On its own terms, Keir Starmer’s faction blocking Andy Burnham from standing in the upcoming Gorton and Denton byelection is perfectly rational. It is screamingly obvious that the mayor of Greater Manchester sought a return to Westminster so that he could overthrow the prime minister, once Labour is battered in the May elections.
Burnham promised he “would be there to support the work of the government, not undermine it”. But if, come spring, a new Plaid Cymru first minister of Wales is grinning like a Cheshire cat, the prince over the water could plausibly argue that keeping Starmer in No 10 is what is undermining the work of the government.
Starmer’s move is a rational decision, perhaps, if factional survival is your priority. But what about the wider Labour party’s survival? It has long been clear that Starmer’s cabal would rather burn the party to the ground than allow it to move in a more progressive direction.
The key argument cited for blocking Burnham is the risk of Labour losing Greater Manchester’s mayoralty to Reform UK. Just sit with that for a moment. In May 2024, Burnham won more than 63% of the vote. Reform came fourth with 7.5%. If defeat in a core Labour heartland is even remotely plausible, then Labour’s existence as a national political force is already in doubt.
So what exactly is the masterplan of Starmer’s faction, led by his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney – and what do they actually want? After all, as it was claimed they bragged to journalists a year ago, they see the prime minister as their frontman: a useful idiot who thinks he’s driving the train, while actually sitting at the front of London’s driverless Docklands Light Railway. It was reported that they settled on a man who wanted the premiership for its own sake – a blank canvas they could paint as they pleased.
Did they really come into politics to scrap state support for pensioners and disabled people, introduce one of the harshest asylum systems in Europe while raiding the rhetoric of Enoch Powell, decimate the foreign aid budget and lock up elderly people holding placards opposing genocide? The truth is more banal. Many of them forged their worldview in student politics, labelling anyone to the left of Peter Mandelson as a “Trot”. They imagined themselves as characters in The West Wing, with all of the machiavellian skullduggery and none of the idealism. In short, their politics consists of defining themselves against the left and craving power as an end in itself.
Factional control is all they excel at. They ruthlessly stitched up parliamentary selections in favour of ultra-loyalist drones. A notable foreshadow of the current debacle was when – on the eve of the general election – Starmer’s candidates blocked Faiza Shaheen from standing in Chingford and Woodford Green. A local, working-class Muslim woman and an excellent communicator who defied the odds to become an economist, she was the ideal candidate. But a talented leftwinger was the Starmerites’ worst nightmare. The inevitable result? Shaheen stood as an independent, the vote split, and Iain Duncan Smith triumphed. For them, that was infinitely preferable to Shaheen winning.
Yet despite remaking the parliamentary Labour party in their own image, MPs endlessly complain that they are treated as “too stupid” by a hostile No 10. Could it be that the party’s masters belatedly realised that they prioritised blind loyalty over quality?
If McSweeney’s crew were capable of self-reflection, they would ask themselves searching questions. Starmer obligingly adopted the Labour right’s political prospectus wholesale – so why did they only secure roughly a third of the vote on a record low turnout, the lowest since the introduction of universal suffrage in 1928, despite the Tories self-immolating? If competence is their USP, why is their administration defined by U-turns? If bashing migrants and welfare is the recipe for electoral success, why does their stooge prime minister have a net favourability rating of -57?
Starmer is finished, but keeping Burnham out leaves ultra-Blairite torchbearer Wes Streeting in pole position. Beloved by the commentariat, disliked by the public, he will offer the same toxic political prospectus. But that suits Labour’s masters just fine. They’d rather the party sink than stay afloat under a leader who isn’t as rightwing.
That the party is briefing that it fears the Greens winning in Gorton and Denton more than Reform is instructive – Labour is terrified of Caerphilly-isation. In that recent Senedd byelection, Labour came third with 11% of the vote. They’d won that constituency in every Westminster or Senedd election since 1918, but Plaid Cymru triumphed on an unashamedly progressive platform, positioning itself as the only real alternative to Reform.
Labour is betting its survival on spooking progressive voters into believing it is the only bulwark stopping Nigel Farage from ending up in No 10. Gorton and Denton was in the top 15% biggest Labour majorities at the last elections: if the Greens win here, that emotional blackmail will no longer work. Zack Polanski’s party reports that Labour’s support has collapsed on the doorstep, leaving a straight fight between it and Farage. That is a message the Greens need to hammer home, not least given a vicious smear campaign is undoubtedly heading their way.
Suella Braverman’s defection to Reform should boost the Greens. They can tell disillusioned Labour voters that the “alternative” is Rishi Sunak’s old cabinet, just led by Farage. And, indeed, what exactly are the reasons voters should march to polling stations to vote for Starmer’s party? It is this question that dooms Labour. The party has been overrun by soulless hacks who have decided that it would be better for the party to burn than lose control. Fine. Let it burn.
Owen Jones is a Guardian columnist
