Now is not the time to undermine the PM

Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester, promises, in his request for permission to stand in a by-election to return to Westminster, “to support the work of the government, not undermine it”.

But his very presence in the House of Commons would be a distraction for the prime minister, according to The Independent.

Sir Keir Starmer has scored successes on the international stage in recent days. He stood firm against Donald Trump on Greenland, and demanded an apology for the US president’s slur on allied forces in Afghanistan.

The Independent wants to see him do better on the domestic front — and it remains to be seen whether he will make the most of his parliamentary majority to deliver sufficient change before the run up to the next general election. At that point, it might become necessary to consider all means necessary to defeat Nigel Farage. We do not believe that it would be in the national interest that the leader of Reform should become prime minister. Trying to avert such an outcome, particularly if it were secured by about 30 per cent of the vote, would justify exceptional measures.

If Sir Keir is at that point such a drag on the Labour ticket that his continued leadership makes such an outcome more likely, then the question of replacing him will arise. For the next two years, however, leadership plotting is divisive, damaging and premature.

However much Mr Burnham may protest that his only desire is to help the government “go further and faster” in improving the country and to “communicate the difference it is making”, he will be the focus of such plotting. Sir Keir has been prime minister for just 18 months. He has made mistakes, and he has been forced to raise taxes to stabilise the public finances that were left to him in a frankly shameful state by Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt.

But replacing the prime minister now, even if it could be achieved with the minimum of fuss, which it could not, would do nothing to secure better government. On the contrary, it would present the Labour Party as a panicky, disunited rabble, and suggest that many of its leading figures had learned nothing from the instability of the Conservative Party changing prime ministers four times in six years.

As things stand, it is not even clear that Mr Burnham would be a better prime minister than Sir Keir. Mr Burnham may be a better communicator. He has a more relaxed and authentic style of speaking. He is unusually popular for a contemporary British politician, with a positive reputation in his northwestern heartland that is reflected in the rest of the country. He has a decent record as mayor of integrating public transport and of fighting for the interests of his city during the pandemic.

But these are superficial claims to the highest office. Mr Burnham has no alternative economic strategy — apart from hinting that he would like to borrow more to pay for even higher public spending. The smallest step in that direction would be disastrous for a country that needs to go the opposite way.

His record of ministerial office — he was health secretary for 11 months after brief tenures of more junior posts — was hardly so stellar that the nation is crying out for him as someone who could finally deliver some meaningful change.

If all that he has to offer is a fresh face and a different accent, then the time to do that might be much closer to the next election, when he has served his third term as mayor, and Sir Keir has been given a fair chance to prove himself.

If Labour’s national executive committee refuses to grant exceptional permission to allow a mayor to break his promise to the people of a city-region, it will be acting in the national interest. Now is not the time to undermine the prime minister.