Burnham’s arrival without a general election turned an arcane parliamentary succession into a test of democratic legitimacy, and the chamber answered Yes by a narrow majority. The result was less a cry for a presidential system than a rebuke to the distance between legal procedure and public consent.
The floor’s most-respected Yes voices focused on the handling rather than merely the outcome, condemning the “utterly incompetent and shambolic handling of the process” and saying the “lack of transparency and coherent process foment mistrust in principle”. Other Yes voters made the case more personally: one said, “I am not just background for this petty game”, while another predicted that “The wheels on his bus will fall off soon”.
The No side’s strongest argument was that Burnham was being blamed for a system that had not changed: one voter said he had become PM “in a similar manner to 14 others”, while another insisted, “we vote in a party not a leader”. The more constitutional No case argued that the UK is “a parliamentary democracy, not a presidential one”; beneath those points sat a broader indictment of governments with large parliamentary majorities, malleable manifestos and ties to big business.
The two sides therefore talked past each other. No voters defended parliamentary authority and precedent, with one saying Burnham was “not evidence that democracy is an illusion”, while Yes voters treated that very reliance on precedent as the problem; the least-respected voices widened the charge into a “new face of the circus”, or suspected that negative briefings showed the old guard feeling threatened.
The chamber did not reject parliamentary democracy so much as refuse to let parliamentary rules settle the question of legitimacy. Its verdict was a warning that inherited authority can be lawful and still feel like a slight.
9 Opinions
Im still waiting for his bill, billions handed out for no investments or long term infrastructure. The wheels on his bus will fall off soon, fall off soon,,fall off soon
He is just one part of evidence. As i have said before if voting mattered we would not be allowed to do it. Andys just the new face of the circus. So we dont look at Russia and what Putin is saying. Incase heaven forbid we mind find an ounce of truth somewhere.
Just because the system allows this, and it has been done repeatedly, does not stop me feeling that I am being taken for a mug when this happens. I am not just background for this petty game.
As with every other time this question is asked in different words, it is important to note that we vote in a party not a leader. The leader's job is only to follow the party's manifesto. If the party believes someone else can do that better, they have every right to change their leader.
Burnham is not evidence that democracy is an illusion, but that Britain is a parliamentary democracy, not a presidential one nor a classical Athenian one. We elect MPs to represent us in Parliament, not a national executive or its leader directly. The government derives its authority from Parliament and can be removed through. The manner in which Burnham was anointed as Starmer’s successor without meaningful challenge is unpalatable but within the parameters of the system.
I voted no, because Burnham isn't the evidence for this. Our whole political system is. We have a semblance of democracy. We get to vote for our government, but when governments are able to achieve large majorities with low % of the vote share, are riddled with career politicians beholding to big business, and have manifestos that are written in pencil and easily erased, as they do what they want with the power, not what the majority want, we don't have true democracy.
NO We've never elected a PM on this country, so give it a rest & move on. I would say though, Burnham is certainly rattling the cages of the old guard & the establishment. You can see that with the massive amount of negative briefings from all corners
He has been made PM in a similar manner to 14 others. Although perhaps on the back of media pressure !
Unfortunately it can certainly appear that way due to the utterly incompetent and shambolic handling of the process. The lack of transparency and coherent process foment mistrust in principle, which is sad because it's completely avoidable.