Andy Burnham's Premiership Begins with One Unanswered Question Few politicians have travelled from the political sidelines to Number 10 as quickly as Andy Burnham. Yet it is not the speed of his ascent that should concern the country, but the remarkable absence of public scrutiny that has accompanied it. In the space of a few weeks, Mr Burnham has returned to Parliament through a by election, become Leader of the Labour Party and now assumes the office of Prime Minister. Such a remarkable political rise would ordinarily be accompanied by intense public debate, a detailed leadership campaign and rigorous examination of the programme upon which the incoming Prime Minister intends to govern. Instead, the country has been presented with broad aspirations but remarkably little substance. His first speech as Labour leader promises a new direction for Britain, growth in every postcode, greater power for local communities and a distinctly Labour programme. These are attractive political aspirations, but they are not a programme for government. There remains very little explanation of how these ambitions will be delivered, how they will be financed or how success will ultimately be judged. It is extraordinary that a politician can become Prime Minister without first presenting a detailed programme for government to either Labour's membership or the British people. There has been no contested leadership campaign, no sustained examination of competing ideas, no opportunity for members to test his vision and no meaningful national debate about the policies he now intends to pursue from Number 10. Instead, the electorate is simply being asked to trust that the detail will follow. Equally significant is the manner in which Mr Burnham secured the Labour leadership. Whilst the Parliamentary Labour Party acted within the party's constitutional framework, the process bears all the hallmarks, in my opinion, of having been carefully managed to ensure that no genuine leadership contest ever emerged. By rapidly consolidating parliamentary support behind a single candidate, the Parliamentary Labour Party ensured there would be no meaningful choice for Labour's membership and no opportunity for ordinary members to decide who should lead their party. A process may comply with the written rules whilst still raising legitimate political questions about whether it reflects the democratic spirit those rules were intended to uphold. Hundreds of thousands of Labour members found themselves watching events unfold rather than participating in them. The leadership was effectively settled before they were ever invited to express a view. The consequences extend well beyond the Labour Party itself. Andy Burnham now assumes the office of Prime Minister without having presented a detailed programme for government to either his own party or the British electorate. Constitutionally, that is permissible. Politically, however, it presents a very different challenge. Leadership in a parliamentary democracy may be determined in Westminster, but lasting political authority depends upon public confidence. It is this that may become the defining weakness of Mr Burnham's premiership. In my judgement, the Parliamentary Labour Party manufactured a process that ensured its preferred candidate reached the leadership without ever having to submit himself to a genuine contest before Labour's membership. That may satisfy Westminster, but it is unlikely to satisfy many Labour members or many voters across the country. Far from healing divisions within Labour, this process risks creating a deeper divide between the Parliamentary Labour Party and the grassroots membership who were denied any meaningful voice in choosing their leader. Nor is that divide confined to Labour alone. It extends into the wider electorate, many of whom will inevitably ask why the country now has a Prime Minister whose programme for Britain has never been subjected to a contested leadership election, never fully scrutinised by Labour's membership and never tested before the British people. If Andy Burnham wishes to remove those questions once and for all, there is only one convincing course available to him. He should seek his own mandate from the British people on the basis of his own programme for government. Only then will the electorate have the opportunity to judge not merely the man, but the vision he now asks the country to embrace. In my judgement, it is unrealistic to believe that Mr Burnham can simply govern until the scheduled General Election in July 2029 without these questions becoming increasingly significant. The issue of political legitimacy, the absence of a contested leadership election, the lack of a direct mandate from Labour's membership and the absence of meaningful public scrutiny of his programme are unlikely simply to disappear with the passage of time. For that reason, I believe the pressure upon Mr Burnham to seek an earlier mandate from the British people will grow rather than diminish. If he wishes to establish an undisputed political authority of his own, rather than merely inherit office through parliamentary process, he may ultimately conclude that there is no substitute for asking the electorate directly for its confidence. Whether one supports or opposes Andy Burnham politically is, in many respects, beside the point. The issue is far larger than one individual. It concerns the standards of democratic accountability that the British public should expect of anyone who seeks to occupy the highest office in the land. A Prime Minister should not simply inherit power. He should demonstrate his vision, defend his programme and earn the confidence of those he seeks to govern. bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2lq…