This government has become very adept at U-turns. Apparently it is time to turn again. By deciding to block Andy Burnham’s candidacy for the Gorton and Denton byelection, the Labour NEC has turned its back on a different and better form of politics, one that Labour and the country so desperately need. The decision today has implications far beyond personality or faction: instead, it is about how a modern and effective government operates to meet the complex and interrelated challenges our society now faces.

Francis Crick once said: “A good scientist values criticism almost higher than friendship.” This is equally relevant to politics. Any progressive party needs agility to navigate an endless onslaught of events beyond its control. What therefore matters most are systems and cultures that allow constant feedback, and different views and voices to be heard. Governing is always a mix of professional expertise, top-down control and open debate and negotiation. It is the latter trait that needs to become predominant for any organisation to survive, let alone thrive, given the complexity, even chaos, of governing today.

“A good scientist values criticism almost higher than friendship.”

What has all this got to do with Andy Burnham? Three things. First and most simply, he doesn’t hold exactly the same views on everything as Keir Starmer. Some see this as a threat, as though nothing but a North Korean level of leader-worship is acceptable. But a high-functioning 21st-century organisation sees difference as a strength, in which only through contestation can better government emerge. This kind of healthy political contestation shouldn’t be blocked by the NEC.

Second, Burnham doesn’t just have differences of opinion, but rather a viable if small-scale version of government that the Labour leadership could learn from. His mayoralty in Greater Manchester is showing that pluralism works. By emphasising place before party he brings everyone except the national populist right with him. Rarely if ever do the Greater Manchester combined authorities have votes, because everything is consensually agreed. And it works. This openness has allowed Burnham and his team to plan for the long term with a greater level of certainty. Among other things, they have created the fastest growing city region in the UK. And when, at the end of last year, Burnham made a speech in Manchester talking about how this growth can be replicated and scaled across the country, he was introduced by the Liberal Democrat leader of Stockport council.

Burnham does not have all the answers to all the problems that face Britain – neither does Starmer – but U-turns may be less frequent and better long-term decisions may be made if they and others worked together. I think Starmer and Burnham want to get to very similar places but have different paths – let them and others work out together how best to achieve that through collaboration and contestation. That’s politics.

And third, if Starmer reverses this decision and lets Burnham run, it would signal the biggest and best possible reset for Labour. Thousands of people energised by the ideas around Burnham may stay on as Labour members, and many more could rejoin or join for the first time. A big and energetic byelection can take place in which the forces of progressivism go head to head with the forces of regressivism. The tide of Reform UK could be turned back.