Britain’s coup begins falling apart?

[C C]

Surely wishful thinking that any public concern is going to sway them. Both Conservative and Labour only stand to lose more to Reform if they have a general election. Survival priorities win.
- - - - - - - - - - - -

MICHAEL HEAVER
https://youtu.be/QTvr84udT-8

VIDEO EXCERPT: Nigel Farage has said that Andy Burnham's rise to prime minister is a coup and that there should be a general election and he seems to be the only party leader actually saying this. Andy Burnham has no mandate, no mandate whatsoever to bring about the biggest change for 40 years in British politics and downstream from that, the biggest change in this country in 40 years.

"The Conservatives don't want an election. Funny that. The Liberal Democrats don't want an election. Funny that. The British people, clearly in opinion polls by a large majority, do want a new general election. Especially if there's a prime minister who comes in with no mandate and wants to make fundamental change."

Coup falling apart ... https://youtu.be/QTvr84udT-8

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/QTvr84udT-8

[stryder]

Surely wishful thinking that any public concern is going to sway them. Both Conservative and Labour only stand to lose more to Reform if they have a general election. Survival priorities win.
- - - - - - - - - - - -

MICHAEL HEAVER
https://youtu.be/QTvr84udT-8

VIDEO EXCERPT: Nigel Farage has said that Andy Burnham's rise to prime minister is a coup and that there should be a general election and he seems to be the only party leader actually saying this. Andy Burnham has no mandate, no mandate whatsoever to bring about the biggest change for 40 years in British politics and downstream from that, the biggest change in this country in 40 years.

"The Conservatives don't want an election. Funny that. The Liberal Democrats don't want an election. Funny that. The British people, clearly in opinion polls by a large majority, do want a new general election. Especially if there's a prime minister who comes in with no mandate and wants to make fundamental change."

Coup falling apart ... https://youtu.be/QTvr84udT-8

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/QTvr84udT-8

It makes more sense for Burnham to not have a snap election. The country has suffered from the revolving door of Prime Ministers too often and Farage in his infinite stupidity would be attempting to add two more to the list (If Burnham was ousted and should Farage have gotten in, when he was ousted as the Grifter he is.)

So sticking to the next general election being in two years time when it's suppose to be makes the most sense. It also means that Burnham has two years to prove that he's capable in the job, so should that general election take place he'd actually be viewed for what he's done rather than what some grifter suggests he is.

[Syne]

I guess some Brits don't care if they get a say in major changes:

UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham is planning dramatic, structural changes, which he has framed as the most significant in forty years. His agenda includes a major decentralization of government through a new "No. 10 North" base, wide-ranging social care reforms, and a push to re-industrialize Britain.
- gemini

[geordief]

It makes more sense for Burnham to not have a snap election. The country has suffered from the revolving door of Prime Ministers too often and Farage in his infinite stupidity would be attempting to add two more to the list (If Burnham was ousted and should Farage have gotten in, when he was ousted as the Grifter he is.)

So sticking to the next general election being in two years time when it's suppose to be makes the most sense.  It also means that Burnham has two years to prove that he's capable in the job, so should that general election take place he'd actually be viewed for what he's done rather than what some grifter suggests he is.

What would be the argument against it being illegitimate for Burnham to effectively change Labour's manifesto at the last general election without going to the country to endorse his new one?

Can it be said that the public actually voted the individual members of Parliament and entrusted them to propose a government that is subject to a vote  of confidence ,and that therein lies the legitimacy?

Is it clear that he has legitimacy and that this is not an illigitimate coup?

My view is that it is legitimate but that the party is on thin ice  if it gains power with one set of promises/intentions  but changes horses mid stream and goes a different path.

Actually,I don't think they have done this .The change was forced upon them  by a combination of  a long series of bad choices , bad luck  and wretched presentation (Keir Starmer is a good man   but an awful communicator in public)

It was not an intention to change course but that was the baggage that came with any new leader (even Starmer,had he remained in office would have had to change course had circumstances demanded it)

[C C]

It makes more sense for Burnham to not have a snap election. The country has suffered from the revolving door of Prime Ministers too often and Farage in his infinite stupidity would be attempting to add two more to the list (If Burnham was ousted and should Farage have gotten in, when he was ousted as the Grifter he is.)

So sticking to the next general election being in two years time when it's suppose to be makes the most sense.  It also means that Burnham has two years to prove that he's capable in the job, so should that general election take place he'd actually be viewed for what he's done rather than what some grifter suggests he is.

What would be the argument against it being illegitimate for Burnham to effectively change Labour's manifesto at the last general election without going to the country to endorse his new one?

Can it be said that the public actually voted the individual members of Parliament and entrusted them to propose a government that is subject to a vote  of confidence ,and that therein lies the legitimacy?

Is it clear that he has legitimacy and that this is not an illigitimate coup?

My view is that it is legitimate but that the party is on thin ice  if it gains power with one set of promises/intentions  but changes horses mid stream and goes a different path.

