Starmer urged to be more like Andy Burnham has become the defining refrain inside Labour after a by-election defeat so bruising it has reignited leadership doubts many believed had been buried after the party returned to power.
What was once Labour’s seventh-safest seat collapsed into a third-place humiliation, exposing strategic misjudgement, internal mistrust, and growing unease over the prime minister’s authority.
The fallout from Gorton and Denton has gone far beyond the loss of a single constituency. It has reopened unresolved questions about leadership style, political instinct, and whether Labour’s command-and-control approach is now actively repelling voters.
At the centre of the storm is Keir Starmer, facing not only external pressure but an unusually blunt intervention from his own deputy that many MPs privately describe as a “warning shot”.
The comments from Lucy Powell were striking for both their timing and their tone. Rather than offering the usual expressions of unity after defeat, Powell publicly suggested the prime minister needed to “learn from Andy” and “bring Andy more on board”, a remark that landed like a thunderclap inside Westminster.
For a deputy leader to question the judgment of a sitting prime minister so openly is rare, and it immediately fuelled speculation that Labour’s internal truce is fracturing.
Powell’s intervention carried additional weight because she was directly involved in the failed campaign and, crucially, the only member of Labour’s National Executive Committee to support allowing Andy Burnham to stand as the party’s candidate. Her admission that Burnham “probably would have won” has become a rallying cry for MPs furious that what they see as factional fear trumped electoral common sense.
Burnham’s shadow looms large over this crisis precisely because he represents an alternative Labour identity that many feel voters still recognise.
As mayor of Greater Manchester, he has cultivated a reputation for visibility, emotional engagement, and an instinctive connection with working-class communities.
He is seen as a politician who “shows up”, who speaks plainly, and who projects conviction rather than caution. In contrast, Starmer’s leadership is increasingly described by critics as technocratic, distant, and overly managed.
The decision to block Burnham from standing has now become emblematic of what many MPs describe as a leadership obsessed with control. Officially, the argument was that his candidacy would have forced a mayoral election Labour feared it might lose.
Unofficially, however, senior figures across the party acknowledge a deeper concern: that Burnham’s return to Westminster could have positioned him as a credible successor, or even an immediate rival.
That fear now looks badly misjudged. The Greens targeted the seat aggressively and emerged victorious, while Labour’s chosen candidate finished a distant third.
Powell herself acknowledged that Burnham’s presence would likely have deterred the challenge altogether, an admission that has only intensified anger among MPs who believe the defeat was “entirely avoidable”.
The winner, Hannah Spencer, has become a symbol of Labour’s broader vulnerability. Her victory has amplified concerns that progressive voters are drifting away from a party they increasingly view as cautious, compromised, and disconnected from grassroots priorities. For Labour strategists, the alarm is not simply the loss of one seat but the precedent it sets in urban constituencies once considered unassailable.
Inside the parliamentary party, the mood has shifted from shock to recrimination. MPs on the left argue that Starmer’s leadership has hollowed out Labour’s moral identity, alienating activists and voters alike.
Centrists, meanwhile, worry that the leadership’s instinct for tight control is undermining local campaigning and stifling political energy. What unites both camps is the sense that the Burnham decision encapsulated a deeper strategic failure.
The crisis has been compounded by fresh controversy surrounding Labour Together, the influential think tank closely associated with Starmer’s rise to power.
Subject access requests submitted by MPs seeking documents related to alleged efforts to monitor or smear critical journalists have reignited bitter memories of the internal battles that defined Labour’s recent past.
For many on the left, the episode confirms their belief that the leadership remains fixated on internal discipline rather than public persuasion.
The resignation of a Cabinet Office minister linked to Labour Together has only added to the sense of drift. While party officials insist there was no smear campaign and that external consultants were hired solely to investigate leaks, the damage has already been done.
The optics of internal surveillance, combined with electoral defeat, have reinforced a narrative of a leadership out of touch and on the defensive.
Starmer has vowed to “keep fighting” and insists the result, while disappointing, does not alter Labour’s broader mission. His allies argue that governing is inherently messy and that short-term setbacks should not obscure long-term progress.
They point to economic stability, legislative achievements, and the absence of credible challengers as evidence that the prime minister remains secure.
Yet among MPs, the private conversation is far less forgiving. Many believe the Gorton and Denton defeat marks a turning point, the moment when doubts about Starmer’s political instincts crystallised into open dissent. Powell’s remarks are widely seen not as a personal rebellion but as a reflection of sentiments shared quietly across the party.
The irony, as several MPs note, is that Burnham himself has said little. His silence has only enhanced his mystique, allowing supporters to project onto him an alternative future for Labour that feels more confident and emotionally resonant.
Whether he intends to seek a return to national politics remains unclear, but his very absence now speaks louder than any speech.
What is certain is that the phrase “Starmer urged to be more like Andy Burnham” is no longer a throwaway soundbite. It has become a shorthand for a deeper argument about what Labour stands for, how it wins elections, and whether its current leadership truly understands the voters it claims to represent.
Read also: Iran retaliation strategy under US-Israel war leaves Tehran with few viable options as regime fights for survival
As pressure mounts and patience thins, the by-election defeat is increasingly seen not as an isolated embarrassment but as a warning that Labour ignores at its peril.
About The Author
