Comment on Andy Burnham's Labour follows through and puts Israel above the UK.
Tweak@feddit.uk 2 days ago
Kier Starmer steps down for seemingly no reason in particular, then Burnham gets nominated by a handful of MP’s, stands unopposed and thus unelected by the party membership, and magically becomes PM without hardly anyone really having a say in it all.
ohulancutash@feddit.uk 13 hours ago
The large majority of PMs have come to office by this route.
Tweak@feddit.uk 9 hours ago
The large majority of PMs have been appointed by the party mid-term, through the democratic process the party established for that. However, nearly all of them were actually voted on by the party MP’s or the party members, against other potential party leaders. Burnham is unique in that he stood unopposed, so there was never really any vote on him.
Labour’s process for selecting the party leader is, overall, a democratic process, but the path that Burnham took through it isn’t really all that democratic. This is especially true because it would be party members - the public - who would’ve voted. The same party members who chose Corbyn in the past, they were denied any say over Burnham because the party’s “democratic process” bypasses them in this circumstance.
The only people who voted for Burnham to be PM were the handful of MP’s who nominated him. And yet, he harps on about having a “mandate” to enact policy, as if he took the party through a general election and the public had thereby told him what we want.
The interests he represents, who gave him a mandate, are apparently not those of the general public.
ohulancutash@feddit.uk 9 hours ago
Not unique. Theresa May and Gordon Brown are two similar cases in recent history.