Actually,I don't think they have done this .The change was forced upon them  by a combination of  a long series of bad choices , bad luck  and wretched presentation (Keir Starmer is a good man   but an awful communicator in public)

It was not an intention to change course but that was the baggage that came with any new leader (even Starmer,had he remained in office would have had to change course had circumstances demanded it)

In the US, Biden campaigned as a centrist or moderate, but then veered robustly left when acquiring office. Regardless, those who gave him their votes for the former reason were still stuck with his administration for 4 years.

But alternatively being able to unseat a leader early just because confidence is lost in them or he/she disappoints, and to also optionally be able to call a general election, is not working out in the 21st-century. Due to the competitive sentiments and diverse spectrum of rival news media generating a revolving door of PMs in the UK who only last two years or less.

So whether Labour is staying on the track of its original commitments or not, even resistance to an election for self-serving reasons helps deter the vulnerability that this particular system has in this very changed era. Ultimately, though, the process is probably going to have to be reformed so that a PM can at least be guaranteed a minimal number of years in office. Otherwise the motley and jostling modern political landscape is going to continue to eat them prematurely.

[geordief]

It makes more sense for Burnham to not have a snap election. The country has suffered from the revolving door of Prime Ministers too often and Farage in his infinite stupidity would be attempting to add two more to the list (If Burnham was ousted and should Farage have gotten in, when he was ousted as the Grifter he is.)

So sticking to the next general election being in two years time when it's suppose to be makes the most sense.  It also means that Burnham has two years to prove that he's capable in the job, so should that general election take place he'd actually be viewed for what he's done rather than what some grifter suggests he is.

What would be the argument against it being illegitimate for Burnham to effectively change Labour's manifesto at the last general election without going to the country to endorse his new one?

Can it be said that the public actually voted the individual members of Parliament and entrusted them to propose a government that is subject to a vote  of confidence ,and that therein lies the legitimacy?

Is it clear that he has legitimacy and that this is not an illigitimate coup?

My view is that it is legitimate but that the party is on thin ice  if it gains power with one set of promises/intentions  but changes horses mid stream and goes a different path.

Actually,I don't think they have done this .The change was forced upon them  by a combination of  a long series of bad choices , bad luck  and wretched presentation (Keir Starmer is a good man   but an awful communicator in public)

It was not an intention to change course but that was the baggage that came with any new leader (even Starmer,had he remained in office would have had to change course had circumstances demanded it)

In the US, Biden campaigned as a centrist or moderate, but then veered robustly left when acquiring office. Regardless, those who gave him their votes for the former reason were still stuck with his administration for 4 years.

But alternatively being able to unseat a leader early just because confidence is lost in them or he/she disappoints, and to also optionally be able to call a general election, is not working out in the 21st-century. Due to the competitive sentiments and diverse spectrum of rival news media generating a revolving door of PMs in the UK who only last two years or less.

So whether Labour is staying on the track of its original commitments or not, even resistance to an election for self-serving reasons helps deter the vulnerability that this particular system has in this very changed era. Ultimately, though, the process is probably going to have to be reformed so that a PM can at least be guaranteed a minimal number of years in office. Otherwise the motley and jostling modern political landscape is going to continue to eat them prematurely.

I don't think a minimum length of tenure for a bad PM is a good idea.The people vote for candidates   in the full knowledge that  they will support one or other party or none.

The individual PM is of less consequence than the party he or she heads up.

It is a Parliamentary Democracy and not a Presidential one.

It is tricky if there are factions within the Party and one faction  wins out over the other,but it is still the same Party.

In Ireland there is a coalition  government and two Parties take it in turn to be prime minister and deputy prime minister every 2 years  and also to have the opportunity  to be greated in Washington  on St Patrick's Day by the Oaf in Chief.

The system goes by the name of Rotating Taoiseach

[C C]

I don't think a minimum length of tenure for a bad PM is a good idea.The people vote for candidates   in the full knowledge that  they will support one or other party or none.

The individual PM is of less consequence than the party he or she heads up.

It is a Parliamentary Democracy and not a Presidential one.

It is tricky if there are factions within the Party and one faction  wins out over the other,but it is still the same Party.

That was my original take -- i.e., as long as it's the same party in power over _X_ years, what does this incredible revolving door of PMs over the last decade really matter? But apparently Stryder and some other Brits feel that the pattern is causing instability.

Of course, even should the latter be the case, the process is likely too entrenched and revered for it to be altered and adapted to be more immune to the stormy media waters of this century. It would take a series of crises indisputably brought about by this continuing chain of short-lived PMs to finally spur a radical rules change.

In Ireland there is a coalition  government and two Parties take it in turn to be prime minister and deputy prime minister every 2 years  and also to have the opportunity  to be greated in Washington  on St Patrick's Day by the Oaf in Chief.

The system goes by the name of Rotating Taoiseach

Yah, perhaps the UK will eventually adjust to ephemeral PMs that only hold office for two years and sometimes much less. Or maybe only a small, vocal fraction of the population is really unsettled by the trend and considers it weird slash alarming in contrast to the past.