4 ms·

Ridiculous and undemocratic. Burnham (for those who are unaware) can be best described as a Tony Blair B-side, and is most notable from his previous stint in g

Ridiculous and undemocratic. Burnham (for those who are unaware) can be best described as a Tony Blair B-side, and is most notable from his previous stint in government for his role in the Private Finance Initiative disaster, eg: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jun/28/labour-debt-peterborough-hospital-pfi https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jun/28/labour-debt-peter...

mytailorisrich 4mo ago
Agree with your first sentence but he is described as being on the very left wing of the party and, if he becomes PM, it will be with the support of the left wing, not the blairites.
- marysol5 4mo ago
  Then we will have a hot-minute before they're utterly hating him and demanding he goes too
- SideburnsOfDoom 4mo ago
  > he is described as being on the very left wing of the party By whom, and why are they worth taking seriously? Some politicians these days say all kinds of deranged nonsense about their opponents, and very often paint them as "far left" regardless of actual position. It's not worth taking at face value if it comes from there.
  - mytailorisrich 4mo ago
    His 2010 leadership bid was very much on the left and now he is clearly pitching on the left, too. It may not be the furthest left but it is very left nonetheless and John McDonnell's support is not random. ot sure what's controversial or "deranged nonsense" there, strange... Obviously we shall see what he actually does if he becomes PM.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 4mo ago
      > he is described Still no specifics on who does this describing? Wikipedia says that he is "soft left". i.e. not "hard left", the "very left wing" part of the Labour party that you claimed.
mbmbn 4mo ago
Why undemocratic? I thought parliamentary elections in UK worked like in most of Europe: you vote for a party, not a candidate. At least here, it already happened, to have the PM resigning and then someone else from the party to pick up the role and that’s legally sound.
- gaiagraphia 4mo ago
  You vote for a local candidate, who may belong to a party. The candidate can switch party, resign from the party, etc, and will still keep his seat. Whoever can prove to the King he can 'command the confidence of the house' is given the title of Prime Minister, and is free to form a government. Unfortunately the system has flaws, and a sizeable chunk of people treat it all as a Presidential vote by proxy.
- greengreengrass 4mo ago
  > I thought parliamentary elections in UK worked like in most of Europe: you vote for a party, not a candidate. They are. It's a parliamentary system, not a presidential system. Nobody votes directly for who will become PM, who is ultimately selected by the monarch as the person who can best command a majority of the House of Commons – normally the leader of the biggest party, of course, but not necessarily. Perpetuating this view is frustrating because it's not what the system is designed for, and I feel a common misconception among voters that they are "electing the PM". With the increasing breaking of two-party politics, it would not surprise me if we see this precedent of the monarch choosing a PM who can command a majority tested in close outcomes in future GEs where no party gains an overall majority. I'll be particularly interested to see how the press describes such an outcome, if it occurs, especially if the result is that the party with the most votes doesn't go on to join such a coalition. Nevertheless, it frustrates me when these changes are described as "undemocratic", as that's a common talking point perpetuated by a poor understanding of the constitutional basis of UK elections. If there is a desire that the PM should be directly elected, that would mean a substantial rewiring of the UK constitution more broadly.
  - mellosouls 4mo ago
    (gp commenter) a common talking point perpetuated by a poor understanding of the constitutional basis of UK elections Please don't presume. I'm fully aware of the parliamentary vs presidential basis of our government, but it's naive to think the leader of the party isn't a significant factor in whether a party gets elected - that's the whole basis of the current situation! People voted for a combination of Kier Starmer, Labour, and their local constituency MP - and to get rid of the Tories. That landslide election result is now being subverted by internal Labour panic, mainstream media stirring up stories and the egos of his competitors (on top of course of any Labour and Starmer failings). The idea that people voted strictly along paper theoretical purist party lines is for the birds.

mytailorisrich 4mo ago

Agree with your first sentence but he is described as being on the very left wing of the party and, if he becomes PM, it will be with the support of the left wing, not the blairites.

marysol5 4mo ago
Then we will have a hot-minute before they're utterly hating him and demanding he goes too
SideburnsOfDoom 4mo ago
> he is described as being on the very left wing of the party By whom, and why are they worth taking seriously? Some politicians these days say all kinds of deranged nonsense about their opponents, and very often paint them as "far left" regardless of actual position. It's not worth taking at face value if it comes from there.
- mytailorisrich 4mo ago
  His 2010 leadership bid was very much on the left and now he is clearly pitching on the left, too. It may not be the furthest left but it is very left nonetheless and John McDonnell's support is not random. ot sure what's controversial or "deranged nonsense" there, strange... Obviously we shall see what he actually does if he becomes PM.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 4mo ago
    > he is described Still no specifics on who does this describing? Wikipedia says that he is "soft left". i.e. not "hard left", the "very left wing" part of the Labour party that you claimed.

mbmbn 4mo ago

Why undemocratic? I thought parliamentary elections in UK worked like in most of Europe: you vote for a party, not a candidate. At least here, it already happened, to have the PM resigning and then someone else from the party to pick up the role and that’s legally sound.

gaiagraphia 4mo ago
You vote for a local candidate, who may belong to a party. The candidate can switch party, resign from the party, etc, and will still keep his seat. Whoever can prove to the King he can 'command the confidence of the house' is given the title of Prime Minister, and is free to form a government. Unfortunately the system has flaws, and a sizeable chunk of people treat it all as a Presidential vote by proxy.
greengreengrass 4mo ago
> I thought parliamentary elections in UK worked like in most of Europe: you vote for a party, not a candidate. They are. It's a parliamentary system, not a presidential system. Nobody votes directly for who will become PM, who is ultimately selected by the monarch as the person who can best command a majority of the House of Commons – normally the leader of the biggest party, of course, but not necessarily. Perpetuating this view is frustrating because it's not what the system is designed for, and I feel a common misconception among voters that they are "electing the PM". With the increasing breaking of two-party politics, it would not surprise me if we see this precedent of the monarch choosing a PM who can command a majority tested in close outcomes in future GEs where no party gains an overall majority. I'll be particularly interested to see how the press describes such an outcome, if it occurs, especially if the result is that the party with the most votes doesn't go on to join such a coalition. Nevertheless, it frustrates me when these changes are described as "undemocratic", as that's a common talking point perpetuated by a poor understanding of the constitutional basis of UK elections. If there is a desire that the PM should be directly elected, that would mean a substantial rewiring of the UK constitution more broadly.
- mellosouls 4mo ago
  (gp commenter) a common talking point perpetuated by a poor understanding of the constitutional basis of UK elections Please don't presume. I'm fully aware of the parliamentary vs presidential basis of our government, but it's naive to think the leader of the party isn't a significant factor in whether a party gets elected - that's the whole basis of the current situation! People voted for a combination of Kier Starmer, Labour, and their local constituency MP - and to get rid of the Tories. That landslide election result is now being subverted by internal Labour panic, mainstream media stirring up stories and the egos of his competitors (on top of course of any Labour and Starmer failings). The idea that people voted strictly along paper theoretical purist party lines is for the birds.