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.

That isn't true. The cheques and balances would keep an individual from going rogue.

They won't prevent an organisation being bought by the wealthy and corrupted into a tool of the elite. Mainly because it was designed to protect the wealthy and elite.

Now the French revolution (which careful students will notice the US did very little to assist in) ... that was a different matter. You can bet your bottom dollar a lot of wealthy elite newly minted US citizens looked to France and inwardly thanked God their revolt maintained the status quo.

@SerendipityJane I wouldn’t be as wholly cynical as that. C&B were designed to make sure one body could not override the other, also there was suffrage for all men(white men that is) which was advanced for the time.
I would agree that its money that has brought the US constitution low, particularly money in elections (for those of you who are interested look up Citizens United vs FEC), the inability to control money in politics is the main reason Trump has been allowed to go rogue - in my opinion.
The UK does seem to have managed to keep that evil genie in the bottle….so far.

Even the race to choose a candidate to run for senate can be more expensive than the whole UK GE

I've never felt overly held back by my cynicism.

there was suffrage for all men(white men that is) which was advanced for the time.

Not federally. We can't all come from Kentucky can we ?

The UK does seem to have managed to keep that evil genie in the bottle….so far.

I think the UK being completely honest about it's Imperial status and ambitions probably helped. The US has had to spend a quarter of a millennium pretending it hates empires whilst simultaneously ensuring it became one. (An attempt at a conjuring trick that fooled no one who wasn't American, by the way).

The trouble with the US is there is always a state law somewhere that proves a point one way of the other my point was the US was closer to being a democracy (apart from women, slaves, indentured servants etc) than most of Europe. It was more advanced than most of the world.
The US has also spent a lot of time hating dictators and kings and that’s not looking too good for them either at the moment.

States rights !

As in the right to suck on the federal teat whilst simultaneously prating on about sovereignty and eschewing all those nasty liberal laws.

Sound familiar ?

You vote for your MP, not for the PM.

The US has also spent a lot of time hating dictators and kings and that’s not looking too good for them either at the moment.

Now you're just plain trolling.

For the time being at least. There's no point him making a leadership challenge if he's going to just carry on doing what Starmer's doing. It is not unreasonable to suggest therefore that he will be looking to deviate from what was in the Labour Manifesto.

I think you know what I mean here. 😏

Liz Truss was able to turn the entire economic policy of the UK inside out without going anywhere near parliament. It was only her own side, buckling under the pressure of their mates who were losing money (obviously not as much as the public is still losing) that removed her. Not a vote in parliament and not the electorate.

If we are talking mandates and the like.

No I really don’t. What if a PM dies in office? Is that a good time for a GE? What if there is a world crisis like a pandemic? Does that need a GE? The Brexit referendum was a massive change, does that require a GE?
My point is you have to be really clear and specific if you want this rule and then there might be times when it was really inappropriate but we’d be forced to have a GE. The inherent vagueness of the system is actually very good.
Don’t ask for something if you haven’t thought through all the options, it’s really complicated and really hard. Not just I don’t like KS I want this sorted now. You can’t change a rule based on this instance, well you can, but it may have long term unforeseen implications.

@SerendipityJane Mississippi I’m looking at you!

What if a PM dies in office?

Parliament chose a new one. Job done.

@ Yes, obviously. But what if we have a new rule as suggested on this thread that a ‘change’ means we have a GE? A PM dies at a time of crisis, a GE would be a disaster. We can’t have a rule whereby anytime something happens that constitutes a change a GE is called.
Parliament needs the flexibility to elect a leader when necessary without recall to a GE. A new PM does not - and should not - necessitate a GE. Parliament as @SerendipityJane says should be able to make the decision without the need for a GE.

😂😂😂 This isn’t 1970s Nicaragua, dear 😂😂😂 Do you think Burnham is leader of the Rebel Alliance and he’s off for a battle to the death with his real dad on the Death Star? 😂😂😂

That’s not correct. In those circumstances, the King would appoint a new prime minister, on the advice of the cabinet. That would probably be the deputy leader of the governing party (if a member of the cabinet) or the deputy prime minister (if there is one - it’s not mandatory and there isn’t always - and assuming they differ from the deputy leader), although there is no hard and fast rule. The governing party would then have a leadership election and when a new leader is selected, he or she would be appointed (assuming they differed from the interim prime minister).

Seven prime ministers have died in office, including an assassination in 1812, but it hasn’t happened since 1865.

Closest we’ve come more recently was Andrew Bonar Law who resigned in 1923 due to terminal throat cancer and died shortly after leaving office.

😆 🤣

That’s not correct. In those circumstances, the King would appoint a new prime minister, on the advice of the cabinet.

which is drawn from parliament.

In the UK (and it should not need to be emboldened) parliament is supreme

Endof.

Much lols

To quote Brenda from Bristol “What, another one? You’ve got to be joking”

He lost 2 leadership elections. If he wasn't good enough then, why is he so good now?

What taxes have gone up? Council tax has a lower increase this year than most other places.

Few of us are at the same place professionally as we were 11 years ago, and if we are, and have not honed our skills and gathered experience, we have done something wrong.
Burnham has had 11 years to develop as a politician, to consolidate his political position and to trial ideas in Manchester with great success.
The environment has also changed. He last lost to Corbyn, which indicates an appetite for a quite different approach in 2015 than now. He is approaching now with a proven record of success and a clearer message. And importantly, a message that is the one people want to hear.
We wouldn't say for any other job, you weren't right 11 years ago so you won't ever be right, would we? We'd allow that the years not only allow for professional development, but also that what's wanted in a candidate can change.

And nor should we have done, although Starmer and Rayner were very vocal at the time that we should!

Still, you were promised country first not party by Labour when they won in 2024…so another Labour ‘U’ turn ;)