Next British Prime Minster

[Leicesterpool]

Yep the famous Poll is back, just curious to see with the names said to be interested in taking leadership of the labour be interested to know however would prefer leading the country up to the next general election. 

[Danizen]

What's Keith Vaz up to these da- actually, I probably shouldn't ask...

[Izzy]

Burnham is about 1/200 with most bookies. 

Doesn’t seem like anyone is bothering to challenge him and it sounds like a done deal from what I’m reading.

[st albans fox]

2 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Burnham is about 1/200 with most bookies. 

Doesn’t seem like anyone is bothering to challenge him and it sounds like a done deal from what I’m reading.

Yeah

pointless vote I’m afraid 

[urban.spaceman]

I voted for chaos with Ed Miliband and I'm bloody well getting it. 

[Corky]

I'll go with York.

[DJW1]

AB 4 PM.

I'd like Ed Miliband to continue as Energy/Net Zero Minister. He seems very motivated and is doing a good job .

[Grebfromgrebland]

Every one of them a Zionist compromised and not working for British interests apart from possibly Ed Milliband

[bovril]

Seems a bit irrelevant the rate we are going through them

[danny.]

is this a prediction or who we'd like? Because surely it's nailed on Burnham in terms of who it will be.

[Jon the Hat]

3 hours ago, Izzy said:

Burnham is about 1/200 with most bookies. 

Doesn’t seem like anyone is bothering to challenge him and it sounds like a done deal from what I’m reading.

None of them have 80 votes it seems.  Generally I think its better if the MPs agree amongst themselves - the Labour members gave us Corbyn remember.  And the Tory members Liz Truss.

[mozartfox]

I would prefer Jon Rudkin.  He would sort welfare out and over the past two years has done a job that compares favorable with that Starmlin.  Gerrimin.

[Tommy G]

Whoever voted for Rachel Reeves needs their account revoking. 

[Jimothy]

The one person who seems most likely if any to challenge Burnham isn't even on the list 

[kenny]

22 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Whoever voted for Rachel Reeves needs their account revoking. 

My thinking was, if she was PM should couldn't be chancellor.

 

Always move failure upwards where they can't cause any bother IMO.

 

 

[Parafox]

1 hour ago, Tommy G said:

Whoever voted for Rachel Reeves needs their account revoking. 

 

1 hour ago, kenny said:

My thinking was, if she was PM should couldn't be chancellor.

 

Always move failure upwards where they can't cause any bother IMO.

 

 

Rumour is that Burnham is planning to demote her if he's PM.

[Fox1norfolk]

2 hours ago, Jimothy said:

The one person who seems most likely if any to challenge Burnham isn't even on the list 

I find it quite alarming and assuming that Burnham is the next PM. He has been elected by around 20.000 Makersfied voters and will have his finger on the nuclear button. We urgently need. General election

[Jimothy]

1 hour ago, Fox1norfolk said:

I find it quite alarming and assuming that Burnham is the next PM. He has been elected by around 20.000 Makersfied voters and will have his finger on the nuclear button. We urgently need. General election

That's not how our parliamentary system works. Kier Starmer was only voted in by his constituency at the last election, so was Sunak, Truss Johnson, May, Cameron, Brown, Blair. I could go on. We vote in our MP, and the party with the most forms the government and they can elect a different leader when they see fit to do so.

[Wymsey]

17 hours ago, Danizen said:

What's Keith Vaz up to these da- actually, I probably shouldn't ask...

Suspect he has an NDA somewhere.

Edited 4 hours ago by Wymsey

[inckley fox]

2 hours ago, Fox1norfolk said:

I find it quite alarming and assuming that Burnham is the next PM. He has been elected by around 20.000 Makersfied voters and will have his finger on the nuclear button. We urgently need. General election

It really doesn't work like that. You vote for MPs who form majorities and get to choose who leads them. The question arises when their policies deviate significantly from the manifesto promises. There are plenty of examples of PMs - some good, some bad, some great, some awful, and from all major parties - who come in and govern for multiple years without having secured the so-called electoral mandate.

 

In recent times we've had Major, Brown and Sunak who served for well over a year, and effectively till the natural end of the parliament. Before that, Lloyd George, Churchill and Macmillan, all of which had lengthy and extremely successful tenures without winning elections. In certain cases they deviated a great deal from the manifesto that secured the mandate. Wars and other national emergencies come into play in some instances, but by no means all.

 

There certainly isn't anything urgent about it, and if anyone wants to score political points out of it, it'll have to be Reform, Restore or the Greens, because the Tories and the predecessors to the Lib Dems all governed, very well at times, with a midterm change of leader.

 

If Burnham enjoys a sustained poll bounce, is seeking electoral legitimacy for a more radical programme, and/or thinks he can secure a majority, then he'll call an early election. But unless he has something really radical lined up (e.g. reversing Brexit or electoral reform, but not - for instance - nationalisation of water companies or a wealth tax) then he doesn't need to.

[Lionator]

4 hours ago, Parafox said:

 

Rumour is that Burnham is planning to demote her if he's PM.

I mean yes he isn’t an idiot 

[Miquel The Work Geordie]

6 hours ago, Tommy G said:

Whoever voted for Rachel Reeves needs their account revoking. 

 

I think Starmer gets a fair but if unwarranted stick but this ghoul has done her level best to cripple hospitality in this country

[urban.spaceman]

15 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

None of them have 80 votes it seems.  Generally I think its better if the MPs agree amongst themselves - the Labour members gave us Corbyn remember.  And the Tory members Liz Truss.

And Theresa May, and Boris Johnson. I know Truss is an easy target but you can't exclude the other two disgraces they inflicted on us. 

[Fox1norfolk]

19 hours ago, DJW1 said:

AB 4 PM.

I'd like Ed Miliband to continue as Energy/Net Zero Minister. He seems very motivated and is doing a good job .

He’s doing a good job destroying British oil and gas with massive job losses, plus’s increasing all of our energy bills with his fixation for zero carbon. Banning petroleum cars, tumble dryers, etc etc. obviously copying North Korea. If you check his background very questionable

[leicsmac]

13 minutes ago, Fox1norfolk said:

He’s doing a good job destroying British oil and gas with massive job losses, plus’s increasing all of our energy bills with his fixation for zero carbon. Banning petroleum cars, tumble dryers, etc etc. obviously copying North Korea. If you check his background very questionable

...the alternative, of course, being continued use of oil and gas for energy generation and joining some of the nations of the world in a communal race to the bottom where everyone loses and days like the past few we've had will seem like a pleasant memory. 

 

So, I guess, people will have to pick their worst case poison. 

Edited 1 hour ago by leicsmac