Key Takeaways
- The Makerfield by‑election in north‑west England saw Labour’s Andy Burnham defeat Reform UK, a right‑wing populist party that mirrors Australia’s One Nation in rhetoric and policy focus.
- Burnham’s win was driven by a disciplined focus on local economic concerns (cost of living) and a deliberate refusal to engage Reform UK’s immigration‑centred talking points.
- Reform UK’s leader Nigel Farage and One Nation’s Pauline Hanson share long‑time populist profiles, framing themselves as champions of “the people” while blaming immigration for national woes.
- Experts warn that merely opposing far‑right narratives can unintentionally legitimise them; the safer route is to stay on one’s own policy agenda and avoid amplifying the opposition’s frames.
- Although Burnham’s personal popularity (“the King of the North”) played a decisive role, analysts view the result as an aberration rather than a reproducible formula for beating populist right‑wing forces.
- For Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, the UK episode offers a cautionary lesson: emphasizing economic plans and local issues can help, but relying on a star candidate’s personal brand may not be scalable or advisable in the Australian context.
The UK By‑Election Context
On Thursday, voters in Makerfield, a historically safe Labour seat in north‑west England, delivered a resounding victory to Andy Burnham, the former mayor of Manchester and a senior Labour figure. The contest was widely watched as a barometer of the nation’s mood amid rising support for Reform UK, the anti‑establishment, right‑wing party led by Nigel Farage. Reform UK had topped national polls for months, echoing the surge experienced by Pauline Hanson’s One Nation in Australia. Despite the constituency’s long‑standing Labour allegiance, early campaign assessments suggested Reform UK stood a genuine chance to upset the incumbent, especially given the party’s success in framing immigration and cultural anxieties as central voter concerns.
Burnham’s Victory Over Reform UK
Andy Burnham secured a crushing win, relegating Reform UK’s candidate, local councillor and plumber Robert Kenyon, to a distant second place. Burnham’s campaign emphasized everyday economic pressures—particularly the rising cost of living—while deliberately sidestepping the immigration debate that Reform UK sought to foreground. Kenyon, whose candidacy was hampered by controversial social‑media posts from the 2010s (including a blunt admission of sexism), struggled to translate his unpolished, “everyman” image into votes against Burnham’s seasoned communication skills. The result underscored how a clear, locally relevant message can neutralise a populist challenger’s attempts to shift the narrative toward identity‑based grievances.
Reform UK’s Parallels with One Nation
Reform UK and Australia’s One Nation share striking ideological similarities. Both parties position themselves as outsiders challenging a perceived liberal elite, blame immigration for economic and social strains, and champion a fervent, patriotic vision of national sovereignty. Nigel Farage, Reform UK’s leader, rose to prominence during the 2016 Brexit referendum and continues to style himself as a defender of “the people,” much like Pauline Hanson, who has cultivated a similar image over decades of Australian politics. Despite modest parliamentary representation—Reform UK holds only eight seats in the UK House of Commons—national polls consistently place it atop voter preferences, mirroring One Nation’s recent dominance in Australian opinion surveys.
Farage, Hanson and Populist Tactics
Farage and Hanson employ a familiar populist playbook: they frame themselves as authentic voices of ordinary citizens while routinely criticising their own countries’ institutions and multicultural policies. Their rhetoric often highlights perceived threats from immigration, transgender rights, and free‑speech restrictions, thereby mobilising anxieties that resonate with working‑class constituencies. By repeatedly foregrounding these issues, they succeed in shifting the political agenda toward cultural conflict, even when their opponents attempt to refute the claims. This dynamic creates a feedback loop where discussing the far‑right’s concerns—regardless of intent—can amplify their salience and legitimise their framing in the public eye.
Why Burnham Succeeded: Staying on Message
According to Aurelien Mondon, a politics professor at the University of Bath, mainstream parties often err by “playing the far‑right on their turf.” When Labour candidates engage directly on immigration or identity topics, they inadvertently validate the far‑right’s moral panics. Burnham avoided this trap by anchoring his campaign in tangible, local economic concerns—housing costs, wages, and public services—that directly affected Makerfield residents. By refusing to be drawn into Reform UK’s immigration‑centred debate, he denied the opposition the opportunity to frame the election as a culture war, instead keeping the focus on issues where Labour traditionally holds credibility. This disciplined messaging proved effective in neutralising Reform UK’s appeal.
The “Burnham Factor” and Its Limits
Burnham’s personal brand—earned through sixteen years as an MP, a stint in Gordon Brown’s government, and his popular tenure as Manchester mayor—gave him a distinctive advantage. Dubbed the “King of the North,” his widespread likability helped Labour overcome structural disadvantages in a seat that might otherwise have been vulnerable to Reform UK. Stijn van Kessel, professor of comparative politics at Queen Mary University of London, notes that the by‑election lacked the typical ruling‑party‑versus‑opposition dynamic because Burnham was actually positioning himself to challenge Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Consequently, his victory may reflect an idiosyncratic “candidate effect” rather than a transferable strategy for defeating populist right‑wing parties. Analysts caution that replicating this outcome would require a similarly high‑profile, personally popular figure—a resource not readily available to most parties.
Implications for Anthony Albanese and Australian Politics
For Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, the UK experience offers both encouragement and a warning. Albanese’s current approach—emphasising a national economic plan, cost‑of‑living relief, and gradual reforms—mirrors Burnham’s focus on bread‑and‑butter issues rather than engaging One Nation’s immigration‑centric narrative. If sustained, this strategy could help win back voters disenchanted with rising living costs without amplifying One Nation’s framing. However, the reliance on a singular charismatic figure to counter populist appeal, as seen with Burnham, is less feasible in Australia’s broader electoral landscape, where no single ALP politician currently enjoys comparable nationwide star power.
Cautionary Notes: Not a Blueprint
Experts stress that the Makerfield result should not be read as a definitive formula for defeating far‑right populism. The by‑election’s “unique dynamic”—Burnham’s ambition to replace the sitting prime minister—meant voters were evaluating a potential future leader rather than merely endorsing the incumbent government. In a standard election, where the ruling party’s candidate defends the status quo, Labour might have fared worse against Reform UK. Thus, while staying on economic message is advisable, expecting a similar victory simply by avoiding far‑right topics overlooks the role of candidate popularity, local context, and the specific timing of the contest.
Conclusion: Lessons and Risks
The Makerfield by‑election illustrates that a disciplined, issue‑focused campaign can blunt the advance of a populist right‑wing challenger, especially when the opposing candidate sidesteps the far‑right’s preferred cultural battlegrounds. For Albanese, the takeaway is to continue prioritising concrete economic policies and local concerns while resisting the temptation to debate One Nation’s immigration and multiculturalism frames on their terms. Yet, the UK case also serves as a reminder that personal charisma and idiosyncratic electoral dynamics can heavily influence outcomes; relying on such factors alone is risky. A sustainable strategy will combine steady economic messaging with robust grassroots organisation, ensuring that the ALP’s appeal rests on policy substance rather than the fleeting allure of any single star politician.