To think if Keir Starmer is ousted there should be a general election

It depends on several factors. One is where and how the cuts are made - he’s already outlined his plans to get young people into work and off benefits. Another is that Starmer appears to have done no work on taking the PLP with him and there seems to be very little party discipline, Burnham is more collegiate. It’s a classic case of it’s not what you do, it’s how you do it.

Welfare is a broad term. What exactly are you referring to? Because what cuts Burnham would be able to make in this area with the agreement of the party will depend on what exactly he proposes, the impact that will have on people, whether it will be a false economy leading to greater expenses down the line and his mitigations. If he has a proposal that addresses these concerns to the satisfaction of the majority, they will get through. If he doesn't, they don't. Which is a good thing because I wouldn't want cuts that haven't been subject to these scrutinies.

Andy Burnham has said he will make welfare cuts. What makes him think he will get that passed by the backbenchers anymore than when Starmer tried it?

Exactly that @5128gap

Yes.
"They don't listen to us" Swiftly followed by "They listened and changed their mind, they are weak".

All politicians tell people what they want to hear, it's how they get elected.

Rubbish. The press won't hound him because he is insincere. They will hound him because he's not right wing and because they can without any accountability.

And as for the trans comment, have you never revised your opinion on anything? You know it's a sign of ability to learn and mature to be able to do so?

Do you not allow that people can their mind on an issue? What's the point of discussion and two sides putting forward arguments if not to convince and bring about a change in thinking? Would you think more of Burnham if he'd have said "Well, four years on, despite me learning more about the subject and listening to the GC people, I intend to completely disregard the SCJ, ignore what women are saying about single sex spaces and campaign for biological men to use them"?
I guess your answer depends heavily on whether you're a TRA or a GC person.
A lot of people have changed their mind on this due to the arguments of GC campaigners. They can't travel back in time and change their previous stance.

Yes by operating efficiency of adult social care but also by renegotiating long standing contracts, by recruitment freeze on non essential posts, by repaying £15 million loan early savings £1 million on interest payments and not wasting tax payers money on non essential things. Council tax was not the usual 5 percent increase either. This year only 3.99 percent increase. They have also increased their pot hole budget too, which is the number one gripe on doorsteps.

If he’s ‘hounded’ it is because he’s another insincere politician who will tell people what they want to hear.

To virtue signal that he’s so pro trans and then to change his mind just before running is either weak or manipulative.

I do really hope I’m wrong on this, but I do think unless Andy works a miracle, the press will hound him like their life depends on it.

Reform won’t get in because they’ve peaked and are becoming noticeably weaker, but those donors who have previously backed Reform may start to back Restore about 6 months before the election and flood the zone with propaganda so they enjoy a big wave of popularity

All they need to do is field a load of candidates late in the day who then won’t have chance to become stale or be faced with enough scrutiny before gaining a significant vote share with people not fully realising what they’ve actually voted for.

I’m wondering if that has been the plan all along, they could see Reform were losing popularity and Restore was the back up plan. Lowe is backed by Musk. He can throw as much money and misinformation in the world at a campaign.

The flipside is that lots of us voted knowing that, as you say, the UK currently ditches PMs every half hour and our parliamentary democracy allows for that with no GE. I don't know if I'd have voted in the same way if that wasn't our system, or whether the candidates and policies would have been the same. Nobody does.

And that's why OP is BU to suggest change now, as opposed to in the future. It's retconning the votes of people who actually understood our system correctly. Nothing wrong with wanting reform, but if we're to move to a system where we have GEs when we change PM, we need to all know that when we vote.

She moaned endlessly about the last Tory government because she thought she paid too much tax. It's all she's interested in.

Only the people in KS constituency voted for him. You might think you voted for him but unless you are in Holborn you didn’t. No matter how much you believe you did you didn’t.

The Manchester mayoral election is not first past the post, it’s using supplementary vote. SV means people get to rank in order of preference. Unless Reform get past 50% in the first round they won’t win. Second preferences taken into account make a Labour victory much, much more likely.

Yes, SV is democratic.Many would argue it’s more democratic than FPTP as more voter preferences are taken into account .

My MP has such a majority my vote is pretty meaningless anyway!!

I think that the party leader and potential PM does massively influence voting. It's more important than who your local MP is and if a party is going to significantly diverge from what the electorate agreed yo, then there ought to be a GE. It's different when you are swapping one leader for another, who is much the same in terms of ideology, but KS snd AB are not much of a much. There are people who voted for KS who would never have voted for AB.

We also have to get out of this recent habit of ditching PMs every half an hour! It's destabilising the country and making our PMs weak.

O don't know who I'd vote for in a GE tbh - they all seem shit in different ways, so while I think a change of leader and direction should result in a GE, I don't actually want one.

I'm not so sure Blossom. We are going to see some testing of the main parties that's been long overdue. The fringe parties having nothing to lose. Yes, Reform have invested a lot and their playing the long game might bear fruit. Burnham v Starmer - can't stand Starmer but part of me wants him to grow a backbone and see off Burnham. Out of the two, I'd prefer Starmer to stay. Twat as he is, something is telling me if Burnham gets in he's going to heap more trouble on this government.

Agree

🤞

but I do think we are in a cycle of voting for the least worst option at the moment and it would be good to see the main parties offering a positive reason to vote for the

In the US if the president dies or is removed (I wish), the line of succession is VP, the speaker of the House, the president pro Tempore of the Senate - then Secretary of State. There is NOT an election despite being directly elected. When a senator dies or resigns, different states have different rules nd many do not have by elections.
There is no way the legislature would be re elected.
Democracy is more complicated than just voting for the person you think should be in charge.

I’m pretty sure that having seen how successful tactical voting is in defeating Reform the same thing will happen in the mayoral election.

No, I don't think the system should be changed for a new GE upon a change of leader. There's no democracy in the world that requires this, so far as I know (even in Presidential systems, where there isn't the "you vote for the party, not the individual" argument).

I don't think your underlying rationale is sound. Yes, a new PM/President could bring about a change of policy, but a PM/President can (and often do) u-turn on their pre-election pledges.

It may not be "what you voted for" but, really, how often is it?

I’m sure Nige is upset they didn’t win the seat but this turmoil in the Labour Party is good for him. And now they get to go for Manchester mayoralship.

the big parties need to show unity in their party if they really want to see off reform

the Image didn’t load initially. I think its
a very low blow playing on the general public’s miss understanding of how the political system works.

the same was said when brown replaced Blair. But fundamentally party members elect a leader, constituents elect an mp and the party with the majority become the government and the leader of the majority party becomes the pm.

Nigel?? Is that you Nigel, moaning and whining and moaning again?