Been mulling this since Monday. Burnham became Labour leader unopposed (no ballot, the nomination maths meant nobody else could even stand) and then PM without any of us voting for anything.
Then I looked it up and it's the sixth time since 2007. Brown, May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak all came in mid-term, and Sunak didn't get a members' vote either. We elect a Parliament, not a PM, so constitutionally it's all fine.
What made me pause is his defence: he says his mandate is Labour's 2024 manifesto. Which is Starmer's manifesto. While also promising the biggest change in 40 years. Both things can't really be true at once, can they?
Found a decent breakdown of the arithmetic and the precedents here: trendingsheet.com/article/burnham-no-election-mandate-does-it-matter
So does it matter? Or do we only mind when it's a PM we don't like?