It is a sign that the political deck of cards is stacked against you when the only good hand is one that was never really going to be dealt. And so it was with Keir Starmer and Andy Burnham.
In an ideal world for the prime minister, Andrew Gwynne’s announcement that he was stepping down from his Gorton and Denton seat would have been followed by Burnham saying he already had a job as Greater Manchester mayor and would sit this one out, thanks very much.
But given the inevitably of Burnham taking up a rare chance to get back into Westminster politics, Starmer was faced instead with two fairly terrible choices: block him, and be accused of partisan control-freakery; or allow the candidacy and put the matter in the hands of fate.
It is worth noting that if Labour’s national executive committee (NEC) had granted Burnham his wish, this would have been just the first step in the process: the mayor would have had to get the local party’s backing and actually win the seat before arriving in parliament as a shiny would-be heir apparent.
But the NEC’s decision, which is in effect No 10’s, seemingly places an absolute full-stop on this chronology. It is perhaps not much of a surprise, given that for all his reputation for U-turning on national policy, when it comes to internal party matters Starmer is generally decisive, even ruthless.
Within weeks of becoming Labour leader in 2020, Starmer banished Rebecca Long-Bailey, the leftwinger who came second in the leadership contest, from his shadow cabinet amid a controversy about antisemitism.
Later that year, Jeremy Corbyn, whom Starmer replaced as leader, was suspended from the party, also over a dispute about antisemitism, never to return.
But Sunday’s decision carries notably greater risks. Starmer is no longer the bright-eyed new captain tasked by members with steering Corbyn’s listing ship off the rocks. Yes, he won an improbable and decisive election victory just 18 months ago, but Labour are now tanking in the polls while Starmer’s personal rating with the public is not far off Liz Truss levels.
There are, in fact, some perfectly good political reasons why Burnham abandoning his mayoralty for a tilt at parliament would not be an entirely good idea, set out with vehemence by allies of Starmer.
These include the sheer costs of a mayoral byelection and associated Labour campaign just halfway though a four-year term, what some see as the damage caused by a divisive Reform campaign, and then the destabilising impact of a man whose ambitions are very obvious sitting on the Labour benches in the Commons.
But on the other side of the ledger sits a series of risks and consequences that Starmer will now face. The first, to be thrown at him repeatedly by Labour and opposition critics alike, is that the move shows him to be weak, more focused on protecting his job than finding ways to boost Labour’s chances.
It is true that Burnham’s reputation in Westminster has been enhanced by nothing quite so much as his absence from it for nearly a decade, but he has proved an adept mayor, carving out a distinct, left-leaning but growth-focused Labour strand of what he termed last week as “Manchesterism”.
As a totemic figure in the north-west he would have been expected to win the byelection. If a less substantial candidate is picked and the seat falls to Reform UK, the repercussions for Starmer could be grim.
At the national level, this is the increasing worry among many Labour MPs and ministers: they see Starmer as simply unable to resurrect the party and hold off what is viewed by them as the utterly terrifying prospect of a Reform government.
Perhaps more than anything else, that is what they want to stop, and if they believe Starmer cannot do it, they will turn to someone else. For now it will not be Burnham. But this is merely a debate delayed, not ended.
