Andy Burnham - how can this be allowed?

Op is correct in that when the GE is taking place, we are electing the leader of the party alongside the party itself. When this nonsense happens we are completely outside of the vote and Labour could decide the most unsuitable candidate should be leader and we just have to lump it.

This is not a possibility because AB does not have to give up his job as Manchester Major until he is voted in as an MP so if he is not elected as MP he will still be Manchester Major.

Well - if you're a member of an affiliated Trade Union you also get a vote for Labour Leader.. How many of your Brigade are members of TU's?

It is a bit weird when you think about it but then I don’t think the people of South West Norfolk realised when they voted for their MP in 2019 just how much trouble they could save the country if they had swung to Labour then rather than in 2024!

The people of Macclesfield do at least know the implications of their vote.

I think this is what will happen.

What is your objection? Labour? Burnham? Is it that Labour may regain the initiative with a change of leadership? Personally I am just amazed how a party voted in with such a huge majority are making such a mess of things.

So unfortunately we are too late this time. But I kicked myself multiple times with the tories and again with this now.

So the idea is after every GE. The Brigade sign up to the winning party. We then will be eligible to vote.

Which unfortunately included paying for party membership. So it’s undemocratic imo but it’s the only way to have a say on the leadership in the current system and history has shown me I am loosing out on 50% of the voting.

So basically a band of us sign up, say hello and then go silent until we awake to strike and brigade the vote.

Let’s face it - yes, the process is that in a GE - you vote for your local MP. In reality though, in a GE - people are voting for who will be the next Prime Minister. Andy Burnham was not voted for in the General Election.

No, you're repeating the error from your first post. That's not how it works and not what people do.

There was a thread on this yesterday and it was shown that the UK has had more PMs that were not leader of their party during a general election than those that were.

I am also NOT a reform voter. But I do live in Manchester and the way reform has swept the board at last weeks council election is anything to go by...

AND if I was a constituent in Makerfield id be mighty pissed off at being a pawn in the game.

Well that's the other aspect of this. Labour gambling with safe seats. Like they did with G&D - and LOST. And now as you say the same could happen here. Typical Labour fcking over the electorate.

Labour are doing everything they can to give Reform control. Reforms greatest gift.

If Starmer were to go to bat for him, I suspect this could push events even more towards that possibility!

You’re not though. The party elects the leader, there’s absolutely no guarantee that the leader on election day will remain so throughout the term. Did you miss the Tory party members voting for Liz Truss?

AB will have been elected by his constituents if he ends up as PM. Same as anyone else who throws their hat in the ring.

What would that involve?

Not necessarily. Firstly, the Labour NEC have not selected the candidate who will run in the election. It is not guaranteed that it will be Andy Burnham. Secondly, no leadership challenge has been triggered. Thirdly, Andy Burnham, even if he is the candidate selected by Labour, is not guaranteed to win.

If Reform win there, it will be a huge own goal for Labour. They are just making shit decision after shit decision at the moment.

And the lord said "smile and be happy, things could be worse".

So I smiled and was happy, and behold, things got worse.

I don’t think labour understand it’s not the leader who’s unpopular it’s the whole party.

That said as a fellow ginger who also became a mum at 16 I’m genuinely a little upset Burnham is taking this opportunity from the “growler” very disappointing

The populace dont elect the pm. Each party's members elect a leader. The leader of the party in government is the pm

I'm torn about this. On the one hand, I think that if the governing Party changes leader, for any reason, including severe illness/ death, there should be a GE, on the other hand, I think AB would do a much better job than KS, or indeed, any other party leader currently available.

However any elected MP is at liberty to stand down, for any reason during a term of gvt, which then must trigger a by-election. And there's a long way to go yet.
I do think it would have been far better for the Labour Party to allow AB to stand in G&D, where he would most likely have won and there would have been no hint of jiggery-pokery.

Yes you don't need to explain - that's just nefarious posts pretending you don't understand. It's clear what you meant.

But we did vote for a manifesto and it would be un democratic for AB to become PM and deviate wildly from it plus all the arguments Labour made when the tories were playing musical chairs

people have been questioning our system for years now so will be interesting to see if this makes calls for change stronger or not

This is a genuine possibility.

You're correct of course, and YANBU. However this is the labour party, and the labour party have proven to be a sorry pile of highly incompetent weasels. So this is just business as usual for them.

They don't care about the electorate (well, apart from the local AB one), and they Really don't care about the tax paying majority. Sooner they go the better. It is going to be a long 3 years. We are paying for them - how do we get rid of them? Vote for the Conservatives in 2027. Kemi Badenoch for the win.

I don't think you do understand.

It only feels undemocratic if you don't understand how our democratic system works - we elect a political party, not a prime minister.