The Man Who Would be Prime Minister: How Andy Burnham Can Stand without a Seat

There is considerable pressure on Sir Keir Starmer to resign as Prime Minister. In two years his government has achieved unprecedented levels of unpopularity. At last count, he has made approximately 16 U-turns on manifesto promises and government policies. Labour’s sweeping losses in the devolved and local elections have been blamed on the Prime Minister’s all-round dismal performance.

Sir Keir has asserted his determination to carry on regardless. However, the challenges are emerging. Four minor ministers resigned from the Government, 96 Labour MPs have publicly called for him to go, and Wes Streeting has resigned as Health Secretary. He might possibly consider thinking about standing against Starmer for the leadership. May be.

The King, in theory, retains the reserve power to simply dismiss his Prime Minister. However, the last time this was done in Britain was in November 1834 when William IV removed Lord Melbourne’s Whig government and tried to replace it with a Conservative ministry under Sir Robert Peel. It did not work out well for the King. Peel could not sustain a majority in the Commons, and Melbourne returned as Prime Minister in April 1835.

As the Home Rule crisis reached boiling point and civil war in Ireland seemed increasingly likely, in 1913 George V was advised by the Opposition, legal experts, and senior military figures to dismiss Herbert Asquith as Prime Minister. On consulting Asquith about this, Asquith – unsurprisingly – responded that the King had the right to change his ministers, but advised against. Citing William IV as a precedent, he outlined the problems caused by removing a Prime Minister who retained the confidence of the Commons.

It is useful to look to the Commonwealth realms for precedent as their constitutions are very sensibly modelled on Britain’s, but also codified. In November 1975 the Governor-General of Australia, Sir John Kerr, exercised the Royal Prerogative and dismissed Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. While fully within his rights to do so under the Australian Constitution, the immediate reaction was fury. The House of Representatives still had a Labor majority and passed a motion of no confidence in Malcolm Fraser, the Liberal Leader appointed caretaker Prime Minister by Sir John. It also affirmed confidence in Whitlam. Parliament was dissolved and an election was called which resulted in Fraser’s coalition winning a landslide. ‘The Dismissal’ has become one of the most divisive events in Australian political history, with the country sharply split over whether Sir John acted properly.

In 21^st Century Britain it is unthinkable that the King would allow himself to be dragged into not only party, but internal party, politics. There are reports that Buckingham Palace made clear ahead of last week’s State Opening of Parliament that His Majesty should not be used as a prop in Sir Keir’s struggle for survival. The Palace reportedly accepted that the King would discharge his constitutional duty by delivering the Gracious Speech, but was concerned that the ceremony should not be presented as a reason for Starmer to remain in post.

As the pressure mounts on Sir Keir to go, and as the Crown will stay out of the wrangling, it falls to Labour to settle matters. Polling reveals that of the possible contenders to take Starmer’s place, Streeting is amongst the least popular with both Labour members and the public. The favourite choice for both the party faithful and voters? Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester. There is of course one apparent problem with Burnham: he does not sit in Parliament.

There is much fretting and gnashing of teeth that Labour’s great hope is neither in the Commons nor the Lords – but does this matter?

Such is the brilliance and perfection of our Constitution that it does not.

According to Clause VII of the Labour Party Rule Book ‘the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Party shall be elected or re-elected from among Commons members of the PLP [Parliamentary Labour Party]’. That is plainly a problem for Burnham becoming Labour leader. It is not, however, a direct bar to Burnham becoming Prime Minister. This sounds absurd only because we have become accustomed to party leadership premising the premiership. Regardless, the two positions remain distinct.

Constitutionally, what is required is that the Prime Minister can command the confidence of the House of Commons. Neville Chamberlain was forced to resign as Prime Minister as his party and the country did not think he was up to the job of leading the country in war. Winston Churchill succeeded him as Prime Minister on 10^th May 1940; Chamberlain, however, remained Conservative Party leader until October 1940, when ill health forced his resignation. As long as it was clear that a majority of MPs were willing to accept Burnham as Prime Minister, there would be no impediment to his appointment and then his subsequently becoming Labour Leader.

Furthermore, there is existing precedent for a Prime Minister in office not sitting in either House of Parliament. In October 1963, the 14^th Earl of Home was appointed Prime Minister. He then used the Peerages Act (1963) to disclaim his Earldom so he could stand for election and take a seat in the House of Commons. Sir Alec Douglas-Home (as he became) won the Kinross and West Perthshire by-election on 7^th November 1963. This meant that for approximately a fortnight the Prime Minister was not in Parliament.

Sir Alec therefore enjoys two constitutional distinctions: he was the last Prime Minister appointed from the Lords; and, most remarkably, he was the last Prime Minister to serve while in neither House at all.

Again, it is useful to look to the Commonwealth for a more recent precedent. In March 2025 Mark Carney was appointed Prime Minister of Canada despite not sitting in his nation’s Parliament. This was unusual, but constitutionally feasible. It further demonstrates that a Westminster-style constitution can tolerate the arrangement temporarily. He then sought election to Parliament at the first opportunity, becoming MP for Nepean after the April federal election.

A Prime Minister need not already be a member of the elected House at the moment of appointment. However, this sort of arrangement can only be considered a short-term expedient.

As Josh Simons MP has been prevailed upon to vacate his Makerfield seat to allow Burnham to stand for the Commons – assuming he manages to hold the seat for Labour – under Labour Party rules he would then be in a position to stand for the Party’s leadership. Andy Burnham could follow in Churchill’s footsteps by being appointed Prime Minister then becoming leader of his party.

Harold Wilson and Labour had great fun asserting in 1963 that the Conservatives had 365 MPs yet not one of them was considered up to the job of Prime Minister, so they had to look to the 14^th Earl of Home. What does it say of the Labour Party in 2026, with 402 MPs and 217 Lords that the best choice for party leader and Prime Minister is a regional Mayor?