Yes, I was quite surprised too. There was clearly a very organised tactical voting campaign, which is pleasing. But the fact that Burnham would still have won without it is a very good result for Labour.
I think the quicker he challenges (and probably wins) the better IMO. People have short memories so being PM before the year's out means a decent stretch to the next GE.
I agree. Starmer will be troubled by the inevitable challenge but will try to stave off an immediate challenge.
I am guessing he will go to Westminster on Monday, will not find it hard to find 81 (20%) of Labour MPs to sign a leadership challenge.
I suspect this is one place and time where/when there would be absolutely no need to “organise” any tactical voting.
They're going to love the slapping fight between him and Starmer. Burnham isn't a bad bloke but he is a melt.
Starmer has lots of first priorities. I suspect the unnecessary mayoral contest in Manchester will be today’s - accompanied by lots of Starmarites prefacing every sentence with ‘look’.
We have a democracy that lets people decide, by a simple majority, the policies that they wish to see. The majority appears to have decided what their choice of ‘greater good’ looks like. Other views are clearly in the minority.
There is a case for arguing that parties can put up a candidate to be prime minister should they win the election and that once they have been invited by the monarch to form a government they remain PM until that government falls. If the party wishes in that time to choose a new parliamentary leader, that’s up to it, but that person does not become Prime Minister.
Does he? Surely it requires aparliamentary motion of some kind (even the annual recesses do, don’t they). The result would normally be a forgone conclusion, but not if he were going against the wishes of the party. He is only a “first among equals” not a President - he can lay down office whenever he chooses, but surely not force a dissolution against the will of Parliament? Something very wrong if he can….
As it stands today, it doesn't require a parliamentary motion. Parliament cannot constitutionally or legally force a vote on it as parliament is not constitutionally or by statute involved in the decision to dissolve and call a GE; repealing of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 (FTPA) restored dissolution as an entirely prerogative act, reserved to the monarch acting in Council (i.e. at a formal meeting of the Privy Council), by convention on the advice of the PM. The PM has the practical ability to secure a dissolution by advising the Crown to dissolve Parliament, and such advice is conventionally followed.
Reform + UKIP defeated by 11.2% at Caerphilly.
Why would this happen?
Can you provide some sources please? "The media" isn't one homogenous entity.
I don't believe this system has officially returned yet. Its return is definitely in motion, but won't take effect in time for this specific election.
