Andy Burnham had a good Summer and, so far, a pretty good Autumn. Insulated from vicarious liability for Labour’s failure by his long absence from Westminster, and with none of his responses yet tested, he has basked in the warm glow of ring lights and positive vibes. The trouble with a winning streak is that eventually people want to know if you’re going to cash out or put it all on red. For a first term Prime Minister, those are really the same thing.
Hence the chatter about an early election that won’t die. Burnham eventually tried to kill it: “All of this speculation on an early election, I can knock that dead.”
There’s a risk of divining strategy from motion. Andy is a clear rather than considered communicator, often answering questions simply because he’s been asked.
I have thought since Burnham took over that May 2027 is the most likely election date. What conditions must a Prime Minister satisfy before calling a snap election?
Three questions:
Is there something you can’t do now that you can if you win?
Can you win?
Can you articulate (1) clearly enough and (2) convincingly enough for the public to understand why you’ve done it and back you?
1. Is there something you can’t do now that you can if you win?
Stephen Bush makes the point that the majority probably believes the NCS exists already in some form. That helps explain the 22 abortive attempts to find a new social care settlement. The Tories successfully weaponised the idea of a death tax in 2010; Theresa May’s 2017 attempt walked, Somme-style, into the barbed wire of those old talking points.
On the face of it, Burnham is going long. Today he committed to maintaining the triple lock through this Parliament, changing it from April 2030 and putting the savings towards the NCS. That looks like a programme built around a 2029 mandate.
But it also sharpens the constraint. Burnham has named a settlement he cannot deliver this Parliament and attached a funding mechanism to it. If he spends two years carving up existing budgets until a shoddy service barely scrapes by, an overtaxed and underserviced public may view the NCS as bare minimum repayment, not requiring any more of their cash, thank you.
The alternative – a third way, to coin a phrase – is to let the system make the argument. A difficult winter gives social care concreteness without giving Burnham enough time to become responsible for its failure. By May, the problem may be visible enough to make the case for change, while the solution remains something he can ask for a mandate to deliver.
2. Can you win?
The polls over conference show a volatile electorate – plus ça change. Last week’s MRPs are an interesting snapshot but cannot capture whether one issue might dominate across party lines, or the unknowable Johnsonian element of the herd moving when it moves. Ahead of the 2024 election, one analysis found that around 130,000 voters in the most marginal constituencies were the difference between a huge Labour majority and a hung parliament.
Another couple of years gives Badenoch or Farage time to slip up and potentially leave Burnham facing a single opponent rather than a divided right. But there is no guarantee the landscape will be more favourable by waiting.
3. Can you make the case?
Ruling out an early election therefore looks more like media management while the substance of his programme makes one easier to justify. So what of the three tests? I believe Burnham feels he’s answered ‘yes’ to (1), and re (2), there is no obvious reason to assume waiting produces a better electoral environment. Whether he can achieve (3) will depend on how he can position the social care ‘crisis’, how well the Budget next month lands and whether the global unrest settles in his favour or against it.
Some say politics is about learning to count — but a snap election is a form of gambling and in roulette, it’s all about knowing when to call.
