AIBU to feel like Andy Burnham is an impostor?

[NotABeliever]

Whenever I see him on TV, my first reaction is a jolt of disbelief — as if Andy Burnham has somehow staged a stunt and pushed out the person who actually earned the right to be in Number 10 but somehow everyone is ok with this. It feels like a con, like he’s occupying a role that isn’t his.

What’s strange is that I don’t dislike Andy Burnham, and I’m hardly a devoted Starmer supporter. Yet something about the way Starmer was removed and replaced so abruptly feels fundamentally wrong and unserious . I keep thinking: Starmer is the one who won the election, not Burnham — so how is Burnham now the Prime Minister? It feels like a huge injustice.

I understand that in the UK we elect a party, not a president, and that whoever leads the party becomes PM. But even within that system, it’s hard to accept that a sitting Prime Minister can be shown the door simply for not being popular enough. With three years until the next general election, how can anyone confidently claim Starmer would have lost? Polls swing constantly.

It just feels like a moment of madness — a sudden upheaval that’s left us starting from scratch with a new cabinet and a new agenda, right when the previous team was in the middle of governing and getting on with the job. I can’t shake the sense that something about this isn’t right, and I’m struggling to make peace with it.

That's about the crux of it. So much for critical thinking.

In that scenario at least Mr B would have been elected by the country rather than the Machiavellian plot to install a bloke who wasn’t even an MP at the last election. Plus he couldn’t really do a worse job than the current disaster.

Mr Blobby for PM! Quick, ask Makerfield to vote on it, it’s all up to them after all.

Starmer lasted longer than Sunak, and 16 times longer than Truss. In fact was PM longer than both of them combined. Not bad innings by today's standards!

Douglas Home took over from Macmillan without an election, too, I can remember my DF ranting about it.

Also Macmillan when he took over from Eden, but Eden held an election soon after taking over from Churchill in 1955.

Stubborn git - not a quality - he was absolutely useless. The Labour Party have no vision or plan.

I was just about to ask the same question

They didn't have to parachute either of them into the party.

Evidence can be so subjective though.

I think that's possibly why he got so much support. They didn't want to risk someone more on the left standing and have the vote go to the membership. They've learned their lesson from the members choosing Corbyn.

If someone like John McDonnell had stood against Burnham in a leadership contest, he could quite conceivably have won.

You disagree that Douglas-Home was a member of the House of Lords before renouncing his peerage to become prime minister? Surely this is a point of historical fact. I wasn't asked who was hounded out, I was asked to point to a PM who wasn't a sitting MP when appointed.

You're right, let's just do away with any attempt to use evidence, it will certainly help with the new justice secretary's backlog.

Why do you presume to know my voting preference? Arrogant.

That is fair. I was surprised how long Burnham's inner circle have been working to get him in - Louise Haigh says over a year, so nothing to do with the local elections. We can see it more clearly now with the appointments of those who undermined Starmer - like Anas Sarwar, being made a Lord by Burnham so that he can be a minister, who openly criticized Starmer in February.

The one who maintains integrity is Al Carns - he turned down an appointment as the defence spending is no change.

I see it from a different perspective. I think people deserve a second chance, particularly for minor crimes. It's a shame to advocate closing off entire career avenues because someone made a mistake. Like I say, I think that nominally legal but ethically dubious behaviour is far worse than an idiot in their 20s trying to get a free new phone.

That's not quite what I was suggesting is it? I feel if we cut the hyperbole, we could have a more productive discussion.

Who’s to say he couldn’t do it again?

The local and council election results in May (two whole months ago)?

Douglas-Home similar to Burnham in that he renounced his peerage to stand as an MP solely to become Prime Minister, with a sitting Conservative MP stepping aside to trigger a by-election.

Absolutely agree. And the love still being shown to Healey is baffling to me too, he was clearly one of the main levers of Starmer's downfall and in the Burnham team, which undermines his principled resignation completely.

He wasn't "out of politics" at all. He was mayor of a massive area that includes the country's 3rd biggest city. And he's been active and had a high profile within the party for decades.

He's also nowhere near "hard left", and neither is Rayner. He's just left-wing enough for the hard left to find him tolerable!

No I’m not disputing that fact. I can also see where you’re coming from. Thanks!

It doesn’t matter one way or another. He doesn’t need to, under the rules. Also, the chief moaners Reform would sweep away a ton of rules anyway, if they got in, imitating Trump.

Its just noise.

I’m more concerned that he isn’t yet taxing millionaires, many of whom would welcome it.

In fairness, there was a war on!

I don't think we have elections when the country is fighting a war. People have more important things to think about.

I can't have a discussion with you because you don't include any reasoning. I can disagree without evidence, but then it's just two old men shouting at clouds.

Rather then moan about evidence not being the truth (it isn't, but society uses it as a proxy, that's the whole basis of the justice system), really you should respond to my evidence with your own, if you can. That's how society works - people read the evidence in two views and decide what is likely to be "the truth"

For example, I cited an article showing Starmer gave personal attention to a bereaved constituent, in response to your allegation he ignored them. Where's the evidence to the contrary? Let people decide who is right.

I saw Gary Lineker leading on this. I also see he has a current court case against HMRC trying not to pay more tax. Funnily enough.

He really is a piece of work. He calls the Tories tone deaf!