Article
The victory of Andy Burnham in Makerfield and the resignation of Keir Starmer have undoubtedly transformed the political landscape. Labour now faces a leadership election that will determine who leads both the party and the Government into the second half of this Parliament and onto the next general election expected as late as 2029. Yet amidst the speculation about personalities, factions and future direction, there is one important point that Labour members, ministers and MPs should remember: a change of leader does not change the mandate on which Labour was elected in 2024.
The Labour Party won the 2024 General Election on a clear manifesto, and every Labour MP must deliver on that manifesto. That document committed Labour to making Brexit work, not reversing it, or altering it, or watering it down. That manifesto clearly ruled out rejoining the European Union, ruled out returning to the Single Market, ruled out re-entering the Customs Union and ruled out the return of freedom of movement. Those commitments were not hidden in the small print. They formed a central and exclusive part of Labour's offer to the British people and successive Labour figures have repeated those commitments, including both Keir Starmer and Andy Burnham.
The reason was simple. Labour understood that the country wanted to move on from the Brexit divisions. After years of fighting and arguing, voters were exhausted by the Brexit debate. Whether they voted Leave or Remain, most people wanted politicians to focus on economic growth, public services, living standards and national renewal. Labour's success came not from promising to revisit the arguments of the past but from promising to address the challenges of the future. That reality has not changed because Keir Starmer has resigned. Nor has it changed because Andy Burnham has returned to Westminster.
Indeed, if there is one lesson from Burnham's success, it is that Labour remains strongest when it speaks to a broad coalition of voters that includes many former Leave supporters. The coalition that delivered Labour's majority stretches across metropolitan cities, market towns, former industrial communities and suburban England. It includes millions of voters who backed Brexit and who subsequently supported Labour because they believed the party had accepted the democratic settlement established by the 2016 referendum. As well as remain voters who, democratically and honourably accepted the outcome of the referendum. To abandon that position now would be politically reckless.
There are some within Labour and outside who will inevitably argue that a leadership contest presents an opportunity to revisit Britain's relationship with the European Union. They will point to some opinion polls showing increased support for closer ties with Europe. Although polls have also shown that the British people do not wish to return powers to Brussels. Others will argue that a new leader should pursue deeper integration as part of a broader economic strategy. Such arguments fundamentally misunderstand both the electoral and political realities facing the Labour Party.
The principal threat to Labour's future does not come from voters demanding a return to the European Union. It comes from the growing strength of Reform UK in many of the very constituencies Labour needs to retain if it is to secure a second term in office.
Reform's appeal is rooted in a belief among many voters that political elites have failed to respect democratic decisions and have become disconnected from public concerns. Whatever one's views of Reform, it would be a profound mistake to hand that party an argument that Labour intends to dilute or reverse Brexit by stealth further strengthening their argument that the elites ignore the electorate. The consequences could be severe and fatal to Labour.
Labour's parliamentary majority was built in part upon winning back voters who had abandoned the party in 2019. Many of those voters remain sceptical of Westminster and deeply attached to the principle that the referendum result should be respected. If Labour were seen to be retreating from its manifesto commitments on Europe, Reform would have a powerful narrative around which to organise opposition. The danger is not merely electoral. It is also about trust.
One of the reasons Labour succeeded in rebuilding its reputation before the 2024 election was because it demonstrated a willingness to listen to voters. It accepted that Brexit had happened and committed itself to making the new settlement work. That helped restore credibility among people who had previously concluded that Labour was unwilling to respect decisions with which it disagreed.
None of this means Labour should adopt a hostile attitude towards Europe. Britain and the European Union remain important partners. Cooperation on security, defence, scientific research, energy policy and trade is entirely sensible and in the national interest. Constructive engagement with our European neighbours is not only desirable but necessary. However, cooperation is not the same thing as reintegration. The next Labour leader should be free to improve practical cooperation where it benefits Britain. They should be free to reduce unnecessary barriers and strengthen relationships with European partners. They should remain free to strike trade deals, such as those already achieved by the government with the Gulf States, India, the United States. What they should not do is reopen questions that the party explicitly settled before the election. That distinction matters because Labour's credibility depends upon keeping its promises.
A leadership election should be a debate about how best to deliver economic growth, improve public services, tackle housing shortages and raise living standards. It should not become a vehicle for reopening old arguments about Brexit that the country has already decided. Anyone seeking to resurrect those old Brexit arguments is damaging the Labour Party. Ultimately, the lesson of both Labour's election victory and Burnham's success is that broad coalitions are built through trust, competence and respect for voters. The party won because it promised stability and change within clear boundaries. Those boundaries included a commitment to respect Brexit while making it work in Britain's interests. That commitment remains just as important today as it was on polling day.
New leaders may emerge. New priorities may develop. New challenges will certainly arise. We don’t know how many people will stand for the position of Leader. But the democratic mandate on which Labour was elected remains unchanged, unless a new general election is sought with a new mandate. If Labour wishes to go on to secure a second term in government, it should focus relentlessly on delivering growth, opportunity and renewal. The path to victory lies in fulfilling the promises it has already made, not revisiting the arguments it has already settled.
