We’re back into the season of what the Australians call ‘spills’ – potentially getting rid of a political party leader. In this case, the Prime Minister.

When these seasons came round almost dizzyingly fast in the May-Johnson-Truss-Sunak era, one sensible, important but boring thing achieved near consensus among political pundits. It does not make sense, and is politically dangerous, to have the Prime Minister directly elected by the paid-up members of one party.

If Sir Keir Starmer goes, before or after the May elections, we are bound to see it happen again, however bad it is. But a better system should be adopted voluntarily by all parties which have a realistic prospect of their Leader becoming Prime Minister. (The same arises at Holyrood in respect of a First Minister at Holyrood – or Cardiff Bay - but they have one useful safeguard which is absent at Westminster).

Why is the current system so flawed?

Having party members elect leaders makes plenty of sense in Opposition. It engages the membership, ensures the parties don’t get too far from their grass roots and gives parties a democratic basis. It is also constitutionally respectable. The party will go into an election with that leader as their candidate for No10 and the electorate will be able to decide whether they want him or her. If the party chooses someone who doesn’t appeal to the electorate, they probably won’t get elected into Government.

Keir Starmer to face MPs over Lord Mandelson vetting row

Here's my Edinburgh manifesto to turbo-charge the capital

'Highland Council is a nightmare' - The village that refused to lie down and die

But different factors apply when a sitting Prime Minister has to be replaced. At that point, it is not just a party leader being selected, but a new Head of Government. The rest of us, who aren’t members of that........

© Herald Scotland