Does Burnham have a real mandate without a public vote?

And the majority of the public don't prefer any of the alternatives either. So if there was a GE we'd have a hung parliament with Burnham still PM. Which you may find you liked less than what we have now.

Another 100 billion on welfare?

The majority of the public would be dissatisfied with whoever was in power. It's human nature to criticise and disapprove, something which seems to be amplified when it comes to politics.

Pure speculation.

He was voted in in a GE though

He should stick with it for the three years, no early elections unless he really does want to diverge.

Honestly who cares at this point. He’s been put in place to keep reform out. We’re literally trying to avoid going to hell as a nation

The last thing this country needs is a general election. Give him the remaining parliamentary term, then we'll have a general election and people can decide how they feel things are going.

People can dislike the Labour party as much as they want, but they won by a landslide and have a mandate to govern for five years. (And hopefully by the next election Farage will be in prison.)

I actually think that’s a bad thing as seen in recent years. If a leadership change triggered a general election, there would be less infighting because of individual MP’s personal ambitions. It would be much more about the good of the party as a whole (and, hopefully, the good of the country). Leadership changes would happen only under the most serious circumstances, not because Joe Bloggs MP reckons it’s his turn to have a go at being PM.

Well @LagerLady

Has he not just cut tax for pubs ? I would have thought that was very pro Lager.

Just think how much worse this country will be in another 3 years time. Enough is enough.

I think this Metro article sums it up for me.

I interviewed Andy Burnham - and noticed a crucial difference with Keir Starmer | News Politics | Metro News

These lines in particular.

"In person, Starmer is amiable and polite. Ahead of an interview, he would smile and shake my hand with an air of sober professionalism – not overly friendly, but never haughty or aloof.Then he would switch into a rather robotic mode as soon as the camera was rolling and the questions began, standing very still and rattling through his responses."

"While it felt like Starmer treated every interview like a tightrope to be crossed, Burnham appeared to treat it more simply as an opportunity to put himself across – to sell his policy and his fledgling premiership to a sceptical public."

Same manifesto, same direction, just a different way of doing it I reckon.

And to me the manifesto can be shuffled a bit. Bring some bits forward, push other bits back. Juggle it a bit to get results that are needed, rather than robotically stick to some Gant chart plan.

And? It’s only been 2 years since the last GE.

The majority of the public is dissatisfied with Labour

The majority of the democratically elected Labour MPs were dissatisfied with Starmer’s performance. If they want to choose a different leader, as they once chose him, that’s fine by me.

He doesn't have a mandate from the public to lefty things. If he has a mandate at all, it is to follow the election manifesto, in which case why change leader?

Has Angela Raynor ceased to be an MP? If not she can come and go from Cabinet positions,

Far more dubious was Sunak wanting to bring David Cameron into the Cabinet - but Cameron was NOT an MP - so they had to announce Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton in the House of Lords in order to make him Foreign Secretary.

Yes he has a mandate under our election and party rules.

We vote for our local MP, not for the party leader. The winning party chooses its leader.

We vote for an MP. There are independent MPs, think the man in the white suit. Some MPs get in because they are liked locally.

IMO no he does not, and this is worse than the previous Tory PM changes, as in this case the elected MP for Makerfield was essentially bribed to give up the seat for AB. Rules need to change so that a general election is called when a PM decides to leave or is forced out. Taxpayers are already paying - for ALL past PMs including Liz Truss - £115k salary for life, 24 hour security for life, plus the payoffs, expenses etc. It's outrageous.

It's how our system works.

If you don't like it, be careful what you wish for. If we had to hold a general election any time the majority party changed its leader, and thus the PM, then they would simply be far less inclined to change their leader. The current system is the reason why unpopular PMs are forced out of office with relative ease.

Boris did win an election, no? Not that I'm normally an apologist for him!

But in the English system you don't vote for PM - you vote for the party to form the government and the party choses their leader.

That’s literally what I said.

No, you vote in an mp, the PARTY with the most mps wins. At no point do you vote in a prime minister.