democrats showing up and fighting elections — not disappearing whenever things look difficult.

More importantly, conceding territory to Labour in the name of “stopping Reform” misunderstands why Reform is growing. Reform’s rise is driven by disillusionment with Westminster, economic insecurity and distrust of the political establishment. Simply asking voters to unite behind Labour does not address any of those causes.

There is also little evidence that parties standing aside reliably stops Reform. Tactical voting works best when voters make informed decisions locally, not when party machines remove democratic choices altogether. Research after the 2026 local elections found anti-Reform tactical coordination was inconsistent because politics is no longer a simple two-party contest.

Posted in Op-eds | 19 Comments

Stand aside in Makerfield, but make Burnham earn it

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.

Posted in Op-eds | 55 Comments

Should we even be considering contesting Makerfield? 

With Josh Simons’ resignation on Thursday, the starting gun on the 2026 Labour leadership election was (sort of) finally fired. 

There is now a theoretical, if muddy, path for Andy Burnham to re-enter parliament and become the next Prime Minister. The Greater Manchester Mayor, a vocal critic of Keir Starmer, has announced he plans to apply to stand in the by-election. Reform UK, buoyed by a second set of astonishing local election results, including across most of Greater Manchester, have responded in kind to say they plan to throw everything they can at the seat. The question being raised internally, and that will be no doubt raised externally too, is whether we should allow them a straight head-to-head or whether we should put up a candidate.

I think the answer for this contest, as it is in all contests, is that we should give people a chance to vote Liberal Democrat, and I will try and explain why. 

The first and most pressing point is that we do not own the voters and cannot tell them what to do on either a moral or a practical level. Just because someone voted Lib Dem in a previous general or local council election does not mean they are sitting waiting for instruction from us on how to vote in future. Voters are free to make up their own minds and vote how they wish. Us standing down will not guarantee that any votes go the way that we intend them to. Indeed, any Lib Dem votes in Greater Manchester would be tacit anti-Burnham votes anyway, and so there is an argument that in the absence of a Lib Dem candidate they would transfer to the next anti-Burnham candidate, in this case Reform.

But let’s say we could. Let’s say we could direct those voters to vote Labour and us standing down would lower the ceiling for them. Should we do it then? The answer is still no. Andy Burnham still has to win over a plurality of the rest of the voters in Makerfield. He is standing to be the Labour candidate, on a platform that is explicitly opposed to the current Labour prime minister. What is that campaign going to look like? Are Labour organisers and canvassers going to trawl around asking people to vote Labour to give Labour a bloody nose? Will he be allowed to criticise the government? The logistics of it seem totally incoherent. Labour HQ is not going to allow Andy Burnham to run on an anti-Starmer platform, so Burnham will be relying on voters reading between the lines, not taking the Labour campaign at its word, and hoping that he will topple the Prime Minister. This is a campaign relying on a wink and a prayer and Andy Burnham’s supposed personal popularity. It is not a serious, credible proposal that we should step aside for. 

Posted in Op-eds | 36 Comments
Advert

Recent Comments

  • Katharine Pindar
    Splendid stuff, well done Yorkists! 'The New Deal' seems a great idea in itself. Your graphic shows, however, how much work will need to be done to assert ourse...
  • Chris Bowers
    Just a quick response to Kira Collins' comment. An article on LDV is limited to around 750 words, so there's a lot more in the 20-page 'New Deal' paper. And tha...
  • Roland
    @kira Colin’s - “ So how do we go about attracting the votes of people inclined to vote for Reform?” An interesting question, as the answer is probably s...
  • Roland
    Given the fixed term Parliament Act was repealed by Johnson, I would be aiming at 2028. There is little benefit to the sitting government to go for the full fiv...
  • Tom Walker
    I’ve enjoyed this lively debate, thank you for all the comments. As people, our perspectives and conclusions will always be different. This reflects our diver...