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.

Yes, now Healey is Chancellor he will have to show how is going to get on with giving that money to Defence that he demanded.

I am also shocked that Burnham is undermining Starmer's commitment to climate change. The 'reprioritisation' that is to pay for the bus fares in 2027, and the VAT on electricity, is because is Burnham will insist poorer countries now have to take out a loan to pay for their renewables. Plus, the drill baby drill.

Just waiting for Gary Neville to come out with a new corker. He's already shown he's a Burnham fan.

His majority wasn't because people really wanted Starmer, they were voting against the Conservatives remaining in post

Don't you think a lot of those people voted Reform? It clearly looked, from the statistics, that they did in my constituency

People got exactly what they wished for, Starmer is out. 🤷 Maybe once Burnham has been in post a few months people might realise Starmer wasn't so bad after all!

Reading over my recent posts I think the worst thing about Burnham and his chicanery is he appears to have turned me into a BTS-level fan of Starmer, when I had several huge issues with him (assisted dying the main one - great idea to rush that though for Esther Rantzen, should be an easy little bill, no stress, not a fundamental change to society or anything).

Still, it's so clear to me that Starmer had integrity, and Burnham doesn't (but claims to be the actual good guy here, and is getting people to agree because he's got a nicer voice and listens to new order... it's so galling)

The evidence to the contrary is anecdotal, does that make my point?

Two old men shouting at clouds is a brilliant phrase!

@LakieLady Just to say that although John Major did take over from Thatcher when she was defenestrated, he did go on to win the 1992 election in his own right.

Starmer was no politician, he has no ideology or vision. It was all fun when he flew around the world in private jets, wining and dining with all the world leaders, but he has run away as soon as it became serious, difficult and anything to do with actually governing the UK. He probably doesn't care very much any more as long as he can earn his millions like all male ex P Ms

It's been reported by the actual BBC (and many other outlets, if you're a BBC hater). There are actual quotes from the parents. Journalists are bound by an ethics code, so absent a really good reason to lie, they generally don't (stackable, sue-able offence).

All these reasons mean the evidence I cited can be assessed by any fair minded person as likely to be truth. If I had said "I know a guy from the pub who said Starmer only eats rice krispies, I mean, what's that all about, good Burnham for in if you ask me" or even... "Starmer ignores his constituents"... THAT would be the kind of anecdotal evidence you seem to dislike (and I do too!)

I can relate to your post.

Or, maybe we should give him 5 minutes in the job before we write him off. What’s the alternative right now?

I have said this before but for me Starmer was the bounceback guy. He was the bloke you bring home after your breakup with an unwise choice and your parents heave a sigh of relief. Unexceptionable background, not red enough to frighten the voters, presentable, definitely not antisemitic. Ticks all the boxes for background....wife in the NHS, although we are never told what she does...., football supporter, background in legal human rights, kind of working class family....but a long term choice? no. He might have lasted longer if his squeaky clean image had lasted longer.
I am wondering what Wes Streeting is up to. I suspect he is someone you want inside the tent pissing out.
Burnham has made a few clever moves. Putting John Healey in as chancellor for instance....in defence he was squaring up to go up against the exchequer for more defence spending and now he can't do that.
He has dribbled out a few sweeties to keep the public going and muttered about tax threshholds.
We shall see.

This kind of thing is why we are where we are. You genuinely think he was jetting around for champagne, and not carrying out high level diplomacy relating to, among other things:

• The US president and his tariffs
• Ukraine
• Iran

Etc etc

You really, truly believe that?

Starmer threw anyone he could under the bus to try to save himself, the opposite of integrity.

Burnham let’s see how it goes.

He is an experienced politician. The Conservatives had several changes of leader. Obviously not ideal but we are where we are. Let's support this one. The problem is it's trial by media. We don't vote in the PM. We vote in MP's which then decides the governing party, who are responsible for choosing the leader. They chose to change.

Who got thrown under the bus?

Haigh? Rayner? Mandelson? McSweeney?

All of those people had justifiable reasons for being sacked. So he sacked them. And by the way, it's clear from how he speaks about Angela Rayner (who I also like tbh) that he did it even though he likes the people involved, and is loyal to them.

I genuinely can't think of anyone who he sacked to save his skin, and there was no reason to sack?

Then there's the guy who made way for Burnham who is now said to be part of his policy team, Josh Simons. That was his own fault that he had to step down from a junior ministerial position - he was part of a think-tank that smeared journalists - so his goose was cooked in Westminster. That solved the mystery of stepping down in Makerfield. Is he part of the No 10 North team I wonder?

Olly Robbins. Hopefully he’ll win his legal claim. And get his job back.

Sacking Sue Gray wasn’t great either but in answer to your question KS sacking Olly Robbins is a good example of Starmer’s lack of integrity.

He will be, but I'm confused. You're saying Starmer threw people under the bus. Who?

Simons, Rayner, Haigh, Mandelson, McSweeney were all sacked for good reasons - mainly that Starmer had stood in an alternative to Tory cronyism, and if he had defended them despite their clear misdeeds, he would be hung for it (or, as I like to think, he just did what he thought was right, because integrity).

Burnham is the exact opposite. Haigh machinate with him - plumb job. Healey assisted to be taking a principled stand - of look he's now chancellor. Sarwar came out of nowhere to undermine Starmer - now in cabinet. Simons - sacked, steps down for Burnham. Many of these people were clearly motivated at least partially by revenge, but claim it is because they want the good of the country. Please!

Btw, many pms would have sacked Sarwar for disloyalty - Starmer didn't

Where's this bus?

I'd watch that court case if I was you. The impression I got was that it was not clear but Robbins had done nothing wrong.

ETA you mean you agree OR had done nothing wrong? In which case Starmer lacked integrity

True enough. I meant follow what happens rather than watch it. TBF I had forgotten about Robbins, but I really remember it being a bit if a Spiderman meme where everyone pointed fingers at each other, rather then it being clear Starmer was at fault.

Mandelson wasn’t thrown under the bus. He fully deserved to be sacked. That’s not the issue. The issue is that he was appointed in the first place.