The victory may be an aberration, not a blueprint
In a working-class English constituency with a century of Labour loyalty, a singular political figure held the line against a surging populist party — and the world's centre-left governments are taking notes. The Makerfield by-election offered Anthony Albanese a partial mirror of his own challenge: how to resist the gravitational pull of culture-war politics without being consumed by it. Yet the deeper lesson may be less about strategy than about the irreplaceable weight of trust — the kind that takes decades to build and cannot be borrowed from a playbook.
- Reform UK, riding high in national polls despite holding only eight parliamentary seats, threatened to turn a 120-year Labour stronghold into a symbol of establishment collapse.
- Andy Burnham defied the populist surge by refusing to engage on immigration, anchoring his campaign entirely to cost-of-living pressures — a discipline that mirrors Albanese's own approach to One Nation.
- Analysts warn the win may be a mirage: most Labour candidates would likely have lost, and Burnham's extraordinary personal reputation as the 'King of the North' was arguably the decisive variable.
- For Albanese, the result is both reassurance and caution — the messaging strategy holds, but only when the messenger already commands deep, earned public trust.
- With Australian and British elections still years away, both Reform UK and One Nation are positioning for power, and the centre-left's window to consolidate credibility is narrowing.
Anthony Albanese is watching British politics with more than passing interest. On Thursday, voters in Makerfield — a working-class corner of north-west England with 120 years of Labour loyalty — handed the deeply unpopular Starmer government a decisive by-election victory. The winner was Andy Burnham, former Manchester mayor and one of the most gifted communicators in British public life. His opponent represented Reform UK, a surging anti-establishment party that shares striking similarities with Australia's One Nation: both campaign on immigration as a cause of national decline, both are led by long-serving populist operators, and both command poll numbers far exceeding their parliamentary seats.
For Albanese, the result offers a potential playbook. Burnham focused relentlessly on cost-of-living pressures and refused to follow Reform UK onto the terrain of immigration and culture war. Politics professor Aurelien Mondon argues this restraint is essential — when mainstream parties engage populists on their chosen ground, they normalise the very grievances the far-right has manufactured, amplifying moral panics rather than defusing them. Albanese appears to be running a similar script: staying disciplined, trusting that bread-and-butter economics will ultimately matter more than culture-war provocations.
But analysts are quick to attach a significant caveat. Burnham is not a typical candidate. With sixteen years as an MP, ministerial experience, and a near-mythic status in northern England, he carried a weight of personal trust that few politicians possess — enough to overcome his own government's unpopularity. Experts broadly agree that almost any other Labour candidate would have lost Makerfield to Reform UK. The victory, then, may be an aberration rather than a blueprint.
The lesson for Albanese cuts both ways. Disciplined, issues-focused messaging works — but it works best when delivered by someone voters already deeply trust. Staying on message is necessary, but not sufficient. The messenger matters enormously, and Makerfield's result is a reminder that no strategy, however sound, can fully substitute for the kind of political capital that takes a lifetime to earn.
Anthony Albanese is watching Britain's political theatre with more than casual interest. On Thursday, voters in Makerfield—a working-class pocket of north-west England that has voted Labour for 120 years—handed the country's deeply unpopular government a decisive victory. The winner was Andy Burnham, a former Manchester mayor with a reputation as a gifted communicator. His opponent, Robert Kenyon, represented Reform UK, a surging anti-establishment party that has dominated national opinion polls for months and shares striking similarities with Australia's One Nation.
The parallels are hard to miss. Both Reform UK and One Nation campaign on immigration as a root cause of national decline. Both are led by long-serving political operators—Nigel Farage in Britain, Pauline Hanson in Australia—who style themselves as champions of ordinary people while maintaining a combative relationship with their own countries. Reform UK holds only eight seats in Parliament, yet polls show it as the top choice for many voters. One Nation, similarly, has become a force that cannot be ignored in Australian politics, despite limited parliamentary representation. Neither country has a national election looming soon—Australia's not until 2028, Britain's a year later—yet both populist parties are positioning themselves as ready to govern.
