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

And Reform have absolutely nothing to lose. They’ll potentially win a MPs seat and a Mayor’s job.

Reform UK Party Ltd can't win both. If Burnham wins the by-election there will have to be a mayoral contest but if he doesn't win he will remain as mayor.

Yeah it's one or the other. The only party who have any theoretical chance of both seats is Labour, everyone else is fighting for max 1. This does of course mean Labour have more to lose than anyone else, because any other party coming away with either of the offices is a huge improvement for them.

From socials, the Greens seem to fancy their chances at the mayorship. I've seen some activists advocating that they don't run/campaign in Makerfield, with a view to Burnham winning a a mayoral election being forced. They've no chance of winning Makerfield, so I get the rationale.

Fair enough, makes sense.

Labour members will be voting on whatever the candidates put forward as their vision for the country. (Well they should be if they are sensible)

So what percentage of voters are getting a say? Vanishingly small.

It has always been this way (not that I'm saying that is right, personally if a Party changes leader while in Government I think a general election should be called) - was this way even when Boris won, was this way when Rishi was picked by Tory Party members to be the Prime Minister...

Agree with this.

I don't think you understand. Even if he is elected for makersfield, he then has to be nominated and voted in as Labour party leader. There are over 300,000 members of the Labour party and they will not all necessarily vote for him. Keith starmer also still has a chunk of support from people who understand that stability is essential, and that the scale of changes our country requires will take years, not months, and we need to give them time to do it.

Oh ok , makes sense . But it’s a bit of a kick in the teeth to the people who voted him as mayor.

The leader is supposed to be charismatic enough though to shine a good light on the party, Farage is the obvious example, KB to an extent but watching her being interviewed on SKY about losing tons of seats she just shouts over the interviewer when electoral reality is brought up, not good, KS is like a farmer with a muck spreader, every time he stands up they get deeper in the shit.

It’s clearly allowable, because ‘the grown ups are in charge”, they’re a “Government for the country not the Party” and “they want to tread more lightly on the lives of voters”. And so it’s in the country’s best interests that, because the Labour Party has a leader that can’t lead but has trampled on voters lives quite comprehensively (what with higher taxes, higher youth unemployment, higher interest rates, digital ID and a new wardrobe), the Labour Party force a by-election at great cost to enable the cronyism they have become famous for to position a man for election (who already has a job which, by all accounts he’s doing okay at but that he’s wiling to bale on) so he can become a new leader to move the party further to the Left, despite that not being what the electorate voted for. I don’t know why anyone questioning it.

This. Any MP of the governing party can stand as leader if there is a leadership election

The people of Makerfield will decide whether Andy Burnham gets to be an MP.

Labour Party members will get to decide on the leader of the Labour Party, chosen from elected MPs.

No different if Burnham had stood at the 2024 General Election, or the by-election earlier this year.

I’ve seen various posts, mainly from self-important social media windbags, about how Andy Burnham is using this as a “back door” into the House of Commons.

It’s not the back door, it’s the front door.

And the people in Makerfield no more chose the Prime Minister than the people in Keir Starmer’s constituency did at the election.

As for the voting system generally, there was a referendum on moving to an AV system in the early 2011 and barely anyone bothered to
vote.

But if he loses the by-election vote then why would he resign as Mayor? Surely he just tries again in another constituency or gives up trying to be an MP and stays as Mayor?

If he loses this by election I don’t see how he could justify trying again somewhere else

what a world we are in when this psychodrama is the best they can manage

Well Lammy is coming into his own this morning - his chance to shine?
Most people have underestimated him.

I agree, I reckon that'd be it. He would stay on as mayor for the rest of the term is my guess.

In 2024 we had a General Election. Less than 2 years ago. The result gave us Keir Starmer. He presented himself as a stable, sensible leader. He said we would get change, that seemed to be his only manifesto promise.
He said he would kill private schools in order to bring more teachers and money into the state system. He has managed to destroy private schools. The amount closing has dumped more kids into the state system. The amount of teachers has gone down. Destroying the private schools has not increased government income.
He did not mention changing the winter fuel allowance but he did. I blame Rachel Reeves for our woes as much as Keir Starmer.
Taxes have gone up, the cost of living has one up. Everyone feels worse off.
All his other policies have been about as successful as the private schools policy. They have made life worse for all concerned - except benefits claimants.
Very soon, the electorate who voted for change, decided that they didn't like the change that they got.
Then MPs realised they were in danger of losing their seats so turned on Starmer.
Labour does not need a new leader. They need to change their policies.
What exactly is Andy offering? Other than cancelling Brexit and ignoring the Bond markets

We don’t vote for a leader but we vote for a party’s candidate based on the manifesto. I can’t see how a new leader can deviate from the manifesto without calling another GE.

Surely you can see there are circumstances in which a party would need to deviate from a
manifesto.

A manifesto is a statement of intent. It’s a not straitjacket or the Ten Commandments.

If circumstances come up that are unexpected, the government needs to respond accordingly.

You can judge performance against their manifesto when the next election comes round.

I’m not saying that is the case here but if you’re saying every manifesto pledge not fully honoured or changed should result in a general election, we’d have a LOT of elections.

No that’s not what I was saying - of course there may be times where deviation may be necessary due to unforeseen circumstances (Iran war) or better data (like putting income tax up rather than messing with NI). But if a new leader comes in and pretty much tears up the manifesto the party was elected on or changes the general direction of it then I think there should be a GE

I suspect that a large percentage of people from Ashton, Platt Bridge, Hindley and Abram are Reform voters given the amount of flags in these areas, so it is a very big risk.
However, AB is a popular figure around here though, his policy of capped bus fares on the new bee network has been a huge success. Locally, he is helping to get an old train station closed in the 1960s to be reopened.
I'll be interested to see if his gamble pays off, he lost the Labour leadership to Corbyn 10yrs ago.

Starmer has already deviated from his manifesto. ID cards were not on the manifesto, nor was cancelling winter fuel allowance, nor was a closer relationship with Europe. The electorate don't want ID cards but he is ignoring them and introducing ID anyway.
Andy Burnham wants to ignore the bond markets - who did for liz truss, and take us back into the EU. If he is going to keep to the 2024 manifesto, surely, surely, there is someone in the 470 labour mps who would be capable of doing the job.
The west Midlands mayor did a lot for transport and opened up old railway stations. He worked really hard. It didn't stop him from being voted out though.

You can"t just cancel Brexit, he has said he will not try to tamper with Brexit anyway, there would be a political process to follow and it is just not worth the drama, get a Reform government in and lets get this country back on it"s feet.

KS won"t be around long enough to introduce digital ID.

The public have never liked Starmer- Labour won the last general election because the floating voters were fed up Conservative and the Conservatives lost votes to Reform but not enough to gain significant seats. Since then the Conservatives have totally fallen off everyones radar so their voters are largely supporting reform as shown in the recent council elections.

Andy Burnham has more charisma and public appeal. He appears to take more clear action and a more clear dynamic style. Kier appears to dither and make unpopular changes- aiming for the long term gain does not fit with todays culture of wanting everything done now.