There’s a new bit of jargon coming to Westminster. We’ve had soft left, hard left, new right, old right – now it’s the turn of the “democratic left”, a designation that might come to define the group of people who want Andy Burnham to be the next prime minister. No, they haven’t gone away, and they are organising and thinking about who could succeed the Starmer project, as Labour heads into the Scottish, Welsh and local elections on 7 May.

The term derives from a forthcoming paper titled “What is the Soft Left?” from Compass, the progressive pressure group that describes itself as “Andy Burnham curious”. One way to read the paper is as an attempt to fit Burnham’s so-called Manchesterism into the party’s long history, aligning it with the fortunes of the traditional soft left – a faction that has always felt it represented the heart of the party, even if it could never quite control it. The “soft left” label emerged in the early 1980s to describe Labour MPs who were left-wing but opposed Tony Benn’s attempt to challenge Denis Healey for the deputy leadership, which he had done against the express wishes of Michael Foot, the party’s then leader.

Since then, however, the soft left’s story has broadly been one of failure, from the doomed Bryan Gould leadership campaign of 1992 through to the summary humiliations of the leading soft-left ministers under this government (Angela Rayner, Louise Haigh, Ed Miliband, Lisa Nandy, Lucy Powell). After failure, why not try a rebrand? The “democratic left” encompasses those who endorse Burnham’s proposed solution to Britain’s and Labour’s problems: more democracy.

More democracy in the electoral system, in the regions, in the workplace and in the Labour Party. Its believers gravitate towards the Mainstream group, which was set up with Burnham’s endorsement and is often described as a campaign vehicle for him. (Which is incorrect because Mainstream’s commitment to democratisation is such that it won’t endorse any Labour leadership or deputy leadership candidates without a members’ ballot.) Burnham’s plan is just as radical, if not more so, than the dreams of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell – they never contemplated abandoning the first-past-the-post electoral system.

But it’s quite a lot to stomach for a chunk of the soft left. Traditionally, this wing of the party has sought to ameliorate conditions for voters within the confines of a political system that has broadly worked for them. These so-called Labourists, who are associated with the big, broad Tribune group, and are wary of plans that look too grand, have not yet boarded the democratic left train.

Yet – to stretch the analogy – they are reserving their carriages on board. Their support will be required to make Burnham PM. Burnham’s ultras still remain a relatively small group in Labour – he doesn’t have a particularly large following of loyal MPs.

He has been away from Westminster for a long time and those that do remember him recall something quite different from the casually dressed mayor of today. But something has changed since the Gorton and Denton by-election. There are now dozens of Gorton-esque seats where Labour incumbents can all too vividly imagine themselves being torn apart by left and right alternatives at the next election if things carry on as they are.

If Burnham could have saved Labour in Gorton – as the pre- and post-by-election polls claim – then maybe he could save them, too. This is where we might – with all the obvious caveats – draw a comparison with Boris Johnson, as Burnham’s enemies at the top of the party did when he last attempted to gain a seat, calling him an egotistical mayor who thinks he can do the top job. The sharper point of comparison might be that Tory backbenchers remained deeply suspicious of the popular Johnson for years before they eventually turned to him in a moment of desperation, when they were polling in fourth place after the disastrous local and European elections of spring 2019.

There are those in Labour pondering whether a post-Starmer leadership would be like that of the Tories in 2019, after years of Theresa May government, or that of late 2022, after weeks of Liz Truss. In one case the party had a terribly unpopular leader but was able to salvage its own reputation when it replaced her. In the other case, the damage was irreparable and may yet prove terminal.

The stalemate remains, but Burnham’s allies are now discussing what they call the “nuclear option”: when the next vacancy for a winnable Commons seat arises, Burnham should announce that he is resigning the Greater Manchester mayoralty and then seek selection as a Labour candidate. It would obfuscate the need for another request for a National Executive Committee (NEC) waiver and neutralise what was previously the strongest argument for blocking Burnham: that a Greater Manchester mayoralty by-election could turn out to be politically and financially costly for the Labour Party. In a way, Burnham’s resignat