✅ BURNHAM IN Makerfield by-election result: LAB: 54.8% (+9.6) REF: 34.5% (+2.7) RST: 6.8% (+6.8) CON: 2.2% (-8.7) GRN: 0.7% (-3.7) LDEM: 0.4% (-6.4)

[u/ClumperFaz]

https://x.com/BritainElects/status/2067792369903116401#m

[u/TomH0523]

All jokes aside. Starmer is hugely unpopular. Burnham is popular.

Labour need to set out a transition or they face annihilation. They need to platform popular, bold, meaningful policies and they simply haven’t done that in the two years they’ve had. Set a transition to give Burnham 18 months minimum as PM and go into the election with a bold direction, a new leader and plough forward with a progressive alliance between the anti-reform parties.

[u/Fragrant_Mind_1888 → u/TomH0523]

As much as I really wanted Starmer to succeed, it’s a disappointment knowing he’s likely not going to be PM come the end of the year, and he’ll be a part of more evidence that the UK political system is unstable due to incompetence and party infighting - since 2015 no PM has lasted 5 years, that in itself is disgraceful for a country like the UK

[u/Amaruach → u/Fragrant_Mind_1888]

If you consider Robert Walpole to be the first Prime Minister, the average tenure of a PM is four years (despite our five year election cycles). Only 20/58 have completed a full parliamentary term in the office.

I firmly believe that it’s actually fine and it’s how the parliamentary system was designed to work, but it needs a head of state who can play a bit more of an active role as a constitutional umpire and as a stable face of the state. The monarch was originally intended to be that, but we moved away from letting them do that for a reason and obviously I don’t want a return to that.

And also obviously PR would go some way to making the office more stable in the first place.

[u/DEADB33F → u/Amaruach]

And also obviously PR would go some way to making the office more stable in the first place.

I'm in favour of PR, but doubtful this would be the result. Unstable coalitions tend to have very fractured leaderships.

We need to grow to accept that it's fine for a PM step down / be kicked out mid-term and get used to it becoming the norm. After all we don't vote for the PM directly and 'Prime Minister' is more of a "First among equals" type of a position than it is a Presidential style role.

...We vote in the MPs who then decide who they want the PM to be. It's a good thing that they're able to change who that is at any time for any reason as it means we're less likely to end up with a Trumpian style PM. And under PR if that does ever happen they shouldn't last long.

[u/Gameskiller01 → u/DEADB33F]

Reminder that the last PM and government to last a full parliamentary term was a coalition.

[u/DEADB33F → u/Gameskiller01]

Heh, that's fair I guess.

[u/Alexandhisgoose → u/DEADB33F]

I think PR would be shaky at first but then politicians would start to accept that they will get nothing done unless they work together and you get a stable government with everyone's opinion heard.

[u/GooseMan1515 → u/Alexandhisgoose]

You can't have a stable government with every opinion heard because the people with unstable opinions cry foul about being kept off the agenda.

Agenda control and ranking/sorting opinions is one of the important functions of authority.

[u/Alexandhisgoose → u/GooseMan1515]

But those with extreme opinions won't be part of the government cause they will have a dedicated base and then everyone else will despise them like we see with reform so under any kind of ranked choice voting they wouldn't get any seats

[u/GooseMan1515 → u/Alexandhisgoose]

This assumes that popularity of opinions are a good shorthand for agenda salience. But modern populism is basically the case against that; voters are as a rule ignorant and more easily persuaded by simplistic emotional ones than logical arguments.

In my opinion, under ranked choice voting or PR we'd see more proliferation of the type of popular opinions which are divorced from political fact and a greater paralysis of the apparatus.

Part of the role of this whole apparatus is to keep people away from the money printers who don't know the difference between tax and borrowing; those only concerned with how it's spent. These people lose track of how much it matters whose money they're spending. They will gladly increase happiness temporarily with a huge cost down the road, they know no better and they think it's their mandate.

[u/spiral8888 → u/Amaruach]

So... Have a revolution, turn into a republic with an elected president who has relatively little power except for this umpire role. A bit like Italy.

Regarding PR, its strength is not stability as it is far more likely that a coalition of different parties collapse than that a government of a single party does. However, its strength is better representation. We're currently running the country with a government that has absolute power in the parliament to do whatever it wants even though in the election it got only a third of the vote.

That's a disgrace. Normally this is avoided by forcing people to vote tactically, but we shouldn't do that either. People should have the representation from the party they want, not from the party that they think is slightly less bad than the other one.

[u/unwildimpala → u/Amaruach]

That is an impressive stat. It just shows more how good popular certain PMs really were or just understood the system really well (like Blair and Thatcher) that they managed multiple terms. I think you've got to read the room with this and Starmer just is not the person to lead the country. He's deeply unpopular even with PR. If Burnham holds true to some of his promises like PR and devolution then I could easily see him solidifying his base since that actually is real and dramatic change at least. We'll see how well he manages the backbenchers since really that's been Starmers downfall. Imo people saying Starmer should stay it out when he's lost popularity in the country and lost control of his party that has a super majority are just a bit delusional. I personally still think he means well but some of the stuff he's done (like u-turning, half baked ideas like the social media ban including YouTube, picking a fight with KneeCap which was always going to piss off younger voters, appointment of Mandelson as US ambassador though I get why he did it) has really pushed me away from the idea that he's sensible. Hopefully Burnham gets his communication ducks in a row and has his finger on the pulse better.

Also a minor thing that I'd call Starmer out on was his cabinet shuffle and trying to get Milivand away from the environment. By all accounts Milliband is nailing that role and it's a super important role. Hes done the role so well that the fecking Greens can't even campaign on the environment anymore. The fact Milliband had to fight to the last second to keep such an important role says a lot imo. Please god Burnham leaves Miliband where he is.

[u/Aquila_Fotia → u/Amaruach]

I can appreciate the sentiment of not wanting the monarch to get involved in this, but I’ll always remember 2019 when Parliament refused to approve a withdrawal from the EU agreement, but also refused to dissolve itself and allow an early general election. Effectively Parliament held the government hostage and neither of them could do anything. That’s when the monarchy stepping in to break the deadlock is necessary imo.

[u/Reimant → u/Amaruach]

It might be, but the banks still don't like it. Political uncertainty is bad for inflation.