Why democracy demands there should be a general election – Brian Monteith
If Andy Burnham continues to enact Keir Starmer’s mandate, how will he change anything? But if new policies are required, he must seek his own mandate
The country needs a general election. It deserves a general election. Yet it shall be solely down to the next Prime Minister if we have one or not. We should not have to wait.
The fact there is no constitutional means for the public to obtain a general election directly means we need to embarrass or even shame the next Prime Minister into having one.
The country needs and deserves a general election because it is in an almighty mess. To obtain coherent solutions that might not just turn the country round but, crucially, command the consent of the public, we need to hear what competing parties have to offer and establish what the public believes is possible and bearable.
Emotional slop
Most fundamentally we need a general election because it cannot be right that the Labour MPs can lose confidence in their leader and our Prime Minister but then, looking around their number, cannot find someone to take the reins of power.
They could have chosen an existing or recent Cabinet minister, such as Wes Streeting or Ed Miliband, but they did not. Alternatively, they could have found someone on the back-benches with more experience than Keir Starmer who might steady the ship and set course again to deliver their mandate – the programme of government that Starmer offered.
Labour MPs chose neither option. No, instead, they decided to go head-hunting for a former parliamentarian who had decided to leave Westminster for a less demanding, less responsible role, with less scrutiny and less accountability – but who understands the optics of how political actions ‘look’ and how the vibe of warm encouraging words make people ‘feel’. Emotional slop.
It could only be achieved through a wholly self-interested by-election (no death, no bankruptcy bringing an application for the Chiltern Hundreds, no recall petition) in a relatively safe seat that could procure a new leader whose sole task was to answer their SOS call, literally “Save Our Seats”.
This told us that not only did the majority of Labour MPs have no confidence in Starmer – it told us they had no confidence in themselves, as the MPs or ministers who had been governing us for these last two years, to provide a replacement.
Labour would lose badly
A more damning indictment of the Labour party in Westminster cannot be found than one where the admission is that its number have no faith in their own abilities.
If Labour MPs have no confidence in Starmer – and by forcing him out, they clearly showed they do not; if they have no confidence in themselves – and by their actions of going outside their number, they do not; then why should the public have any confidence in them to choose who should be their leader and by that selection lead the country?
We not only need a general election to reset the direction of travel of our county, we deserve a general election because we should not have to suffer Labour MPs making any more decisions on our behalf.
The reason why this won’t happen is obvious. According to the opinion polls and the local elections held only two months ago, the majority of Labour MPs would lose their seats and a new government would be formed by one or a combination of parties.
We should bear in mind that they, under Starmer’s leadership, presented to us a manifesto – a broad platform of policies with much detail provided – and then, in his attempt to deliver that programme, they forced Starmer repeatedly into policy U-turn after policy U-turn.
Starmer’s ship torpedoed
In the end, Starmer’s government had become unresponsive to him and unbearable for us. Like the Bismarck, his ship of state could not progress forward in a straight line. Since the Mandelson scandal torpedoed his reputation, his rudder was jammed to port. He was doomed to go only to the left while taking a beating. A sinking was inevitable; the question was merely when and by whom.
In the end, the crew themselves scuttled Starmer’s ship of state and rushed to board a new empty vessel – but what do they know of it other than the expectation that Miliband will have even more authority than before? Andy Burnham cannot tell them because he himself does yet not know for sure. He is literally making it up as he sets sail to a destination as yet unknown.
We know this because Burnham wanted the job three months before taking the wheel so he had time to chart his new route. Why should we accept a leader of our country who does not have a plan of where to go?
Burnham promises to be different but has no mandate for anything other than what Starmer himself could not make work. Why should we believe Burnham can deliver the undeliverable unless the Labour MPs who so often rebelled against Starmer and Reeves decide to resile from their own past rebellions and – for example – cut (or even just freeze) the fast-growing welfare budget and increase defence spending to over three per cent of GDP in the next year?
If Labour MPs will not change their behaviour, how can Burnham achieve different results from Starmer? If a new programme is required then it has, as yet, no mandate and Burnham should seek the support of the people.
If they will not change, we must change our MPs to those who offer a programme we give our consent to. It is called democracy. Replacing Starmer should have come about through a general election. In resigning, Starmer has put Labour before the people choosing what happens next. Democracy demands there should be a general election to confirm or deny a mandate for Burnham.
Brian Monteith is a former member of the Scottish and European parliaments and editor of ThinkScotland.org
Comments
Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.