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.

He attempted to court the "hero voters" (Reform voters) and neglected his voter base. He made two fairly significant errors immediately (casting doom and gloom, appearing corrupt by accepting free gifts) and he failed to make a clear distinction between Labour and the outgoing government (targeting disabled people and pensioners). Many felt he fudged the Gaza issue and was overly accommodating to Trump, with no real return. He appeared to have no real beliefs and values, he could have been the leader of any of the mainstream parties. He didn't address the cost of living crisis in any meaningful way. And by all accounts he ignored his constituents!

@Dragonflyandthepondskater ,

Blair/Brown?

Wasn’t Brown annointed? There was even strong rumours that, over a dinner at Granita (now sadly closed down) Brown agreed to stand down if Blair would swap with him after one term, which didn’t happen.

That was meant to be what caused rancour between them.

Why was it the responsibility of the prime minister to address the issues facing this country so that people didn't turn to hard right populism? Is that a genuine question?

Well said
Starmer suffered so much because the right wing media, the Daily Mail in particular, hated him.

Wonder why they hated him so much and we're hell bent in getting rid of him & seemed keen to let Burnham in?

Because he was actually going to do a good job and make Labour a force to be reckoned with perhaps?

The British Public: Spend over two years bashing Starmer (yes, it happened even before he became PM) and demanding he resign on an almost a daily basis.

The British Public: acts shocked and appalled when Starmer resigns but immediately start doing the same with the next PM.

We really are an ungovernable bunch of brats.

Of course it's a genuine question. Do you believe in democracy or not? Starmer tried to halt the local elections and look how that turned out. Do you think he should have been responsible for putting the brake on the Green party?

Yes, and so will I. But the signals are tax cuts at the bottom and tax rises at the top/middle. Things like rent controls are being suggested which in Scotland and other countries have been shown to lead to reduced rental supply (unsurprisingly). This direction of travel is not something we should be in favour of if we want growth in the economy.

Non Labour voters owe both Starmer and Burnham nothing, except high taxes.

But it’s not why he was disliked, people who did like him cite his boring voice as they can’t connect with the reasons Labour lost so many voters.

NoisyUmberBalonz I honestly think that's because of the footballification of politics, not his actually record.
It's personality politcs. I liked Starmer. I also liked May and Brown. All of them IMO had integrity but didn't have the populist appeal of the likes of Burnham, Johnson, Farage, and Blair.

It's why people say 'They picked the wrong brother' about the Millibands IMO. I think they don't look deeply into the politics beyond the headlines.

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

David Cameron became PM because he fancied the job. His time in charge did an incredible amount of damage to the country.

@EasternStandard , In the recent by-elections, Labour did badly, but the Conservatives did even worse. The party in power tends to not do well in by-elections.

The results in the Scotland and Wales elections are more complicated as there were issues related to the respective nations involved.

Oh read my posts and stop wasting my time. Ridiculous.

There's a huge gulf between 'unemployable and perpetually on benefits' and being the right hand woman of the PM.

I'm not a fan of the labour stance on Israel or the sucking up to trump, but burnham has been a hard working politician for many years. He has held way more political positions than starmer.

I'd never heard of kier starmer when he stood as prime minister.

You're wasting your own time if you're more riled up by Reform than anything else.

@Shakeoffyourchains ,

It’s a poor show to blame the demos in a democracy!

You have to ask why we (and the we is becoming pretty pan European at least) are an ‘ungovernable bunch of brats’.

Politicians need to lead and persuade people of their ideas. That is why Farage is a really effective politician. He has ideas and is able to elucidate them. He also answers questions directly.

We need Farage’s presentation skills attached to a politician with more likeable ideas. I hope Burnham is that person.

(Yes, there are also massive issues with social media which I acknowledge, but politicians need to deal with this too).

It absolutely is not anti democratic. Voters can elect whichever criminal they like to represent them in parliament . That's democracy. What is unacceptable is those past criminals being chosen for cabinet jobs over law abiding m.p's. Why should nurses and midwives for example be held to higher standards than those imposing laws on other people?

For once Keir Starmer had it right when he told Boris Johnson that law makers couldn't be law breakers. Did you agree with that then? What made you change?

I don’t blame the Labour MPs for hearing the results, I assume you mean the local elections not by-elections.

Not only were they bad the feedback on the doorstep was very much Starmer is the problem.

The early bounce for AB shows it has worked for now. The longer term plans and whether they work will be key for him.

I dont think you can do much in his position- when your own allies stab you in the back like if there was no tomorrow. He stood there as long as he could. I think Id be more cross with people who supported him and then jumped ships the moment an opportunity arose.

Really interesting to see that list and be reminded of the facts.

Despite the absoluter horror of Truss and Johnson getting in this way, I still also feel a bit discombobulated by Andy Burnham's rise and rise. I wonder if it's becasue he wasn't actually a sitting MP 6 weeks (or so) ago and the whole thing has had to be specifically orchestrated to make this happen? There were rumblings last year and I was cross with him then for the distraction and egoism, but it seemed ridiculous that it might happen.

Also I feel like two years for Starmer with such a massive majority is uncomfortably unfair and largely driven by a severely distorted media narrative and the posturing of career politicians (those who seem just to want to ascend to more power, rather than actually to do the hard graft). It was such a relief to have a bit more stability after the previous chaos, and yet here we are again.

And then there is the sad fact that for whatever reasons I just don't find Burnham particularly convincing as a leader. The whole thing is exhausting and perpetually in flux.

Havent you ever heard the phrase a happy medium? Surely there was one between a terrified looking starmer and council boss Burnham?

If there had been even a small leadership contest it wouldn’t have been as bad

We may be brats but it's the sitting MPs you need to hold responsible. They were worried about keeping their seats. If Burnham turns out not to be their new messiah and their seats are in jeopardy, they'll turn on him too. All this 'good of the country' stuff is bollocks.

ETA: that was meant to be in reply to @Shakeoffyourchains

Exactly. Stage a leadership contest like they staged the by election. At least pretend that he hasn't just waltzed into number 10 thanks to his pals coup.

I think one can understand the technicalities of how our parliamentary democracy works and recognise it is a limited democracy, and that Burnham has taken advantage of its limitations.

It sets a terrifying precedent. What happens when Reform are in government and, through the same system that Burnhan has taken advantage off, catapault someone far, far worse than sitting PM Farage to power, while their MPs just let it happen?

I saw no evidence ( from MN discussions) that The British Public wanted KS gone. They wanted him to be left in peace to do his job. It was the media, and us being told what we wanted. Overall, it was the party thinking that they needed a strong personality to win the next election for them. Which is crazy, because KS had won the last one. And when you're in government, your job is to get on with governing, not looking to ensure your success in some future election.