I think these 2 datasets demonstrate the logic of "going early" in 2027 pretty conclusively. LAB would likely LOSE a significant number of seats, but would lose far fewer than waiting until 2029, after 2.5 more years of fiscal/inflationary pressure, potential Tory revival & difficult compromises. Good will is always spent over time, even with the best of intentions. The options are: A) govern for another 5 yrs, enact progressive constitutional reform (PR+HoL abolition/Senate of Regions+English Mayoral Devo) + build a National Care Service with a small majority or in coalition with LDs after a 2027 election, AFTER WHICH a future of European-style, cobbled together LAB-LIB-GRN-CELTIC NATIONALIST centre-Left coalitions would be the future of Left politics under PR, OR... B) Lose to a revived Tory Party in 2029 & watch the Reform hard right potentially prop them up and reverse the Employment Rights act, Renters Rights Act, sell off bits of GB Energy/NWF, start putting rail services back out to private tender, leave the ECHR etc. I SUSPECT Burnham's pro-Europe stuff is a way of herding much of the centre-Left bloc back under the LAB banner without "abolishing neoliberalism". And it will (I HOPE) largely remain on the level of signalling/vibes rather than 2nd ref/rejoin promises (which would fracture the country and the old Labour coalition in unpredictable ways). Not making a value judgement on any of these things (I wholeheartedly oppose rejoin, see: unherd.com/2026/10/brussels-…) but you can see the logic of all this from the perspective of a progressive PLP/Labour Party.