Political Betting: Bet on Reform in Makerfield (But Not Very Much)

Political Betting is a new weekly column by Mark Littlewood aimed at people who like gambling on politics.

In just under a month we will know the result of the most consequential by-election in decades. The outcome in Makerfield will set us on one of two trajectories – either Andy Burnham becoming Prime Minister in short order (possibly even via a coronation) or a full-blown meltdown in the Labour Party which could have any number of effects, none of them good for the government.

On paper the seat is a routine gain for Reform. A modest 7% swing from Labour would give Nigel Farage’s party its ninth MP. Having managed more than twice such a swing in Runcorn a year ago as well as a 20% swing from Labour to Reform in Gorton and Denton (despite coming second to the Greens), the only issue at stake should be guessing the scale of Reform’s victory.

But for a multitude of reasons, this by-election is radically different to anything we have ever known. Four almost imponderable factors will determine the result. What you make of these factors will determine how you should bet.

First, the Burnham effect. The typical rule of thumb is that the identity of the candidate makes precious little difference to a party’s vote share. There are occasional and impressive exceptions, but it is a rarity for the reputation of a standard bearer (even a popular incumbent MP) to add more than about 1,000 votes to his or her overall tally.

Burnham is clearly one of the exceptions and potentially by a truly enormous margin. One poll suggests if he were Labour leader, the party’s nationwide support would zoom to 30%, putting it a few points ahead of Reform. Tentative polling evidence from the Gorton and Denton by-election suggests Labour would have won the seat rather than coming a dreadful third if the Manchester mayor had been allowed to be the candidate.

Whether this spectacular level of personal popularity is transitory – perhaps based on voters projecting onto him the sort of Prime Minister they’d like to see – or permanent remains to be seen. But, for the time being at least, it appears real. The question is whether that is enough to overcome the 2:1 ratio by which Reform beat Labour in the local elections just a fortnight ago. That seems possible, but also doubtful.

The second factor is, I think, of much greater significance. The line that worked so well for Farage on May 7th was “Vote Reform – Kick Starmer Out”. In these crazy political times, Labour in Makerfield have effectively adopted that slogan for themselves. If your overriding priority as a voter is the swift removal of the PM, you might reasonably conclude that a vote for Burnham is the best way to achieve that.   

However, this is where I’m unconvinced. I’m not sure the novel campaigning technique of urging people to vote for a party in order to remove its own leader can survive contact with reality over the course of the campaign. All Westminster watchers know what the Burnham strategy is. But how is he going to explain it in simple terms on the doorstep? One can imagine voters asking, ‘I might just vote for you if you promise you will do everything possible to remove Keir Starmer if you win.’ What is the response to this perfectly reasonable enquiry? The Burnham strategy thus far seems to be to try and communicate his message through a mixture of telepathy, nods and winks. The good people of Makerfield might find this a bit too clever by half and decide they don’t want to help a politician who is attempting to play nine-dimensional chess behind a lot of smoke and a fair few mirrors.

Third, there are surely a number of very powerful people in the Labour Party who wish Burnham to lose. This might well include other potential leadership candidates and almost certainly the Prime Minister himself, whose thin chances of survival evaporate entirely if Burnham is back in the Commons. One wag has suggested that if Starmer is truly determined to see Andy Burnham defeated then he should relocate immediately to Makerfield and campaign for him day and night – a Labour collapse at the ballot box would then surely be guaranteed. Whether these anti-Burnham Labour types can meaningfully dent his chances is unclear – but I wouldn’t be surprised if the Labour HQ machine and bank account are deployed with minimal enthusiasm.

Fourth, there is the wild card of Restore Britain, which was first out of the blocks to announce its candidate. Here, we really are flying blind in attempting to guess its vote haul. Amazingly, some bookmakers are quoting as short as 5/1 for Restore’s Rebecca Shepherd to actually win the seat. A bit of me suspects that her odds have tumbled because a large number of Restore activists have had a flutter as a sympathy bet. Odds on outsiders can tumble quite quickly with only fairly modest sums staked. I find it hard to credit that she really has a 17% of being Makerfield’s next MP.

Nevertheless, a very modest showing by Restore (even if it just amounted to holding its deposit with 5% of the vote) might be enough to prevent a Reform victory. Robert Kenyon, the Reform candidate, could certainly do with an early poll showing him as the only credible challenger to Burnham and then deploy this to squeeze the Restore vote.

My sense at this stage is that Makerfield is a coin flip between Burnham and Reform. Given the former is priced at a general 4/7 and the latter at around 5/2, this makes a bet on Farage’s party an attractive one. I’m particularly influenced by the second factor, that it seems possible Burnham’s messaging is too vague, too nuanced, too confusing and might – just might – implode over the coming weeks.

Nevertheless, I readily accept that any outcome from a handsome Burnham victory to a woeful and pitiful defeat is possible. I’m going to place a bet but keep my stake pretty low.

Mark Littlewood is a former director of the Institute of Economic Affairs and the Director of PopCon.