Andy Burnham - how can this be allowed?

I can understand this point in principle but in practice I can't rally get myself tied up in a knot over it given that Andy Burnham is currently an elected Labour politician (albeit a Mayor not an MP) and has previously been an MP and a government minister.

It's not like they're parachuting in some complete rando, he's one of the highest profile Labour politicians in the country.

I can't imagine anyone's vote for Labour turned on whether Andy Burnham was or wasn't an MP.

You could join the Labour party and get a vote that way!

You read the rules with the view of a reasonable person. A rare creature in some circles.

And also bear in mind the impact and cost of additional by-elections. He’s clearly not that interested in representing the constituents he’s asking to elect him. He is just using them to further his career. I hope he loses.

Where can we find more information about this unwritten intention in the rules? Because it's one thing saying you think they should be changed, but you're going well beyond that here.

Yes, terrible in fact. He signed a letter in 2019 calling for self id (now quietly deleted apparently) and in a tv interview recently demonstrated that he neither understands nor respects the recent Supreme Court judgement.

Fingers crossed then. It would be rich if he stepped down from being mayor and didn’t win a seat as MP. God I really hope so in return for imposing a leadership contest at a time when the uk needs it the least.

It is absolutely artificial. He resigned purely to create this situation.

The rules were intended for genuine and unavoidable scenarios and while this is not technically against the rules, in the same way that we assumed we didn’t need a rule against convicted terrorists standing for elections, it’s only because no one saw them being stretched like this.

True on those things. I do think someone should ask AB if he intends to put such a big change to the electorate in some way.

So he's bad on women's sex based rights?

Good to know.

You missed out Teresa May! How could anyone forget her? 😉

And in the 50's, Eden took over from Churchill mid-term, but called an election almost straight away. Then Macmillan took over from Eden after Suez, but didn't call an election, and Douglas Home from Macmillan.

The Labour MPs get to choose in the first stage, and anyone getting more than 20% of the MPs' vote then goes on to the ballot to for election by party members and the affiliated organisations. Starmer was the only candidate, so that didn't go to the members.

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?

It is not the pension funds and insurance companies that are causing the current instability it is the hedge funds and asset managers. Completely different to 2022 when the Truss mini budget caused the pension funds to re-assess. It will calm down as soon as there is some certainty

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

Is that a serious question? Neo-liberalism is the political arm of free-market capitalism. It's trickle down economics at its very worst. Dr-regulation, privatisation, low taxes (for some people). It's what has been driving the economy and government policy since the 80's and especially so since 2015.

Your ideas are going to bankrupt us all.

Why do you think investing in public services is going to bankrupt us all? Show the evidence that any government that has invested in public services has created a poorer economy?

You won't be able to because it doesn't!

Social Democratic policies which implemented Keynesian economics rebuilt this country's economy after the second world war, giving us the NHS and the social safety net of the welfare state.

The last Labour government moved back towards those concepts (although not full) and borrowed a lot of money compared to the previous Tory governments BUT because they invested it in public services and infrastructure it did not increase the debt because GDP also increased - if you invest in public services and infrastructure the country gets richer, not poorer!

The only reason that people claim that Labour ruined the country is because of the financial crash - but that wasn't caused by Labour's policies, it was caused by the US's Neo-Liberal policies which pushed free market capitalism and financial de-regulation. That allowed those sub-prime mortgage products to enter the market to be bought up by the hedge funds and asset managers who then dumped them when they realised the risk!

Even Victorian business men understood that concept - the Cadbury Brothers knew that if they treated their workers well - made sure they had housing, education, health care and work life balance it would make them more money in the long run - people would want to work for them, they would be loyal and they would work harder!

That concept still stands today - if people have access to the basics, they are more productive which means that the country becomes wealthier.

What exactly is it about government social and financial policy in terms of our public services and infrastructure that you think has been so successful over the past 16 years that you are so keen to keep?

It doesn’t feel that that’s how this government intends to operate though. No mandate for digital id, no mandate for assisted suicide, giving away the Chagos islands at vast cost. Etc.

Artificially creating a situation to try and get AB and MP

It's not artifical though it's the system. It is allowed in the rules. The fact you don't like the rules is another issue.

Agree. I’ve heard this but surely we’d be asked via a referendum or GE mandate

But I don’t think any became Prime Minister after not even being an MP at the preceding General Election.

Artificially creating a situation to try and get AB and MP position purely to stand as a leadership candidate/replacement PM undermines normal democratic process and imo is right on brand for this Labour government as arguably the least democratic government we’ve had.

The people of Makerfield will not select the next PM, they will select their next MP.

The Prime Minister is selected by the MPs which belong to the ruling party.

So what?

I remember talk about Boris a doing the same a few years back and some suggestions just last year he might be plotting a come back..to try and complete a Churchill-style comeback. I bloody hope not, but this is the system we have. Again complain about the system rather than the people in my opinion.

Yes but this is a case of him being parachuted in so that he can make bid to be PM and for no other reason. The current MP is stepping down solely to make way for this to happen. It's not a normal by election at all.

I wouldn't rule out Rayner throwing her hat into the ring, tbh. It's rumoured that Streeting would also stand.

There will have to be an election for the leadership, and party members get to vote on that. If it was a straight fight between Rayner and Streeting, I reckon Rayner would win. Streeting seems to be very unpopular among members. But in a 3-way fight with Burnham as a contender, I think it would be a long shot.

Agree - Brown is often underrated.

Well we had 3 (crap) prime ministers selected by Tory party members in the last government so I am not that bothered tbh.

Personally as someone to the right I connected more with brown than Blair. Less smarmy, less promotion of the wife, clearly more intelligent

Ok. No we are not technically voting for the PM. But every single person voting in a GE is aware of who the leaders of the parties are and which of these leaders will be PM if the party they vote for wins. In a GE most people vote for a PARTY not an individual and this is at least partly based on who will be PM. It's totally disingenuous to pretend this is not the case.

You see it all the time in voting rhetoric. "Kemi for PM" on this very thread.

People exhorting voters to "vote for Farage" when they mean "vote Reform"
This is not about how it technically works, but rather about how people see it and how they actually make their choices.

There's an awful lot of people saying things like "want Andy to win so he can become PM and introduce PR".

I support PR but there really should be some form of mandate for it, either as a manifesto commitment or a (gulp!) referendum

I'm pretty sure that most PM's in my (long) lifetime have initially been appointed mid-term rather than elected directly.

You are correct.
Eden took over from Churchill
Macmillan took over from Eden
Douglas-Home took over from Harold Macmillan
Callaghan took over from Wilson
Major took over from Thatcher
Brown took over from Blair
May took over from Cameron
Truss took over from Johnson
Sunak took over from Truss

We have had I think seventeen PMs in my lifetime with the nine above taking office without a general election.