Does Burnham have a real mandate without a public vote?

[MyCyanBear]

Been mulling this since Monday. Burnham became Labour leader unopposed (no ballot, the nomination maths meant nobody else could even stand) and then PM without any of us voting for anything.

Then I looked it up and it's the sixth time since 2007. Brown, May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak all came in mid-term, and Sunak didn't get a members' vote either. We elect a Parliament, not a PM, so constitutionally it's all fine.

What made me pause is his defence: he says his mandate is Labour's 2024 manifesto. Which is Starmer's manifesto. While also promising the biggest change in 40 years. Both things can't really be true at once, can they?

Found a decent breakdown of the arithmetic and the precedents here: trendingsheet.com/article/burnham-no-election-mandate-does-it-matter

So does it matter? Or do we only mind when it's a PM we don't like?

No, he does not have a mandate.
A general election should be held when the ruling party changes leader.
And a by-election should be triggered when an MP changes party/allegiance.

Oh give it a rest.

Yes, he does.

We have a parliamentary system. If a party chooses a leader and the majority of the House support that party, he or she is legitimate as Prime Minister.

Even the traitor Boris Johnson when he forced out Theresa May and could not tell you how many children he has was legitimate.

Yes. That’s just how it works.

Yes because we vote in a party not a leader

He has no mandate to bring back Angela Raynor, that's for sure.

If we vote for a party, why don't we get a bye election when an MP changes party?

Because you vote in an mp

So we vote for an MP and not a party?

We vote for the individual to represent our constituency in Parliament, nothing more.

I agree, I voted tactically to get my brexit MP out

No, you vote in an mp, the PARTY with the most mps wins. At no point do you vote in a prime minister.

That’s literally what I said.

But in the English system you don't vote for PM - you vote for the party to form the government and the party choses their leader.

Boris did win an election, no? Not that I'm normally an apologist for him!

It's how our system works.

If you don't like it, be careful what you wish for. If we had to hold a general election any time the majority party changed its leader, and thus the PM, then they would simply be far less inclined to change their leader. The current system is the reason why unpopular PMs are forced out of office with relative ease.

IMO no he does not, and this is worse than the previous Tory PM changes, as in this case the elected MP for Makerfield was essentially bribed to give up the seat for AB. Rules need to change so that a general election is called when a PM decides to leave or is forced out. Taxpayers are already paying - for ALL past PMs including Liz Truss - £115k salary for life, 24 hour security for life, plus the payoffs, expenses etc. It's outrageous.

We vote for an MP. There are independent MPs, think the man in the white suit. Some MPs get in because they are liked locally.

Yes he has a mandate under our election and party rules.

We vote for our local MP, not for the party leader. The winning party chooses its leader.

Has Angela Raynor ceased to be an MP? If not she can come and go from Cabinet positions,

Far more dubious was Sunak wanting to bring David Cameron into the Cabinet - but Cameron was NOT an MP - so they had to announce Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton in the House of Lords in order to make him Foreign Secretary.

He doesn't have a mandate from the public to lefty things. If he has a mandate at all, it is to follow the election manifesto, in which case why change leader?

The majority of the democratically elected Labour MPs were dissatisfied with Starmer’s performance. If they want to choose a different leader, as they once chose him, that’s fine by me.

The majority of the public is dissatisfied with Labour

And? It’s only been 2 years since the last GE.