So Starmer is out. I'm afraid I'm not at all sorry to see him go - I've long been of the view that he didn't so much win the last election as the Tories very much lost it (in every sense of the word), and he's been deeply unimpressive since.
And it very much looks like Burnham will be the next guy - having been gifted a very safe seat in the recent by-election he's now eligible to become Labour leader, and he has the great virtue of being untainted with the shambles that has gone before. It's a chance for Labour to make a clean break, reinvent itself, and hopefully change direction enough to fend off the threat of Reform.
Except...
I find myself deeply troubled by the democratic legitimacy of this one. At the General Election we were presented with a Labour party led by Kier Starmer and presenting themselves under a specific manifesto. Switching to Burnham and making a clean break means ditching both of those things. Would people have voted as they did under those circumstances? Would they vote that way now?
And this switch is even more outrageous than even the 'normal' changes in Prime Minister that we've had in the last decade - at least then the replacement leader was someone who had been elected at the same time and under the same manifesto as the outgoing leader, so there was at least some sense of continuity. Burnham doesn't have that - indeed, that's the very key to his relative popularity.
Our constitution doesn't require a change of PM to be followed by a General Election. In practice, however, such changes generally have been followed by one in short order: May was crazy enough to call one after Cameron left, Boris called one after he took over from May, and Rishi only had 20 months left in the parliamentary term before he had to call one. (Truss wasn't in office long enough for it to matter.)
And there are usually fairly good reasons to call one: there's always a "new manager bounce" that comes from having someone new at the helm. Gordon Brown made a critical mistake in refusing to call a General Election when he became leader.
But a General Election now can only mean bad things for Labour - at the very least, they'll lose a lot of seats (because the current Commons arithmetic is a quirk of the system, unlikely to be repeated), and may very well usher in the Reform government of our nightmares.
So he's got an unenviable decision to make: call an Election and suffer for it, or refuse and be dogged by attacks that he's even more lacking in democratic mandate that is usual for replacement PMs. Not a good position.
Ultimately, I think it comes down to this: can the Labour government get the economy working again in the next 3 years? We're in a fairly horrible position where for an awful lot of people things have yet to really recover even from the crisis in 2008, with food inflation, in particular, causing real problems. Meanwhile, wage stagnation has meant that for most work just doesn't pay enough to be worthwhile - the gap between benefits and minimum wage, and between each step on the ladder to the next, just isn't enough for the additional effort needed to climb it.
If that can be addressed, Labour have a decent chance in the next election and should hold off. If not, it's likely they'll see a modest improvement in the polls now and then a continued slide, so their best bet of a win, any win, is basically now.
Either way, I don't actually see any chance of there being a General Election any time soon. But if it really is the King in the North, I'm afraid that in this instance I think there really should be.