Andy Burnham - how can this be allowed?

At the moment the majority are not with you @Boopybop

You’re missing my point.

I get what you’re saying, but it’s the process. Simple. The fact you don’t like it is another issue.

Not that funny at all for us Mancunians 😞

And even if he does, there's no guarantee that he'll win a leadership election.

Never under-estimate the Labour party's ability to shoot itself in the foot, and I say that as a Labour member!

I'm pretty sure that most PM's in my (long) lifetime have initially been appointed mid-term rather than elected directly. I can remember a similar outcry when Douglas-Home took over from Harold Macmillan in 1963, and I think Macmillan took over from Eden when the latter resigned because of the Suez Crisis, although I was only a year old so don't actually remember.

Oh well I don't really disagree with you about Starmer's grip on it and unforced errors.

And there's some on the far left of the party who I think have never got their head round being in government and their MO is just "opposing those in power" even if that's you're own party (at least Zarah Sultana has had the good grace to go and do her own thing).

So yes there's a lot to be said for party unity! But at a time like this there's (rightly) always going to be people taking the opportunity trying to move things in the direction they believe is right.

It is those things you mentioned, but global not just UK, Japan dumping UK Gilts for example (they are actually buying more at the moment) would have a big effect on mortgage rates, as will Japan raising interest rates as investor money from Japan will get repatriated from U.S/UK/EU Gilt markets driving up our borrowing costs. All this was going on before the Iran mess.

Your comments give the impression you don't understand - especially the title of the thread.

There is a difference between not liking a particularly process and it not being fair.

It is fair and within the rules.

You don't like it - but that does not make it unfair. As your example points out anyone in a similar position to Andy could do what he is doing it is within the rules.

He may not even get in as who knows what the local people think. They may want to give the Labour party a bloody nose.

Not really, the Greens for example have been a party for 50 years and couldn"t organise tea and sandwiches, Reform have been a party for four years and are the new force in UK politics.

I'm sure others have said this also.

But this comment shows you really don't understand the process. Don't mean to upset or offend.

You vote for a Party not a person - yes I appreciate that people think they are voting for a person - but they need to understand this is not how it works and consider the party it's manifesto. This is how our system has always been.

I truly believe the Media has a large role to play in your view and that of others - the way they turn it into a personality contest.

You can't just change the rules now because you don't like Andy Burnham. Did you complain when we got Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss?

The only way to distract from Burnham's election chance would be if another senior labour policitican stood down. Even then it'd not distract enough.

@mummymeister - if people are voting Reform to because they're sick of political shit-shows I think they're going to be bitterly disappointed with what they get.

Leaving aside their beliefs, one thing that worries me is just how massively inexperienced a lot of their candidates are going to be. In the main parties there's a solid base of people who have substantial knowledge and experience in how our political systems and public services work. With Reform, yes there's some people both nationally and locally with experience who are switching allegiance from e.g. the Conservatives but I worry that for many there's no real deep understanding about the economy or health services or education or anything else. Farage is a campaigner and a grifter - I just don't believe he is any way committed to the work that needs to be done in government.

Already seeing this with some of their councillors, just totally unserious people who aren't up to the job.

Shit shows? If we get a Reform government, we'll really know the meaning of the word.

“The bond markets react badly to any political instability and right wingers and neo-liberals always manage to blame it on the left.”

Bond markets as in our insurance companies, pension funds and financial institutions, the Bank of England? Who are commanding a higher interest rate due to the shenanigans?

So @BloominNora - should I be emailing my pension fund to take all my cash out of UK Government Bond please, now? All too volatile?

We the UK population by proxy hold most of the UK Government bonds. What absolute ridiculous state of affairs. If the price is too high it is because our politicians are too volatile and cannot provide certainty.

What exactly have the economic fundamentals got to do with neo liberalism.

Your ideas are going to bankrupt us all. What exactly is Burnham’s plan regarding bond holders? Tell them to put the interest rate down? Take back control of the Bank of England?
I would really like to know what you think the plans are? As I would like to possibly take out the little I have in my pension thank you very much.

Yes. If KS could just remind himself of his election promises - ‘smash the gangs’, sort the economy, make a fairer society etc (how ironic) literally none of this shenanigans would be occurring. Reform would have no support because their single issue would be dealt with by Labour and all would be hunky dory.

Instead, he ignores and demonises whole swathes of the British public, insists on doing awful undemocratic things not in his manifesto and is generally intent on proving the ‘two tier Kier’ claims right.

This is all totally fixable, I guess the question is why is he refusing to honour his commitments to us?

His current policies seem like a tick list to create division, unrest and unhappiness and to fundamentally change our society. But why?

Ok. If she isn’t going to stand hey ho. But if Labour think they can just manipulate the voters they are wrong. Quite honestly AB could well get a bloody nose and Labour could lose both the Mayorship and the seat.

I hope that Reform offer someone like this. This is a massive turning point in politics. If AB wins and then becomes leader of the LP it shows Reform can be beaten.

If not and Reform wins the two positions they are a shoo in at the next election.

Of course. But do it behind closed doorS

then his nickname wouldn’t be mr u turn

Is that the same Maggie Oliver who just issued a statement saying she definitely won't stand for election?😀
www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/reform-makerfield-byelection-maggie-oliver-33953313

It’s this against recent local election results. Going to be interesting to see which trend of voting wins.

Apparently Maggie Oliver could be the Reform candidate

To be fair I think political parties that are broad enough to achieve a parliamentary majority are always going to be at risk of having significant internal differences of opinion. We've seen exactly the same thing play out with the Conservatives. I'd definitely like to see more attempts at consensus but I can't really blame people with a political belief for wanting to act on those beliefs. If you're left of the party and see an opportunity to move the government's agenda more to the left then you're going to take it. Same for the centrists. Call it infighting, call it a battle of ideas, but it is fairly inevitable.

While I am uneasy about the current fashion for replacing the Prime Minister every five minutes, instead of going more deeply into the problems and how to address them, I don't agree with the reason you give. ALL Prime Ministers are chosen by their party out of its MPs, all of who were chosen only by their own constituency voters. You could just as easily say that the Prime Minister shouldn't be chosen just by the voters of Holborn and St Pancras (Starmer) or Richmond, Yorkshire (Sunak), etc. This is our system- Prime Ministers aren't directly elected,

What does worry me is that Makerfield was chosen in a hurry, and isn't a super-safe seat. The previous MP had only a 5,399 majority, and that was in a Labour landslide year. And the runner-up party was Reform. Especially if turnout is low, as is so often the case in by-elections, hings could so easily go so very very wrong and result in another MP for Farage's vile party.

At the last election we, the general public, were able to decide if we wanted Starmer as prime minister.

If A B suddenly is voted as their leader by the Labour party, he will automaticallt be the PM, but the public will not have had any choice in the matter.

That's what the OP meant, I think. I agree, it doesn't seem right, even if these mid-stream swops have happened often enough before.

In our system at the GE you vote for an MP, not for the PM directly.

Surely you must have noticed already that the conservatives went through several PMs?