Andy Burnham - how can this be allowed?

[Boopybop]

I know that there is a long way to go over the coming weeks, with by-elections and leadership challenges. But fundamentally - how can it be right that a man who was not even a candidate in the General Election, was therefore not voted for in the General Election - become Prime Minister? Effectively, the people of Makerfield are selecting the country’s new Prime Minister (as it is pretty obvious that AB would win a leadership contest).

This feels wholly undemocratic in every way.

AIBU - Andy Burnham has every right to become PM

AINBU - it is not right that a by-election in Makerfield can determine who the next Prime Minister will be

It's an interesting concept - I've always wondered why this concept isn't more mobilised in the US for their primary elections. Why haven't either party encouraged it's supporters to register as the opposite party to get candidates more aligned to their thinking, or at least less extreme.

While I wouldn't want to move to a presidential system like the US, maybe it would be a better idea to say that the PM shouldn't be an elected MP, but should be in a standalone role. I always think that the constituents of the PM and other key cabinet figures get a raw deal anyway.

It might be tricky policy wise, but I wonder if a system could be put forward where at the point of election manifestos are based on a set of core principles decided by party members but each party put forward three candidates for leader who sell their own personal vision, so you vote for the party based on the core principles but then the leader for PM based on their specific vision.

Then, if the leader is challenged in a ruling party, the vote for who takes over goes back to the public.

Yes - he should stand down if he wins, but I don't think he needs to before the by-election.

Are we going to get one of these threads a day now? Are you divvying up who shit-posts against which potential leadership challenger? It’s a lot of work for one person to do them all, even with AI.

I'm a Wiganer, we've just voted 24/25 council seats for Reform, a thing I'd never thought I'd see. We were Labour through and through.

Terrifying to think that Wigan is in charge here, but I don't think he'll get it. Reform will.

I'm inclined to agree.

The only thing that can give Labour a fighting chance is that they have much more experience of fighting by-elections. They will throw activists at that seat, they will come from far and wide, they will canvass extensively so that they will know who their voters are and they will get any Labour voter with a pulse along to the polling station on the day.

Of course, there's always the possibility that Reform will drop a massive bollock and select a candidate who comes out with something scandalously outrageous or who has a dubious criminal record or something, but they have got much more professional over the last 10 years or so.

I can understand OP’s complaint. Quite a few rude “I don’t think you understand” posts. We all understand it. There is always a chance that the leader of the party will change. But someone resigning to trigger a by election specifically to install a candidate as leader and therefore PM is a further step. Also a candidate who appears to be expected to implement more left leaning policies than were in the manifesto. That I really do have an issue with. I’ve always felt a bit uncomfortable with people being rushed into peerages and then shoehorned into cabinet as well, no matter how capable they may be.

I can understand this argument in principle but in practice this would either mean forcing PMs to limp on even if they're doing a terrible job and have lost the confidence of their party/the country OR having significantly more general elections. Neither of which seem like positive outcomes for the country at large - either we're being dragged down by inept PMs or suffering through the instability of frequent elections.

Opposition parties will always use events like this to call for a GE, that kind of opportunism is inevitable. But realistically creating a system where we couldn't change a PM mid-term would be chaos.

Opinions seem to vary about him winning the by election. It’s not a foregone conclusion!

I agree with the need to be able to change — otherwise we probably need to directly elect; but on the other hand we are changing PM far too often now, so the current system isn’t working for current times. The PM shouldn’t be removed simply because the party have decided he is unlikely to win in 2-3 years!

I don't think "we don't fancy our chances in three years" is the only motivator here by a long stretch. And when "we don't fancy our chances" means "significant chance of letting in a far-right government" then I think the party should be taking that seriously.

I think we can point at a variety of problems that mean we have ended up with a particularly rapid turnover of PMs in recent years, none of which I think would be solved by making it harder to change the PM.

I did answer your questions, despite it being disingenuous, but just to make it clear:

What exactly is Burnham’s plan regarding bond holders? Tell them to put the interest rate down?

I don't know exactly what Burnham's plan is and neither do you, because he hasn't laid it out. However, I can infer what I think he will do based on his proven track record as an MP, Manchester Mayor and his public stance on the issues.

He can't tell bond holders 'to put the interest rate down' because bond holders bought the bonds they hold at a specific yield level and that doesn't change. I think, unlike you, he knows how the bond market works and that even if he was inclined to tell bond holder to 'put the interest rate down', he would understand that it would be impossible for them to do so.

I also don't think he will tell prospective bond investors to demand a lower yield, because again, he understands that that is not how the bond market works.

I think his plans are to invest in public services even if it means a bit of short term pain because he understands that doing so would increase productivity and GDP, thus lowering the debt to GDP ratio and provide stability, which would in turn reduce the levels of yield that prospective bond investors can demand.

Increasing GDP would also reduce the need to take on more debt because higher GDP results in higher tax revenues, which also has the effect of lowering the yield levels that can be demanded by the market.

Take back control of the Bank of England?

No - I don't think he will do this at all. Remember it was Gordon Brown that originally made the BofE independent and the Tories were always annoyed that they hadn't done it first. It's a fairly settled consensus!

There you go @Araminta1003 , as you were unable to infer these answers, I've answered them specifically - now, could you answer my questions? To make it easy for you, here they are:

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?

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?

