Reply to: So who is PM now?

[original PM]

Another unelected PM in the long line:

Gordon Brown, 2007
John Major, 1990
Jim Callaghan, 1976
Alec Douglas-Home, 1963
Harold MacMillan, 1957
Anthony Eden, 1955
Winston Churchill, 1940
Neville Chamberlain, 1937
Stanley Baldwin, 1923
Andrew Bonar Law, 1922
David Lloyd George, 1916
H H Asquith, 1908
Arthur Balfour, 1902

Compared with the list of 20th century prime ministers who were elected, it's significantly longer.

But how many of these have gone on to win the election next time it was called?

[Gonzo]

But this wasn't a 'party' election. This was a personality election. That was why it was so difficult to pull the parties apart on policy.

Yes, they have different policies. But this election unlike any other was about media, presentation & personality.

During the election process, there wasn't the usual gravitas toward senior politicians, the coverage of the big guns, the in depth analysis of policy. It was all fluff & presidential.

So your argument is true in terms of semantics, but weak on actual facts.

This is the limitation with the system where the executive is made up of members of the legislature, as I have mentioned before.

In the USA people get to vote separately for who they want to run the country (the President) and who they want to represent them in the bit where the laws are passed (Senators and Congressmen). This is not a choice that we get.

I do like the American system but they do have the advantage that they were able to start from scratch a couple of hundred years ago whereas in the UK there is a lot of historical baggage.

[d000hg]

If you vote for a party but can't even trust in their ability to do something as simple as pick a leader, how are you going to deal with them being in charge of important things like wars and the economy?

[The Wikir Man]

yes it was mainly him I was thinking of. Also I was assuming a value judgement that you probably didn't intend, making me want to only include ones who never won an election which would be very few of them.

It's merely a list of prime ministers who were not elected to that role (in that year) - not whether they ever won an election or not.

My point being that the current media (and certain members of CUK) seems to have a big thing about how we might have a prime minister who has not been "elected" (i.e. they were not the party leader when the election was held), and what a disgrace that is. That list shows who else has become prime minister without being elected.

[Pickle2]

But a Prime Minister is never "voted in" - an election decides which party (or, in the current circumstances, parties) should have the right to form a government. Then the Queen appoints the leader of that party or coalition to the office of Prime Minister so they can form the new government.

This is why, as d000hg says above, you shouldn't vote based on the party leader: you aren't voting for a leader, you're voting for a government.

This is also why it's perfectly legitimate for somebody to hold the office of Prime Minister even if, at the time the party of government was elected, that person was not expected by the electorate to hold that office. Suppose the Brighton bomb had succeeded in wiping out all the senior Tories with the exception of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Laundry: that person, being the most senior member of the party that had been elected to govern, would have been the one The Queen would have invited to become Prime Minister, for the simple reason that PM is an office that must be filled in order to keep government running, not a prize awarded specifically to the winner of some kind of electoral beauty pageant.

Er, yeah, that was kinda my point (if you follow the thread). Makes no difference if the elected house of MPs decide on cameron or they decide on Brown Balls. Seems all by the book to me.

The tories can't grumble that Brown Balls is "unelected", because that's not the way it works. Although I hear electoral reform might be in air, so they should be happy soon.

[MarillionFan]

But a Prime Minister is never "voted in" - an election decides which party (or, in the current circumstances, parties) should have the right to form a government. Then the Queen appoints the leader of that party or coalition to the office of Prime Minister so they can form the new government.

This is why, as d000hg says above, you shouldn't vote based on the party leader: you aren't voting for a leader, you're voting for a government.

This is also why it's perfectly legitimate for somebody to hold the office of Prime Minister even if, at the time the party of government was elected, that person was not expected by the electorate to hold that office. Suppose the Brighton bomb had succeeded in wiping out all the senior Tories with the exception of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Laundry: that person, being the most senior member of the party that had been elected to govern, would have been the one The Queen would have invited to become Prime Minister, for the simple reason that PM is an office that must be filled in order to keep government running, not a prize awarded specifically to the winner of some kind of electoral beauty pageant.

