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.

No, I was adding to your list of people who stepped down for their own misdemeanours, and their disloyalty has been handsomely rewarded by PM, Burnham. I do think Starmer showed a lot of loyalty to his female Cabinet ministers, right to the end wherever he could.

It's not arrogant to infer someone's political position from the way they post. I didn't mention your voting preference, just your apparent political views.

I agree with you broadly that appointing Mandelson was a bad call (and obviously that he was correctly sacked not thrown under the bus)

BUT, in my opinion this was only obvious in hindsight. At the time he was appointed, it raised many eyebrows, but if you look back Mandy rapidly got in with trump (probably remembered him from the Epstein plane, but the point is he did a tricky diplomatic job well), and as a result we got a decent US trade deal, favourable treatment on tariffs etc...

It's not popular to mention it now, but go and read the stories around that time and you'll see lots of positive noises about Mandelson. Of course, after Epstein, that decision looked awful. But predictable, to a fair minded person? Starmer should have intuited Mandy was a total wrong un? I'm not sure. I understand the anger though.

Apologies I got you mixed up with another poster!

No it was known, Epstein was in prison at the time Mandelson stayed in his flat. Which was long before his appointment by Starmer.

The photo of him and his wife standing outside number ten is definitely looking like a still from a Ricky gervais parody sketch. I hope they go away soon.

Staying in someone's flat is not a crime. At the time, Mandelson denied any wrong and the files showing his foul activity were not released (?). And did Starmer know about that at the time of the appointment (I honestly can't recall?) If Starmer had sacked him for hearsay before the files, THAT would have been a lack of integrity.

When the evidence came to light, he was (correctly) sacked.

Staying in Epstein’s flat knowing the crimes he was in prison for?

I respect your view but I don’t agree it’s hindsight. I think anyone with any political nouse wouldn’t have gone near Mandelson, regardless of how well he might get on with Trump. We’re not talking about some saint with an unblemished record here; we’re talking about someone who is demonstrably corrupt and who had resigned from the government twice before for those issues. His friendship with Epstein was also well known. His appointment was just extremely poor judgement.

Bit isn't that the debate with Robbins etc.? Starmer said Mandelson lied, and the service had cleared him. He claimed that when the files were released contravening Mandelson's stories that's when he sacked him? Point is, we don't know, and while you may be right, it's at least credible Starmer believed Mandy in good faith?

I can also see that view. As someone with a Keir Starmer tattoo I obviously can see both sides, but I'm not going to die on a hill for Mandelson. I'm just pointing out that many thought Mandelson was doing a good job and was a good appointment - it wasn't immediately obvious that he was going to be revealed to be a total scumbag. As such I do think there's a lot of hindsight applied to the decision to appoint Mandelson initially.

The foreign affairs committee found that the process by Starmer’s gov was terrible.

He tried to throw OR under the bus to cover that up, but it’s likely OR will win the legal case, I hope he does.

There was also some discretion in exceptional cases - which you would have thought this was - but Robbins didn't chose to see it as an exceptional case. He also wouldn't co-operate with Antonia Romeo and she had to force the relevant papers to be revealed. Robbins may well win his case but you can see both sides. I mean why would, the chair of the select committee, Emily Thornberry have continued to support Starmer over this - she had her own reasons not to?

Don't you think that Starmer was kept in the dark about the real truth surrounding Mandelson and was told just enough?

McSweeny and co would have controlled that no doubt & I think it's one of the times when Starmer's lack of political experience showed, I think he trusted people around him too much.
Same goes for him accepting suits, football tickets etc.

But also Major was chancellor and had been foreign secretary before that. He hadn’t been helicoptered in.

That's very naive. He saw what went on while in opposition, so had plenty of time to avert similar tactics.

I really don't know to be honest. I can't decide if he knew nothing, or thought he had plausible deniability. As I have said elsewhere I think he had integrity so I'm inclined to believe him, but I understand those who don't, we've been lied to by politicians a long time.

Maybe the Robbins case will shed some light (it probably won't, these cases are usually brought because it will almost certainly end in settlement and a cash payout, so Robbins would have brought it anyway, and it's hard to judge if he thinks he would really win/has a great case).

I'm obviously a bit biased, but I think it fairly likely they just believed Mandelson's lies, it at least didn't pick enough at them (wasn't McSweeney a Mandelson protege - might be odd base?)

Their approach was disastrous. That was the verdict of the committee.

Of course Starmer tried to deflect to anyone and everyone around him, that’s his lack of integrity showing.

obvious only in hindsight????? The Prince of Darkness???? Did you actually see Starmer introduce him???

yup, this. ...and giving Lord Ali a number 10 pass? like that was EVER going to end well or was necessary?

Have we forgotten Starmer's ill-judged tweet on welcoming a British-Egyptian terrorist back in the UK. What a howler.

Edited forgot quote

Are you citing a clearly humorous address as proof that they knew Mandelson was actually evil? Or about Epstein?

All that Prince of darkness stuff was a reference to his no holds barred politicking in the Blair era, not Epstein.

I am talking about the "to us he's just Peter" line.....like yeah yeah we know his rep.....

Yes, his rep as a tough politician, inferring they were being jokey about his Epstein links is pizzagate level speculation.