Much as I want someone to replace Starmer, this decision is not a big surprise, really. Aside from Starmer’s desire for self-preservation, Burnham becoming an MP would have forced a mayoral by-election in Manchester which Labour might well have lost (on current polling, Reform had a slight edge). Burnham had a chance to run as an MP in 2024 without causing that problem and decided not to, so it’s hard to feel too sorry for him.
I honestly doubt this will save Starmer, even they must know Starmer won’t survive the thrashing they’re predicted to get in May. Never mind how it’ll look if they lose Gorton and Denton, putting factionalism ahead of the party. This is more about ensuring they can get one of their own as the replacement (probably Streeting, ugh). Hopefully if Gorton and Denton goes Green (which there’s a good chance of) we could get someone who isn’t such a ghoul. What I would give for chaos with Ed Miliband.
Emma Burnell, Editor of LabourList commented “There are perfectly reasonable concerns about the costs and political dangers of a by-election for Greater Manchester mayor. The problem the leadership has is that the vast majority of Labour members I have spoken to simply do not believe this is why Burnham has been blocked.
Does anyone genuinely think Burnham’s open challenge to Starmer’s leadership wasn’t a factor in blocking him?
That shows that for Starmer, he himself is more important than the Labour Party.
There was basically nothing Starmer could do to come out of this looking good. Block a leadership contender from standing? Looks weak. Let someone come and challenge you because you’re scared you’ll look weak if you don’t? Also looks weak!
Does anyone genuinely think Burnham’s open challenge to Starmer’s leadership wasn’t a factor in blocking him?
It was definitely a factor but it wasn’t the only factor. If I was on the NEC and I thought it was a slam dunk to win the mayoralty again, I might have argued for letting Burnham back into Parliament. Since it clearly isn’t, I’d have voted to block him. The other thing about your rhetorical question is that it’s easy to turn it around: ‘Does anyone genuinely think that Burnham’s professional ambitions weren’t the primary factor in his decision to stand?’
I would also love a bit of Chaos with Ed, but apparently he isn’t actually interested any longer.
Yeah, agree Starmer was in a real catch-22 here.
The other thing about your rhetorical question is that it’s easy to turn it around: ‘Does anyone genuinely think that Burnham’s professional ambitions weren’t the primary factor in his decision to stand?’
It’s not like Burnham pretended it was anything else, he’s not Robert Jenrick.
Let someone come and challenge you because you’re scared you’ll look weak if you don’t? Also looks weak!
That’s not how weakness, or democracy, works.
This is just another piece of evidence that Labour care not for their founding principles. The PLP care more about their individual powers and privileges than they do the country or their party at large. Rallying to protect Dear Leader in the same way the Tories did for Johnson. A pathetic excuse for a Labour party and government.
He would’ve looked weak because there were obvious reasons not to permit Burnham to stand as an MP that are unrelated to Starmer. Why ignore them? Starmer’s critics would say: because he can’t afford not to ignore them, because he’s weak.
There was no win in this situation.
Look, I try not to bother with this kind of content-free ‘comment’ but just factually, this was a matter for the NEC, not the PLP, something it says at the top of the page you wrote this comment on. Given you can’t even get this kind of simple fact straight, what makes you think that your views on the far more complex topic of Labour’s founding principles (or how they’re viewed today) are of any value to anyone?
You’ve responded to plenty of my comments with vitriol before so I don’t understand the beginning of your comment at all.
The PLP is a part of the NEC. There were PLP members who voted.
The PLP is the part of the party that consistently shows itself to be against Labour’s values. I said the PLP to distinguish it from the rest of the Labour movement.
My views are as valid as anyone’s. I understand now why we’ve clashed before. I thought you were a leftist stuck on the hope of the Labour party because that’s what you’ve always known. But as you’re trying to dismiss my opinions as if you’re an authority figure, I see now I was wrong and you’re right at home under Keir’s authoritarians.
The PLP is a part of the NEC.
No, it isn’t.
The National Executive Committee (NEC) is the governing body of the UK Labour Party, setting the overall strategic direction of the party and policy development. Its composition has changed over the years, and includes representatives of … the Parliamentary Labour Party
NEC Officers
As of October 2025, the Officers of the NEC are:[8]
- Leader of the Labour Party: Keir Starmer MP
- Deputy Leader of the Labour Party: Lucy Powell MP
- Chair of the National Executive Committee: Shabana Mahmood MP
- Vice-Chair of the National Executive Committee: Cllr Peter Wheeler
- Treasurer: Mike Payne
- Chair of Organisation Committee: Peter Mason
- Chair of the Equalities Committee: Ann Black
- Chair of the Disputes Panel: Gurinder Singh Josan MP
- Chair of the National Policy Forum (when a member of the NEC): Ellie Reeves MP
- Chair of the Labour Party: Anna Turley MP
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Executive_Committee_of_the_Labour_Party_(UK)
Every one with an MP next to their name is in the PLP…
Yes, it includes representatives of the PLP. This is not the same thing as the PLP being part of the NEC.
To my mind, there’s a reason the Labour Party has a rule that the NEC needs to be consulted and give permission in this situation. It’s no good saying “the members must be allowed to decide” when clearly someone thought ahead of time, “actually, this is a special case where the members might not act for the good of the party.”
They could call it ‘the Burnham rule’, for short.
Joking aside, you are right, of course. It’s actually a big deal for (e.g.) the Mayor of Greater Manchester to quit, so it makes perfect sense to have a committee that can say ‘Hang on, is this actually a good idea?’
Additionally, as anyone who recalls the leaderships of Iain Duncan Smith and Liz Truss could tell you, party member driven democracy has its downsides.
Yeah, as someone who had Dan Norris (🤮🤮🤮) as metro mayor, it’s a shitty thing to do to try and dump your role as mayor the minute an MP slot opens up. We want mayors who are committed to the region and solving the challenges (transport in particular) in their remit, not people who have half an eye on Westminster. I’m no Starmer fan, but trying to dump Manchester at this point has soured me a bit on Burnham.
This exactly. As someone who wants Starmer out ASAP, I was half-minded to support Burnham just to achieve that goal, but it’s not like he was covering himself in glory, here. He had an opportunity to run as an MP just 18 months ago and decided not to take it. What’s changed since then - other than he now has a shot at PM?
I’m not convinced Burnham would be much better either. He had a fairly Blairite run as a minister and, given how open he is about his political ambitions, I would be worried about another bait-and-switch like Starmer’s brief tack to the left during the leadership campaign. He is at least more charismatic than Starmer, but so are most people to be fair.
The so called labour party is no longer a democratic organisation, but then it ceased to be one in the 80s.
