Andrew Neil publishes an opinion piece arguing that a prime minister comes to power with what he describes as unusually low democratic legitimacy. In the article, Neil says politicians have avoided him in recent years, but he specifically claims Andy Burnham has “managed to avoid any rigorous journalistic scrutiny” as he moves toward becoming prime minister. Neil’s central contention is not about a specific policy decision, but about the legitimacy and scrutiny surrounding the route to office. The piece is presented in strongly critical language and focuses on how the public and media have engaged with the political figure in question. It also suggests that if outcomes “go wrong,” voters will not offer sympathy. The account does not provide detailed evidence or specific incidents to substantiate the claim about scrutiny, but frames the issue as one of democratic mandate and accountability. Overall, the article’s thrust is an argument about legitimacy and the role of journalistic oversight in democratic systems.