But this wasn't a 'party' election. This was a personality election. That was why it was so difficult to pull the parties apart on policy.

Yes, they have different policies. But this election unlike any other was about media, presentation & personality.

During the election process, there wasn't the usual gravitas toward senior politicians, the coverage of the big guns, the in depth analysis of policy. It was all fluff & presidential.

So your argument is true in terms of semantics, but weak on actual facts.

[NickFitz]

Whoever gets in as PM will be unelected. Cameron didn't get a majority of the votes or a majority of the seats, so he can hardly lay claim to the "i was elected all good and proper" crown. So him, balls, brown the queen mum, they would all be pretty illegitimate as PM, in terms of having been "voted in". Although perhaps TQM would be up to the job, at least.

But a Prime Minister is never "voted in" - an election decides which party (or, in the current circumstances, parties) should have the right to form a government. Then the Queen appoints the leader of that party or coalition to the office of Prime Minister so they can form the new government.

This is why, as d000hg says above, you shouldn't vote based on the party leader: you aren't voting for a leader, you're voting for a government.

This is also why it's perfectly legitimate for somebody to hold the office of Prime Minister even if, at the time the party of government was elected, that person was not expected by the electorate to hold that office. Suppose the Brighton bomb had succeeded in wiping out all the senior Tories with the exception of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Laundry: that person, being the most senior member of the party that had been elected to govern, would have been the one The Queen would have invited to become Prime Minister, for the simple reason that PM is an office that must be filled in order to keep government running, not a prize awarded specifically to the winner of some kind of electoral beauty pageant.

[Pickle2]

the Times points out the possibility of another unelected PM:

Whoever gets in as PM will be unelected. Cameron didn't get a majority of the votes or a majority of the seats, so he can hardly lay claim to the "i was elected all good and proper" crown. So him, balls, brown the queen mum, they would all be pretty illegitimate as PM, in terms of having been "voted in". Although perhaps TQM would be up to the job, at least.

[thunderlizard]

Bonar Law

yes it was mainly him I was thinking of. Also I was assuming a value judgement that you probably didn't intend, making me want to only include ones who never won an election which would be very few of them.

[d000hg]

If you vote based on the party leader you are putting your media-influenced opinion of one person based on how they talk or how photogenic they are above both the party's policies and whoever you think would be the best person for your constituency. It's like choosing what music to listen to from a photo of the musicians.

[The Wikir Man]

where did that list come from? Its bonkers!

Just looking at the list of prime ministers, and then viewing the circumstances of their ascendency.

Although Bonar Law first became prime minister without needing an election, he did call one pretty soon after and win the election, so maybe he shouldn't be on the list.

[thunderlizard]

where did that list come from? Its bonkers!

[The Wikir Man]

Just for laughs, the Times points out the possibility of another unelected PM:

Another unelected PM in the long line:

Gordon Brown, 2007
John Major, 1990
Jim Callaghan, 1976
Alec Douglas-Home, 1963
Harold MacMillan, 1957
Anthony Eden, 1955
Winston Churchill, 1940
Neville Chamberlain, 1937
Stanley Baldwin, 1923
Andrew Bonar Law, 1922
David Lloyd George, 1916
H H Asquith, 1908
Arthur Balfour, 1902

Compared with the list of 20th century prime ministers who were elected, it's significantly longer.

[The Wikir Man]

It's ed (balls) or ed (milliband) or dave

David Milliband (known as "the evil of two lessers") is bookies favourite by a long way. There's also been talk of a Miliband stitch up - Ed takes votes away from the other lefty candidate so his brother gets the top job.

Balls won't get it, after turning his safe seat into a marginal at the last election, which required a recount.

Surprised no-one has mentioned Harman as a possibility yet.

(Tony Blair is also available at 100-1)

[thunderlizard]

It's going to make for a short conversation with Nick Clegg:
"We want voting reform and lower starting rate tax...um, could you put that holiday brochure down and listen for a minute?"