When Popularity Becomes a Liability

Coming back to write is usually a great treat for me, rich with fabulous witticisms, plays on words, and unrivalled analysis (largely because I wouldn’t say this blog really has any rivalries as such).

I return, however, with great frustration and anger at the decisions made by my Party. The Labour Party has been in power for a year and a half now, haemorrhaging membership and isolating supporters far and wide.

Yes, change takes time and to expect everything to be fixed by now is naïve. Additionally, I am under no illusions at the scale of work being done at central government and by Labour Mayors and Local Authorities across the country, with some fantastic legislation such as that around: devolution, renters rights, the NHS, and workers rights having been passed. But these will all take time to pay dividends and, until then, we have to at least look like we’re listening to an increasingly (and understandably) disgruntled electorate.

The Labour Party is polling at around 20%. People don’t feel listened to, their lives haven’t (yet) improved, and I’m sorry to say that this unpopularity looks for all the world like it is going to be a weight too heavy for Keir Starmer to carry into the next election. If we are led into 2029 by Starmer, it is my view at present that we will lose: no matter the improvements between now and then. The dice has been cast already, and it’s come up 1’s in the eyes of millions. While prophecy is dangerous in the world of politics, it’s hard to see a different outcome, even now.

To my mind, then, the best hope we have as a Party of winning the next election goes beyond delivery; It veers towards personality. This is something sadly lacking within the Parliamentary Labour Party, but there is one obvious contender to move towards and that is Andy Burnham: mayor of Greater Manchester and the most popular current Labour Politician by a country mile.

That’s why when he was rejected as the Labour candidate for the Gorton and Denton by-election, I couldn’t help but feel that Keir Starmer had reneged on an earlier, crucial promise: country first, party second. Let me explain.

A country first decision is one that maximises public trust, democratic legitimacy, and the likelihood of effective governance: even when that decision is inconvenient, uncomfortable, or internally destabilising. It prioritises connection over control and persuasion over choreography. By any reasonable reading of those criteria, blocking Andy Burnham from standing fails the test sensationally.

At a basic electoral level, selecting a candidate with demonstrable public appeal is not a risk to be mitigated but an asset to be deployed. Burnham’s popularity is not abstract or manufactured, nor is it limited to Greater Manchester. Rather, it is explicitly visible in repeated, visible acts of political leadership that have resonated far beyond the boundaries of his mayoralty. To prevent such a figure from standing in a parliamentary contest is not prudence but rather a wilful refusal to capitalise on political capital that the country itself has already conferred, and the refusal speaks volumes of the attitude of the Labour leadership: protect themselves at the cost of electability.

The NEC decision prioritises internal party management over external democratic engagement. The argument, implicit or otherwise, appears to be that Burnham’s presence would complicate existing hierarchies, unsettle leadership dynamics, or introduce an alternative locus of authority within the Parliamentary Labour Party. But those are party problems, not country problems. Crucially, when resolving the former comes at the expense of the latter, the powerful slogan of ‘Change’ collapses into branding and increasingly less persuasive propaganda rather than a principle to live and govern by.

If the country truly comes first, then the presence of a popular, trusted, and electorally proven Labour figure in Parliament should be welcomed, not feared. That it is not speaks volumes about where the centre of gravity currently lies.

There is also a deeper democratic issue at play, blocking Burnham sends a clear signal to members and voters alike that popularity is only acceptable when it is centrally sanctioned and that grassroots affection is tolerable only when it aligns neatly with leadership strategy. This corrodes faith not just in the Party’s judgement, but in its sincerity which has already taken multiple blows since Starmer became leader. People are asked to campaign, to vote, to donate, and to believe while being shown that their instincts about who represents them best can be overridden without any real legitimate explanation. That is not a country first posture, it is a managerial one much like that which plagued the Major years, and we all know how that ended.

 What’s more disheartening is that, at a time of deep political disaffection, trust is Labour’s scarcest resource. Every decision that appears to close ranks rather than open doors reinforces the perception of a Party talking inwardly while the electorate talks past it. Preventing a figure like Burnham from entering Parliament does not neutralise risk; it amplifies alienation and only gives ammunition and depressing legitimacy to the toxic populist sentiment of Reform.

The irony, of course, is that this instinct is often justified in the language of responsibility, seriousness, and discipline. However, seriousness without openness quickly curdles into suspicion, and understandably so. A party confident in its mission does not fear internal plurality but it absorbs it. A party secure in its leadership does not block popular figures but integrates them.

Finally, what this rather sorry episode ultimately reveals is a troubling inversion of priorities. The country first approach would ask “who best embodies Labour’s values in a way people recognise and trust?” The party first approach asks, “who best preserves internal equilibrium?” The answer given here is unmistakably the latter.

We sit in a dangerous political moment where Labour desperately needs to look outward: to rebuild belief, enthusiasm, and emotional connection. The choice to block Burnham, therefore, feels not just mistaken, but profoundly short-sighted because politics does not punish parties for being too open nearly as often as it punishes them for being too closed.

So let us continue to promote and celebrate the great legislative achievements of our Party and take some solace in that the best is yet to come in terms of results. However, let us also not be afraid to stand up when something is wrong, to make our voices heard, and be unapologetic in calling out a wrong decision. We shouldn’t have to justify the missteps, we need to own them and stand up to them.