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.

Of course he was ousted - by a bloodless coup.

I think many people will start to look back at Starmer and rue the day he left office.
The Right Wing press hated him from Day one and did their level best to tell the electorate how much they hated him until everyone was parroting the same stupid phrase like "he's the most unpopular PM ever".
Why? Perhaps because he is an intelligent man of integrity, not career politician driven by ego, who could actually have been a great PM and kept Labour in long term once he got established. And if the ridiculous Iran War hadn't happened we would be seeing the fruits of his labours now.

They don't need to denigrate Burnham because he is going to do it himself. He will raise taxes, he will alienate the slightly wealthier middle classes, he will alienate wealthy Londoners and Badenoch will be able to constantly tell him he has no mandate to be PM - which, ironically, is what Labour did to Sunak.

Next election Labour will be gone.

There was no obligation for him to have been.

Tax avoidance is legal, stealing phones is what teenage neds do and is illegal. HTH.

I see little OJ is not happy even with a more leftish cabinet. If Burnham appointed Marx and Lenin to his cabinet he still wouldn't be happy.

Fine. Let's just have reform and the greens then, sod the centre, just pick which flavour of utter headbanger you prefer.

It wasn’t the boring voice, he had that at the 2024 GE. He alienated many due to other reasons.

Oh reference to him has put me off my breakfast.

What you propose is anti-democratic. We have rules on who can stand for election, and that's sufficient.

Beyond that, voters can choose.

Once you start barring anyone with any criminal record, you create the circumstances for a corrupt government to prosecute opponents on trumped up charges to prevent them being elected.

As for 'held to a higher standard' - not prior to political life. Our politicians should be held to high standards in office - but no higher than many other roles anyway.

Mayors are heads of local authorities. Council bosses. He wasn't an MP despite the stayed by election . He got in via his pal's coup.

Pp saying it is 'fascinating' how we can say Starmer was useless and still object to this circus, what on earth is fascinating about it?! .

I guess it is like any job.

I felt Starmer wanted the job but, once he got it, he didn’t have any real ideas.

His main idea seemed to be competency which, to be fair, he was kind of achieving. Starmer and Sunak seemed very similar to me; two decent blokes who were working hard and doing their best but not real political leaders in any sense of the word.

Thatcherism is fairly easy to define, as were the ideas of Blair and Brown. But who would like to try to define Starmerism?

It’s quite sad in a way, as he wasn’t doing a bad job. OTOH, he would have made a far better head of the civil service than the government.

What would help (WWH?) is if you read my comment properly before making silly remarks.

Which were? Trying to reform welfare which we DESPERATELY needed (tax the ultra rich too, aye, but go at it both ends)?

And I'm sorry, but if you scroll most reasons given by people here for not liking Starmer, it's all "boring voice", "career politician" (he was a senior lawyer FFS!)...

I know that, I’m not ignorant of our system, I have said as much on here. I’m saying, this is what makes this different.Can you give me any comparable PM?

A little dramatic perhaps? I'm entitled to my opinion on Starmer's performance as PM, which I felt was so poor as to allow a minority Reform regime in at the next election. The worst of all worlds.

Is “council boss” the new “Rachel from accounts”?

It's what he was, no shame in it. Just not exactly current or relevant parliamentary experience.

Alec Douglas- Home.

I never said you weren't. Please could you articulate what he did that means we should have to replace him with all this attendant fuss (I'll give you one for free - the way the assisted strong bill was handled, but I doubt you could pinpoint something massive he did that wasn't about his MPs being upset, rather than the electorate)?

PS Burnham will not be able to do anything fundamentally different to Starmer to stave if reform, except have a better voice, which might work tbf given the thought people seem to put into politics these days.

Ok fair enough on whether his economic approach will work. I’m waiting to see what the bigger plans are later this year.

For all those posters repeating that what has happened is perfectly legal, yes, we know. But can someone name me a comparable PM appointed to this one? It is not normal business the way this has happened as all the changes in PMs like final Truss Brown May et al were established MPs in post. I kind of feel I’m being a bit gaslighted!

Why was it on Starmer to stop Reform?

I am sick of hearing about his "boring voice" as a reason for disliking Starmer.

Boris Johnson was a clown and a pretty hopeless PM but he had "charisma" & look how that ended?

Personally I preferred have a proper grown up in charge for once who had already proven himself in another career and had a considered approach to politics.

Many a PM would have leapt into supporting Trump in his idiotic illegal war but Starmer handled that excellently. That's the kind of PM I wanted.

Now we have another type of show man in charge who has wheedled his way to the top in an underhand way & is already throwing ideas out with no substance behind them.
I really hope he isn't going to be the disaster I suspect he might be.

AB is in love with the very idea of himself. AB is chucking around funded populist measures ('what voters want') & further promises. 'Jam today and jam tomorrow'. KS told us 2 years ago: 'it will feel worse before it feels better'. Correct - his team were actually fixing 14 years of Tory / covid/ brexit mess. Many things were improving in the UK. He had the Ukraine & USA/ Iran conflicts & effects on oil/COL to deal with. And the most unstable 'special relationship' in decades. KS was outstanding internationally - awarded medals by France & Ukraine. AB - and Streeting as Defence sec, God help is, will be eaten alive by Trump & Vance.
It is not helpful for the UK, long, medium or even short term. We don't need bread & circuses, we need time served states-people & politicians who don't believe their own BS. I hope the short cabinet meeting clip was not how things will proceed.

I just wish we could forge a sensible centrist government all working together for the greater good . I’m so tired of revolving doors , sniping , backbiting etc .