For Albanese, the Makerfield result offers a potential playbook. Burnham focused relentlessly on local concerns: the rising cost of living, the pressures on working families. When Reform UK tried to steer the conversation toward immigration, Burnham refused to follow. He stayed on message. He did not take the bait. Aurelien Mondon, a politics professor at the University of Bath, argues this restraint is crucial. Mainstream parties routinely stumble by engaging populists on their chosen terrain, he explains. When establishment politicians talk about immigration, transgender rights, or Islam—even to disagree—they normalize these as legitimate grievances. They amplify the very moral panics the far-right has manufactured. It becomes a vicious cycle that emboldens the opposition.
Albanese appears to be following a similar script at the national level. With nearly two years left in his government's term, he is playing a longer game, betting that his economic plan will persuade voters to return to Labour at the next election. Right now, Hanson's attack lines on immigration and multiculturalism seem to be gaining traction in parts of the country, but the Prime Minister may take some comfort in knowing his strategy aligns with Burnham's: stay disciplined, refuse to be drawn into the culture war, and trust that bread-and-butter issues will ultimately matter more.
But there is a catch, and it is a significant one. Burnham was not a typical candidate. He spent 16 years as an MP, served as a minister under Gordon Brown, and stood for the Labour leadership in 2015 before stepping back from national politics. He has become something of a legend in parts of England—the "King of the North." He is so personally popular that many expect him to soon challenge Prime Minister Keir Starmer for his job. In Makerfield, the Burnham factor was enough to get people to vote Labour despite the government's unpopularity. Stijn van Kessel, a professor of comparative politics at Queen Mary University of London, notes the by-election had a unique dynamic: Burnham was not a typical establishment candidate, even though he is an experienced politician running for the party in power. He was, in effect, a rebel within the system.
Here is where the warning emerges. Analysts widely accept that Labour would have lost Makerfield to Reform UK if it had run almost any other candidate. The victory, in other words, may be an aberration rather than a blueprint. It was won by a singular figure with extraordinary local appeal and a complicated relationship with his own government—not by a replicable strategy against right-wing populism. For Albanese, the lesson cuts both ways. The disciplined approach to messaging works, yes. But it works best when delivered by someone voters already trust and admire. The result in Makerfield suggests that staying on message is necessary but not sufficient. The messenger matters enormously. And Burnham's plan to eventually replace Starmer is probably not a model Albanese wants his own colleagues to follow.
Citações Notáveis
Mainstream parties routinely make the mistake of playing the far-right on their turf, normalizing the moral panics they push by talking about them, even to disagree— Aurelien Mondon, politics professor at University of Bath
This by-election had a unique dynamic because Burnham was seeking to replace the prime minister, making him not a typical establishment candidate despite being an experienced politician— Stijn van Kessel, professor of comparative politics at Queen Mary University of London
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
So Burnham won decisively, but you're saying it might not mean much for Albanese?
Exactly. The victory was real, but it was built on Burnham himself—his reputation, his popularity in the North. Take him out of the equation and Labour likely loses that seat to Reform UK.
But didn't Burnham do something smart tactically? Staying focused on cost of living instead of engaging on immigration?
He did, and that's the part Albanese is already copying. Both leaders are refusing to let populists set the terms of debate. But the question is whether that strategy works without a candidate who already has deep roots and genuine affection in their community.
So the warning is that you can't just adopt a tactic and expect it to work everywhere?
Right. Burnham had 16 years in Parliament, was a minister, nearly led the party. He's trusted. He's known. A generic Labour candidate running the same campaign would have lost. The message discipline matters, but the credibility of the messenger matters more.
Does Albanese have that kind of personal standing against One Nation?
That's the open question. He's been Prime Minister for a few years now, but One Nation's appeal is partly about distrust of establishment figures. Albanese is the establishment. So his strategy of staying focused on economic management might work, but it's not the same as Burnham's personal brand working in his favor.
What happens if it doesn't work?
Then Australia learns what Britain almost learned: that you can't simply out-message populism. You need voters to already believe in you.