Is this representative democracy?

[IwantToRetire]

So not interested in the personalities, but about the fact that it is likely the UK will have another PM not voted on via a GE, but as a result of internal party factions.

So Starmer is sixth PM to be ousted by their own party since 1990. If you exclude 1990 (Thatcher) it is 5 PMs in the past 19 years. Blair, May, Johson, Truss, Starmer.

Before that Lloyd George 1922 and Chamberlain 1940.

A quick YouGov poll today showed that the majority thought Burnham should be challenged, and then whoever wins the internal Labour voting, there should be a general election. (See https://account.yougov.com/gb-en/account/daily-questions - though suspect this link is only valid for today 23 June 26) [fn]

Labour has outlined their internal process should anyone stand against Burnham - https://labourlist.org/2026/06/timetable-for-leadership-contest-confirmed-by-nec/

So on one level I have got sort of accustomed to PMs coming and going, and technically, even though we vote for a local MP, we are voting for a Party. Is there any reason to think somehow this breaks the bond (assuming there was one) between Party and voter?

Or is it because our politics now is personality politics, and if it was instead about the Party, we would just accept that if they feel it is necessary to make a change to who is PM they should just get on and do it?

Or is it that we the voters think of it as personality contest and somehow think that magically one person will change the direction of a Party. Although technically the UK is governed by the Cabinet not the PM.

Or is it that irrespective of voters, all parties are not a cohesive group but an endless battle between factions and for party members who wins these internal wars are the most important. Not for the benefit of voters but to be the top faction (for a while).

[fn] I took a longer version of the YouGov poll invite by email, and pleased to say this time they asked for Sex, and then in a follow up question asked about Gender Identity – if you have one. Not sure when they made this change but first time I have seen it.

Why exclude Thatcher? She was famously visited by the members of her cabinet who told her in no uncertain terms she had to go.

Your MP is your representative, and you have delegated your ability to choose your leader to them, for the duration of parliament. So yes, representative democracy.

The alternative to a representative democracy is a direct democracy; we don’t live in one of those.

Did you read the OP?! You'll find her name there ...

I know Labour constantly made comments about the PM not having a mandate because the country hadn't elected him/her PM when the Tories had a revolving door on No 10. Bo Jo held a general election and was voted back in by a landslide, maybe Burnham will call an election and hope for the same luck.
We do vote for MP's who come from parties (unless you vote for an independent of course) but a lot of the time I think people who are swing voters are persuaded to vote for a party according to whoever is leading the it, so it is part popularity contested.

I think it’s just the oddly worded sentence of “if you exclude 1990 (thatcher), it is 5 PMs in the last 19 yrs.

1990 isn’t in the last 19 yrs, and if it was, why exclude it.

I think it meant that, we've had 5 PM's in the last 19 years who were ousted, before that there was just Thatcher because you have to go all the way back to 1940 and 1922 for the others. They're just making the point that we don't generally go in for ousting PM's in the UK but in the last 20 years we've done it 5 times.

Which shows how much trust the political classes have lost with the public, because a party usually only gets out the long knives in response to pressure from the electorate.

I really wanted Labour to stop it being possible to switch leaders on a whim, or at least make it much harder. They whined endlessly about the Tories doing it (rightly, IMO), and vowed they would certainly not be doing the same thing. Yet here they are joining in with musical prime ministers, and conveniently forgetting how determined they were that it was bad for democracy, and there should be a GE for any change in PM.

And this time is much, much worse! He's not even a MP so he has no relationship with most of his new team, he's not going to have a contest so he doesn't have to present policies and be questioned about them, it's all very sudden so even if he has idea he has no idea of workability or costings - he's already backtracking and refusing questions as he clearly has no actual firm ideas what whatsoever, other than 'not be Keir'.

He's some random smarmy man known only for bitching non-stop during Covid, pretending he single-handedly turned Manchester around when in fact almost all (or all?) his 'achievements' were dreamt up and started by other people, and for losing multiple bids for leader when he presumably did have to present and defend policies. Oh, and for promptly saying' fuck you' to his beloved Manchester - and to the taxpayer - at the first opportunity and abandoning them to a mayoral election at great expense because he thought he could finally slither his way into power. And what's actually going for him? oh yes, the looniest of Labour MPs think he's the messiah - and as we've seen plenty of examples of their judgement over the past year, I wouldn't say that gives me much fucking confidence.

Did you elect a delegate to represent you in the process of making laws and governing?

If so, then yes, it is a representative democracy.

Glad OP posted this. As i find some of the current (and previous debates) on this issue frustrating.

Most people do not understand the evolvement of our particular democracy and as PP’s have said we elect a local delegate to represent our interests in parliament.

Delegates have over centuries evolved into political parties, and sign up broadly to the manifesto of their group, or political party.

We do not elect a Prime Minister, hence the constitutional convention of the king inviting the majority group leader to become the Kings Prime Minister.
The clue is in the title.

We do not have a written constitution, it is to be found in all manner of legal rulings and conventions.

If anyone wants to force an election upon the change of leadership, a law providing for this would not survive a legal constitutional challenge.

In any event it would be open to the subsequent government to repeal such a law.

So in our so called democracy it cannot be done.

The only way to have such a rule is for a written constitution to be created covering everything. But based on the whole structures of our democracy i can not see how that could be achieved without removing the King, and Royal succession.

Not that i am a royalist.

I reckon that quite a few politicians know this and it is just the usual hot air.

Too late for me to properly comment, but whilst I accept the theory, the reality is that what seems to have happened is that factions within parties are creating this. Not say "doing the right thing" because a proposed bill was not passed by the HoC.

So on paper (and I think most in the UK see it like) that we vote for a delegate to represent us within a party, where a smaller group forms a Government.

I think that is why the YouGov poll shows a majority thinking there should be a GE.

The other side of it, is so much time is taken up with the Parties having their own melodramas, that is it any wonder it can seem to voters none of them are doing their job.

Which builds on the feeling that nothing ever happens, or what should have happened goes wrong.

So Starmer is sixth PM to be ousted by their own party since 1990. If you exclude 1990 (Thatcher) it is 5 PMs in the past 19 years. Blair, May, Johson, Truss, Starmer.
Before that Lloyd George 1922 and Chamberlain 1940.

Surely it is obvious, even if i wrote it badly, because many people are talking about it, that this is somehow symbolic of UK politics in the here and now.

ie PMs resigning was rare. 2 in the first half of the 20th century, and 1 in the second half. And then from 2006 (yes not 19 but 20) 5 PMs.

ie this indicates a change in party politics in action in the UK.

1900-1949 2
1950-1999 1
2000-2026 5

We don't have a presidential system and I'm glad about that. I think there are pros and cons to both but overall I'd rather have the stronger connection to an MP.