As Burnham’s bounce falls flat, Labour must focus instead on fixing Britain

Bad news – and some less bad news – for Britain’s new-ish prime minister. First, the bad news: the high priest of psephology, Professor Sir John Curtice, believes the “Burnham bounce” lasted only two weeks; polling numbers, albeit somewhat disparate, corroborate his conclusion, and the mere fact that Andy Burnham isn’t Sir Keir Starmer has not been enough to propel Labour into a commanding lead over their current nearest rivals Reform UK – even after a challenging summer for Nigel Farage.

Even at Sir Keir’s personal zenith in the general election of 2024, the British people were never that enamoured of him or Labour, winning on a mere 32 per cent vote share. After a series of often unforced errors, both party and prime minister explored unprecedented depths of public dissatisfaction. When the historic electoral losses breached even Labour’s pain barrier last May, it was the end of Sir Keir’s premiership. Performing merely “a bit better” than his predecessor doesn’t make Mr Burnham the new electoral messiah, as the prime minister himself has jokingly acknowledged.

Indeed, the modest improvement in Labour’s fortunes comes less from what Mr Burnham has said or done as much as the failings of his rivals – most notably the Greens’ rapid fall from grace and the sudden collapse of Zack Polanski’s personal appeal. Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats remain becalmed while Reform UK has seen its popularity trend lower following closer media scrutiny of policies and funding, plus the emergence of Restore Britain as a serious rival on its right flank. So far, Conservatives have not seen much party advantage accruing to them from the rise in Kemi Badenoch’s reputation and her personal ratings; perhaps the reshuffle of the shadow cabinet will change that. Like Labour, they remain less popular than they were in 2024.

The less bad news – both for Mr Burnham and the wider sanity of the nation – is that holding a snap general election now would be the height of stupidity. As the professor puts it with characteristic understatement: “There is no rational basis for Labour to call an election now.” Hopefully, the overheated Westminster chatter about an early election will turn out to be just that. While a newly-installed prime minister might wish to seek their own mandate, for Mr Burnham to do so now (in essence to gain approval for higher taxes) would invite the loudest of raspberries from a bewildered electorate. Voters assumed, two years ago, they were endorsing an end to “chaos and confusion” and not for a hung parliament and a sixth prime minister in about four years.

Translating polling results into seats won in the House of Commons is a hazardous exercise at the best of times but, even with some favourable trends in tactical voting, Labour might at best be returned as the largest single party in the Commons – but far short of a majority, and barely able to function at all; they would lose even if no one else has won. In such circumstances, a second election might well follow soon after and, with the momentum for change on the right, the end of Labour’s brief time in office would likely follow. To throw away a working majority of almost 170 on such a gamble would be incomprehensible, unforgivable folly on Mr Burnham’s part. Many of those MPs fantasising about a general election would find themselves, like the proverbial turkeys, gone by Christmas.

As Mr Burnham prepares to meet the Commons chamber as prime minister for the first time this week, he should end all such talk about an early poll. He must also flex his huge parliamentary majority and solemnly dedicate Labour to the forbidding tasks no government can avoid: welfare reform, proper defence of the realm, stabilising public finances and tackling the twin crises of the cost of living and housing. He must make the most of the goodwill and the political capital he still enjoys; if he succeeds, a much more dramatic Burnham bounce will surely follow.