All over the democratic world, the mainstream parties of the centre-Left and centre-Right are desperately looking for the antidote to the populist Left and Right – especially to the Right, which is the bigger threat to them. Nowhere have they succeeded in this quest.

But, post-Makerfield, the Labour Party now thinks that in Andy Burnham it’s discovered the holy grail – that he’s the man to take on those nasty, insurgent populists and win. It should prepare to be disappointed before the year is out.

True, it was a resounding victory. In a constituency which voted strongly Brexit in the 2016 referendum and which only last month saw Reform UK sweep the local elections with a 20 per cent lead over Labour, Burnham romped home in Thursday’s by-election with a formidable 55 per cent of the vote, a good 20 percentage points ahead of Reform.

He was helped by a lacklustre Reform candidate, whose selection was indicative of the general lack of professionalism that still bedevils Reform UK, and the spoiling presence of Restore, Rupert Lowe’s egocentric escapade on the further Right.

But even if the populist Right had been united Burnham would still have walked it.

So it’s hard to blame Labour for seeing Burnham as the answer to their prayers and to be anxious to replace Keir Starmer with him, pronto.

After all, what have Labour MPs in particular, most of whom are on course to lose their seats at the next election on the current trajectory of politics, got to lose?

Nothing, as it happens. But that doesn’t make Burnham the messiah from Manchester, the saviour who can rescue Labour from political oblivion. Just because he thumped Reform in Makerfield doesn’t mean he can beat it nationally.

The by-election was in his own backyard. He’s the popular mayor of Greater Manchester, the local lad who speaks human with a northern accent.

Moreover, Makerfield brought together a unique confluence of political sentiments: you could vote for Burnham if you were anti-Reform and anti-Starmer.

That explains why he swept up just about all the votes on the Left – the Lib Dems and the Greens could barely muster one per cent of the vote between them. He’s unlikely to enjoy such an advantage ever again, locally or nationally.

Consider what happened in another by-election on Thursday. The Tories won an equally resounding victory in Aberdeen South, with a 50 per cent share of the vote to the SNP’s 29 per cent, a brutal bloody nose for the Nationalists.

Just as Makerfield was dominated by local factors, so was Aberdeen South, a constituency which feels badly let down by the SNP’s hostility to North Sea oil and gas.

Just as the Tories can’t hope to replicate Aberdeen South on a national scale, Labour can’t hope to repeat Makerfield nationally.

The difference is the Tories realise that. Labour doesn’t.

The Westminster consensus is that the scale of Burnham’s victory means nothing can now stop him becoming our next prime minister – perhaps within days or weeks rather than months.

Fair enough. But it doesn’t mean, in the words of an old Labour campaign song, ‘Things can only get better’. They’re just as likely to get worse.

The risk with Burnham is that he’ll join the long, depressing line of recent politicians of middling-to-minor talents and little aptitude for power who thought they were good enough to be prime minister – and quickly discovered they were not, to all our costs. Theresa May, Liz Truss, Boris Johnson and Keir Starmer all fit into this category. And we could soon be adding Burnham to that list.

This parade of the mediocre explains why we’ve had five (soon to be six) prime ministers in the last decade, whereas we got by on only five in the previous 37 years.

I’ve grown increasingly amazed in recent years at the spectacle of the second- and third-raters who think they have it in them to be PM – when even their mothers realise they don’t.

There are reasons to be especially gloomy about Burnham.

Starmer has failed as prime minister because he omitted to do the necessary preparation for power in opposition. He was swept in on a wave of anti-Tory sentiment – not because he had policies anything like commensurate with the scale of the country’s troubles. But Burnham is even less prepared for power than Starmer.

He has no agenda for change (despite all his talk about change), no blueprint for power, no team of the best and brightest to implement it if he had (unless you think Louise Haigh, Angela Rayner, Ed Miliband and Lisa Nandy fit that bill).

Nearly every attempt to carve out distinct policy positions – from a cavalier attitude to government debt to rejoining the European Union to the billions for the Waspi women – have ended in screeching U-turns.

His whole schtick is based on a false narrative. He rails against ‘40 years of neoliberalism’, whatever that means, forbearing to mention he was comfortably embedded in Westminster for 16 of these 40 years, enthusiastically climbing the greasy pole, making it to the Cabinet.

He claims he returned to Manchester disillusioned with Westminster ways to create a new politics in the North. In truth, he left with his tail between his legs after two failed attempts to become Labour leader.

In a victory speech in the early hours of Friday morning, which indicated he’s not quite the great communicator his cheerleaders claim, he spoke in cliches about Makerfield being a ‘turning point’, claimed ‘politics isn’t working’ and that this was a ‘final chance to change’.

Change, of course, is every coming politician’s buzz word. None of them seeks power by saying: ‘Vote for me and I promise nothing will change’. But he spoke as if Labour’s landslide victory in July 2024 had never happened, which is disingenuous.

Yet there is nothing in his track record to suggest he can be more of an agent for change than Starmer. Being mayor of Manchester with very limited powers and a £3billion budget does not prepare you for being prime minister with immense power, a £1.4trillion budget and a nuclear deterrent.

He held three Cabinet posts in three years (Treasury, Culture, Health) but wasn’t in any of them long enough to touch the sides.

We have no idea what he thinks about the great geopolitical issues of our age – the growing Russian threat, the shambles that is Trump’s War in the Gulf, the hollowing out of our armed forces, the future of Nato without America.

During the by-election, he said he’d stick to Labour’s existing fiscal rules and cleave broadly to the 2024 manifesto. He was forced to do so to keep the bond markets sweet and to avoid embarrassing demands for a General Election to seek his own mandate for more radical change.

But it does rather spike his musings about a massive council house programme or a national social care service, both of which would cost tens of billions.

Within hours of his victory, he and his party were given a stark reminder of the straitjacket in which they have to operate: the Government borrowed £23.3billion last month, 30 per cent more than last May and almost £6billion above the official forecast.

Interest paid on the national debt came to almost £12billion – in one month! Just a small dose of the harsh realities waiting to greet him in 10 Downing Street.

British politics has been hijacked by the internal machinations of the Labour Party in its desperate bid to hold on to power.

Unnecessary by-elections are called for the convenience of a favoured son; Manchester is forced into an equally unnecessary and expensive mayoral election; national government is suspended to stage a leadership contest.

Unless, of course, Starmer can be persuaded to fall on his sword, in which case the unseemly sight of a political coronation, over which we will have no say, will be inflicted on us.

Labour is taking us back to the early 19th century when politics was largely determined by a small political class of the posh and privileged.

Now it’s a small, privileged political class of Labour MPs, activists and union leaders calling the shots.

They think they’ve stumbled upon the holy grail. It is more likely to end up an unholy mess.