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.

The media usually tear people apart for irrelevant crap. This council boss to PM via a staged by election has seemingly passed them by. I wonder why.

People voted for their local MP. More MPs from the Labour Party were elected, by far, than any other party, so we got a Labour government. And, as of today, we still have a Labour government. That sounds pretty democratic to me.

This is disingenuous. OP and many others have said they understand how the system works. That’s not the point.

How was he out of politics? He was Manchester mayor! And it might be “tinkering” to you but what he’s trying to do is make people’s money go further so they feel better off. It’s what voters want.

I agree. Quite like the bloke but he feel for Starmer who had to work hard to win the election.

That’s exactly how I feel. All the other times a PM has replaced an existing PM they have already been an MP if not in the cabinet or a front bench MP. Burnham has shoved his way to the front of the queue from nowhere. And now he’s promising everyone free unicorns d ice cream with no real notion of how he’s paying for them.

This was one of the things that made him good though! He didn't just govern for labour voters, but for the while country. That's what it's supposed to be like! Now we have Burnham who will be in hock to the soft left of his party forever, and unable to govern for all.

Exactly this!

And those who clearly helped this situation are rewarded. Loyalty seems to count for nothing. A real WTF moment for me is the Anas Sarwar stuff, he also stuck the boot in on Starmer and hey presto what happens!

I feel conflicted too because I do like Burnham but I hate the means. I think that Steve Reeds leaving letter powerfully said so much, and those former Labour ministers who showed loyalty must be forcing themselves to stay quiet (except Darren Jones).

Steve reed extract: “Keir Starmer showed loyalty to me by appointing me to his cabinet. I make no apology for returning that loyalty. It’s what is expected of functioning teams, and I hope those who did not show loyalty to Keir will now show it to you.”

Do you think anyone who becomes PM does so because they want to make things worse?

MPs should be held to a higher standard. No one is saying criminals can't work again, just not govern us.

Calling him a "council boss" just makes you look uninformed. He wasn't a council leader; he was a directly elected mayor with responsibility for a city region of nearly 3 million people. That's considerably more executive experience than say, Nigel Farage has ever had and I suspect many of Burnham's critics would happily see Farage in Downing Street.

I would ensure there is consistency and common sense. Normally, CDs would suggest a lower level of criminal culpability, with which I agree. So why are other professionals being barred? The Prison service, education, Magistrates all are strict on applying with convictions.

Because he appears to be inclining more towards the left than KS and RR were and suggesting completely new changes that were not up for debate at the last election. I think he will be even worse for the economy than RR and won’t make the fundamental infrastructure changes in government that need making for this country to turn itself around.

No way only a few very loyal Labour voters stuck by him. He alienated everyone else. Look at the local elections, Labour were losing people everywhere to everyone else.

Burnham has had a bounce, if he keeps it up the MPs will be happier over their job prospects.

Starmer didn’t win the election. It’s statistically unlikely that you (or any random voter) voted for Starmer, unless you live in his constituency.

And he wasn’t ousted, he resigned. It’s quite difficult to replace a Labour leader, and he didn’t let that process run out, he stepped aside and he chose to for us to get a new prime minister.

For me, that he wasn’t a sitting MP at the last election. It’s that simple.

Haigh's role has even been accommodated to suit her conviction! After the heavyweight appt of Healey, Burnham undoes that with Haigh and Rayner. Rayner, in particular, was one in the eye to Starmer. As was Streeting et al.

Since the Boris and trump years literally nothing will surprise me unless Mr Bobby gets elected

I honestly think that's because of the footballification of politics, not his actually record. I looked at the labour manifesto tracker just before he went and they were in target for something like 70% of it. He's done well on Trump, business, Iran, immigration...

BUT, he has a boring voice, Chris Mason and the BBC are addicted to drama, and the electorate now have the patience of a gnat.

So now we have Burnham and the whole thing repeats in... two years or so.

I think the PLP realised that with Starmer in charge their popularity was just going to get worse and worse. Burnham was a sensible choice; a new broom, as opposed to someone who was already in the inner circle who would have been seen as more of the same.

He has an uphill struggle as things have got to such a sorry state and the country just doesn't have enough money to make the changes needed, but I am optimistic. Hopefully he won't drop some huge clangers early on like Starmer did.

Well as long as MPs are happy that's all right. The real crime here would be if they lost their seats, I agree.

Yeah I’m waiting to see what plum high paid job he might perhaps be given ….

Fascinating how people who were constantly posting about how dreadful Starmer was and how he needed to GO are now whinging about the perfectly legitimate parliamentary process that brought about the goal they were hoping for….

It felt a lot like he was pleasing nobody.

The Tories were given the boot because of their revolving door of different leaders. Labour will be given the boot too if they try the same trick.