To think if Keir Starmer is ousted there should be a general election

[Viviennemary]

I think the set-up should be changed and if the PM is voted out by his party then there needs to be a general election. I didn't vote for very left wing policies which will happen if Andy Burnham replaces the PM. And neither would have I ever voted for the dreadful Liz Truss who must be the absolute worst PM we've ever had.

OP, please show me the posts you made on MN about the revolving door of PMs under the last government, expressing your outrage and demanding a GE.

It's all very well for you to complain now, but if you didn't complain then and feel a similar level of grievance, there's a word for that.

Why on earth would we have a General election if the PM changes? You vote for the party not the PM.

Do you think anyone wanted Liz Truss leading the country?

You wouldn't vote Labour no matter who was in charge. You're a Faragist.

Don’t be daft, OP.

These threads normally fill up with

1. you clearly don’t understand our electoral system
2. did you complain when the tories did this?

we vote for parties and their manifesto so if there is a change in leader and the approach changes to the point people don’t think they are sticking to the spirit of the manifesto then there should be another election.

I don’t find burnham at all impressive and it feels like Labour haven’t learnt from the last lot. Be a party of unity and work together for the betterment of the country. Stop focussing on personal ambition.

Angela Rayner thinks so!

No OP.
Thank God our Political Parties can "sack" their leaders!

Vote for a Party not a Person

Who the actual F wants a general election? Seriously.

Andy Burnham isn’t very left wing. I live in Manchester and there’s nothing left wing about the way this place is run; capital is king.

What we do have is a public transport system that’s integrated and while not perfect, actually works.

Totally agree. Have thought this for decades regardless of the party in power but the last few years have made a mockery with the number of prime ministers handed power by someone else standing down, making huge, batshit decisions for the country (looking at you, Teresa, Truss and Boris). It's all very well saying you don't vote for the prime minister, you vote for the party, but the tone and manifesto comes from the top, so by voting for a party you are in essence also voting for the leader. I think there should be a mandatory general election within a year of a prime minister standing down.

This was always the peril of voting for Labour. Who did not see this was going to happened I am even surprised KS lasted so long.

Some perfectly valid arguments, but it does look like one rule for the Tories, another for Labour. I think any Tory screaming for a GE if there is a change of PM has one hell of a brass neck.

Absolutely I would hope for a GE as this is NOT a situation which is healthy for the country.

In the US they don’t even have a new election when a President dies. They just appoint the Vice President and if he or she dies, they work back down the line of “succession”.

That’s how it works @Viviennemaryand though not always palatable it is what we have.

TBH I think that political parties who renege on their manifesto promises are more troubling (that’ll be all of them) and an unelected upper house should cause you more angst

We don't vote for a prime minister OP, we vote for a party. YABU to not understand how it works.

Agree with this too, but at whatever point it changes it will stink of hypocrisy.
Maybe have a 1 change limit, so power can be handed once, then a second handing of power triggers a GE

The problem with your proposed solution to this is that if the country is heading to hell in a hand cart and needs a change of direction, NO party would dare to change its leader to put things right, as they’d be at serious risk of losing all power and being voted out.

Is that what anyone would want?!
Under current rules, they get to make adjustments whilst retaining their mandate to govern for the full five years.

Rubbish. Labour also did it when Brown succeeded Blair.
It’s an all-party situation. No-one should be calling for an election, but they all do just to make political points.

You are right, Gerald Ford became president when Nixon resigned. He became VP when Spiro Agnew resigned. So never elected. Neither was Nelson Rockefeller who he appointed VP.

The OP is a Reform supporter so won't be too bothered about an unelected upper house (and would probably quite like an unelected lower house).

I’d put money on you never voting Labour in your life.

Do you really want a general election every 1-2 years? I don't.

I think people vote for a leader, even if they don't technically.

But more so a lot of people vote for a manifesto. So essentially what the leader says during the campaign, even if they don't read the manifesto.

So if Burnham sticks to Starmers manifesto then fair enough. But if he wants to change considerably from that he will probably need to hold an election, and if he does change but doesn't hold one, the public pressure will get significant enough to force it.

Since Starmer hamstrung himself by commiting to a lot of things he didn't need to in the manifesto (ie tax rises) unless a new leader deviates from the manifesto significantly there is not much they can do in terms of changing the direction of government.

So either Burnham will be the same old old with the old manifesto, or will call an election to put a new one forward. IMO anyway.

Without robust anticorruption laws, proper punishment for corporate and political fraud, a functional criminal justice system and proportional representation there's no point having a GE. It'll just be crooks of a different political colour running the show.