BloominNora 💪

Why on earth Labour selected Starmer in the first place was bewildering. And he has dwindled the huge Parliamentary support he was gifted and the many U-turns on poor policy decisions has lost the support of the electorate; from die-hard Labour voters to the floaters who wanted to give Labour a go.

Personally, I'm not alone in thinking Thornberry would have been/is a good choice but she must have pissed off some influential people to be so easily discounted. Can you imagine the face-offs with Kemi at PMQs?

Anyhoo, Labour is our elected Govt but they need to change now, not merely their leader but their policies. More to the North of the country (I'm South), massive social housing built now, regenerate with industry the decimated areas, mostly up north.

This floating voter down south wants to see genuine change. Now.

How 2018 😂

I remember Wilson's resignation like it was yesterday. I was gutted.

Things were so different then, it wasn't until years later that it came out that he had health problems that turned out to be cancer and was in the early stages of dementia. Nowadays, there'd be speculation about that and it'd be all over the internet before he'd even seen a doctor.

But unless you live in Starmers constituency and are a member of the Labour Party you didn't choose the current PM either.

Personally, I'm not alone in thinking Thornberry would have been/is a good choice but she must have pissed off some influential people to be so easily discounted. Can you imagine the face-offs with Kemi at PMQs?

I'm a Thornberry fan, too @TheHateIsNotGood. She's intelligent, incisive and generally good at thinking on her feet, and has done really good work in select committees , but the press would crucify her. She gets slagged off for being "posh", just because she is well spoken, but she grew up in a single parent household and they were so skint they couldn't afford to feed their pets. She went to a secondary modern school, not a grammar school, although I think she's old enough to have taken the 11+.

And then there was the unfortunate business where she took the piss out of a council house with an England flag hanging out of the window...

A left wing government of any kind is unlikely to prevent people voting for a far right party, though. When you looked at Reform it's full of ex Tories who were too right wing for the Tories. If Labour's tougher stance on immigration isn't already winning people over, then what makes you think a potentially more left wing leader, who will likely dial down the anti small boats rhetoric, will win them over?

The issue with Starmer and Labour is that they're shit at PR and have been ever since Blair and Campbell.

@BloominNora
Why do you think investing in public services is going to bankrupt us all?

Because we already have the highest tax burden since 1945 and as you pointed out, you do not have any genius ideas around the huge sovereign debt or anything that is a magic wand there.
Rachel Reeves already increased taxes with fiscal drag kicking in and employer NI and the population is just going to work less, not more. It is called the Laffer curve, and a basic fact of life.
As you also implicitly point out, there is no extra borrowing going to be available either.

Show the evidence that any government that has invested in public services has created a poorer economy?
Well if you can increase debt cheaply and increase productivity, then that would be true.
But there is no debt left to raise and you cannot force the population to work more (and hand over 50 pence in a pound or more), so basic facts are you cannot do this.

The underlying fact is you have an ageing unproductive population which you can only squeeze out of their wealth. But like all other parties, Labour will be too scared to do this.
So they keep squeezing the young and the working, who just won’t work.

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?

I do not. I think the Tories and Brexit were shambolic.

Or in other words @BloominNora - other than being a slightly better communicator and dyeing his hair, and a few years younger - there is literally nothing Andy Burnham can offer that Keir Starmer has not already done or could do.
What a royal waste of time and waste of money!
Can SOMEONE please calculate the actual extra sovereign debt interest we have paid due to this circus!

There's definitely movement Labour > Reform! Whether that is due to individual voters switching or differential turn-out (Labour-leaning stay at home while Reform-leaning vote). Some of it I suspect isn't even linked to any particular policy and is just a "plague on all their houses" rejection of what they see as the establishment.

Lots of voters really hate Starmer - he's way less popular than Labour as a whole. Reform massively leaned into this in their local election campaign. Keeping Starmer at the helm isn't going to help them.

Honestly the way things are going the next election is going to be five-way chaos and I think Labour are on a hiding to nothing trying to triangulate their position on things like immigration between Green and Reform. I think they just need the ability to take a position, stick to it and sell it convincingly to the public. All three of which Starmer has been failing to do effectively across multiple policy areas.

I think the trouble is and the truth is - the hard choices that have to actually be made can only be made by someone who is willing to screw the vulnerable and old etc
And that won’t be Labour, because it offends their sentiment, as we have seen. And it offend the more moderate Tories too.
So how exactly does anyone propose to mitigate this? Like actual solutions rather than wishful thinking?

Because whilst people can diss the markets and capitalism and disrespect the voter/electorate and call them stupid, both the markets and the electorate always know what actually needs to be done.

There I have said it. And definitely not a Reform voter and never will be, because if offends my sentiment too!

Wow glad you're not in government.

Why do we have to screw the vulnerable and old? Sounds like you want a return to Dickensian Era

@LakieLady . It's a mystery to me why they/Labour Party don't like her - she's only got a 'posh' accent coz girl's done good what with being a Barrister and all. You spend a lot of time (working) with the plummy accents it's only natural to pick a bit up and speak it. Not bad for a gal from a council estate in Guildford.

But still, the LP does need a Northern PM I think.

“Why do we have to screw the vulnerable and old? Sounds like you want a return to Dickensian Era”

@thedramaQueen - no I personally definitely don’t.

Why are people voting Reform then? En masse?
it’s implicit they are happy to screw someone more vulnerable than them (like an asylum seeker) so they can survive?

It can’t just be that Farage is some snake charmer.