Blocking Burnham shows Starmer’s ruthlessness cannot mask his weakness | Andy Burnham

This is a sign that the political deck of cards is stacked against you when the only good hand is the one that will never actually be dealt. It was the same with Keir Starmer and Andy Burnham.

In an ideal world for the Prime Minister, after Andrew Gwynne announced he would be resigning from his seat in Gorton and Denton, he should have said Burnham already had a job as mayor of Manchester and would stay out this time, thank you very much.

But given that Burnham will inevitably get the rare chance to return to Westminster politics, Starmer instead faces two rather dire choices: block her and be accused of partisan control mania; or allow the nomination and leave the matter in the hands of fate.

It’s worth noting that if Labour’s national executive committee (NEC) had granted Burnham’s wish, this would have been the first step in the process: the mayor would have had to gain the support of the local party and actually win the seat before arriving in parliament as a bright future heir.

But in reality the decision of the NEC, number 10, seemingly puts an absolute end to this chronology. Perhaps this is little surprise given that, for all his reputation for U-turning on national politics, Starmer is generally decisive, even ruthless, when it comes to internal party matters.

Just weeks after Starmer became Labor leader in 2020, he booted left-winger Rebecca Long-Bailey, who came second in the leadership contest, from his shadow cabinet amid a row over antisemitism.

Later that year, Starmer’s replacement as leader, Jeremy Corbyn, was also suspended from the party over a dispute over antisemitism and never returned.

But Sunday’s decision carries huge risks. Starmer is no longer the bright-eyed new captain tasked by members with rescuing Corbyn’s slipping ship from a bad situation. Yes, it won an unexpected and decisive election victory just 18 months ago, but Labor is trailing in the polls Starmer’s personal assessment not far below Liz Truss levels among the public.

In fact, there are some excellent political reasons, passionately put forward by Starmer’s allies, why it would not be entirely a good idea for Burnham to abandon the mayoralty in favor of an anti-parliamentary bent.

These include the sheer costs of the mayoral by-election and associated Labor campaign, halfway through his four-year term, which some see as damage caused by a divisive Reform campaign, and the subsequent destabilizing influence of a man whose ambitions are very clear sitting on the Labor benches in the House of Commons.

But on the other side of the ledger are a number of risks and consequences that Starmer will face. The first thing repeatedly leveled at him by Labor and opposition critics was that this move showed he was weak, more focused on protecting his job than finding ways to improve Labour’s chances.

While it is true that Burnham’s stature in Westminster has been enhanced by nothing other than his absence there for almost a decade, he has proven himself a masterful mayor last week, shaping a distinct, left-leaning but growth-oriented Labor line he calls “Manchesterism”.

A totemic figure in the north-west, he was expected to win the by-election. If a less prominent candidate is chosen and the seat falls to Reform UK, the repercussions for Starmer could be dire.

Nationally, this is a growing concern among many Labor MPs and ministers: they see Starmer as someone who will be unable to resurrect the party and delay what they see as the utterly terrifying prospect of a Reform government.

Maybe that’s what they want to stop more than anything else, and if they believe Starmer can’t do it they’ll turn to someone else. There will be no Burnham for now. But this is just a belated discussion, not over.