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

To the OP, it happens all the time.
When Harold Wilson resigned, we automatically had James Callaghan.
When Thatcher resigned we had John Major.
When Tony Blair resigned we had Gordon Brown.
When Boris Johnson resigned we got Liz Truss, and when she resigned Rishi Sunak.
I am not sure of all the voting procedure, as this has changed over the years, and different from Labour to Conservative.
However, I think we can agree that in each case the party leader, aka the then Prime Minister was chosen by a select few.
In the case of the conservatives, the parliamentary MPs whittled the candidates down to two, of which the party members decided (Liz Truss). In the case of Rishi Sunak, I am not sure there was even a membership vote.

Makerfield is my constituency. I’m gutted about this. Josh Simons has been an excellent MP and whilst I quite like Burnham, I don’t think he’s going win. Our area was battered by Reform in the local elections and I genuinely think we’re going to lose a good MP to a Reform candidate and quite likely end up with a Reform mayor of Manchester.

You don't think political parties of all stripes seek to influence the electorate via sites such as this? Oh, sweet summer child.

That’s the process but it’s not necessarily the reality for some people. Some people think “ I want Joe Bloggs to be PM so I’ll vote for that party cos I know the more seats his party wins the more likely he’ll become PM” .

It's a conspiracy! Infamy, Infamy...They've all got it In For Me!

Dear oh dear!

Oh for goodness sake, how many times do people have to say that the OP knows exactly how the political system works!

What the OP is saying is that Andy Burnham has a high chance of being voted in to be the next PM if he challenges Starmer, but this could only happen after Burnham is elected an MP by the people of Makerfield. Therefore, in essence, the people of Makerfield will highly likely be voting in the next leader, if he wins there. Got it now?

The constituents of Makerfield are being used as pawns!

A vote was made, an MP voted in and now they think another person can just be substituted.

How bloody dare this Government! With every passing day Labour evidence how totally inept they are. They had 14 yrs to prepare for Government.

But what can you expect of a Government of ex civil servants….. have never lived in the real world, held down a proper job and been yes men to the EU for 40 years. Carrying out EU instructions, nothing more.

They might get a bloody nose here and justifiably so!

Reform are probably relishing this upcoming by election. They won every council ward only last week.
It’s not going to be a walk in the park. It might be close, but I wouldn’t bet on AB winning this.

That sounds a bit undemocratic in itself. Why shouldn't I be allowed to vote for someone who used to be an MP and now isn't? Of course we need to have some rules about who can stand for Parliament for practical reasons, but those should be kept to a minimum.

Blair probably didn't honour that agreement, at least in part, because he could see that Brown, although a fine parliamentarian and excellent administrator, could not connect with the electorate anywhere near as well as he (Blair) could. And, he was right.

You don't vote for either the PM or the party, technically.

You vote - or you're supposed to anyway, I appreciate that's not how many people actually do it - for the person you think will best represent your local area and it's interests in parliament. The majority of the time, that person will be tied to a political party.

I think a lot of people forget this and vote for a party or a prime minister and then turn out to he a bit shocked when their local MP is a bit shit.

So many people saying that I don’t understand how the political system works. I can assure you that I do - and I understand all of the comments about ‘you vote for your own MP, and not the Prime Minister’. I am questioning whether the process (which I fully understand) is democratic in this circumstance.

I’ll give another example. An extreme example I admit, but just trying to share where I am coming from.

Let’s say that Reform are in power. They are having a leadership challenge. They decide to parachute Tommy Robinson (not an elected MP) into a byelection to stand for MP - purely so he can challenge leadership. Would this be acceptable? Before people start laying onto me saying that this would never happen, and I’m being ridiculous - I know this will never happen and I know I’m being ridiculous - but if it were to come to pass, I’m sure that the ‘left leaning’ people on here would be up in arms about it. But the reality is, a political party is parachuting a person in, who was not an elected MP at the time of the General Election, purely to become Prime Minister. I KNOW its the correct process, I understand this process
but it just feels like a strange loophole to me.

AIBU is almost 50/50 at the moment, so quite a few people feel the same as me

What it would not be is undemocratic, at least not within the parliamentary, non directly elected PM system we have.

Burnham is a GOD over there.
seriously.

While the parliamentary system means you don't vote directly for the PM, unless he's obviously the MP in your area, the PM is important for directing the party and the policies. I think in an ideal world were Andy Burnham to become PM he would hold a snap election to gain legitimacy.

Where - in Manchester? Because he’s really not considered that there.

Nothing about Tommy Robinson is “acceptable “ but yes, that would be within the rules so democratically an option.

The populace dont elect the pm. Each party's members elect a leader. The leader of the party in government is the pm

Usually but not necessarily. There is no law to say it must be. For one thing, someone resigning as party leader doesn't mean he or she has also resigned as PM. That only happens when he or she tenders his/her resignation to the sovereign. If Josephine Bloggs resigned as party leader but could still win a vote of confidence in the Commons, she could continue as PM. That places the authority with MPs in the Commons, where it should be.

The sovereign appoints the PM. If a PM resigns, the sovereign sends for the person most likely to be able to command a majority in the House of Commons and invites him/her to form a government. Normally that would be the leader of the party with the largest number of seats, but need not be. It wasn't in 1940.

It would be a major departure for the King (acting on advice) to do this, but our (unwritten) constitution does allow for it.

Yes, it would be acceptable. If Robinsons, as odious as he is, won a by-election and was selected as the leader of Reform, he would command a majority in the Commons and therefore become the Prime Minister. Under the present system, this is as it should be.

YANBU.

If labour end up replacing Starmer that person will be the 7th PM in 10 years. At some point we just need fucking someone to be in the job for more than 5 minutes.

He's not, he's just a Very Naughty Boy!

Those who present him as a God have the loudest mouths, in much the same way as empty vessels make the most sound.

There is a good number of people in Manchester-and I know several on them-one is my mum!-who know him what he is is-a self promoting wind bag, good for nothing except blowing hard.

@Boopybop Would you prefer the American system in which the president is virtually untouchable for their 4 year term, and there's not really any way to get rid of a president who is performing badly or who is unpopular with the public?

And also the fact that American presidents are only in place for 4 or 8 years, which limits the change they are able to make?

The benefit of the British system is that it's easy to get of a PM who is performing badly, and also a PM who is performing well can stay in for 10 years or more.

I suppose the question is what he will do if he doesn’t become leader of the party and PM. Will he then resign as MP to become Mayor. Burnham has shows he thinks being Mayor is his preference over being an MP And being the PM is his preference over being a Mayor.

Burnhams vision is all about Burnham and he serves himself not party, not constituency, not the city and not the country.

I wouldn’t turn out to vote Labour in this by election.

Yes I remember this too. He becomes notably bashful when challenged. He looks insecure, uncomfortable and stands biting his lip like a child. The body language isn’t right.
I just don’t see this happening hopefully.

It does seem insane but at the general election people were voting for the party not the leader so AB is well within his rights to enter a leadership contest and end up PM if he is voted in by the party.