Unelected Prime Ministers

[Quizmonster]

Remember how, a few years ago, right-wingers whined on about how Gordon Brown was “an unelected Prime Minister”? If so, I thought I’d bring to your attention that, as of now, David Cameron has been just that for as long as Brown was!
Macmillan was one for 33 months, Douglas-Home for 12 months and Major for 17 months. Brown lasted only about half that total.
So, Cameron becomes the Tories’ FOURTH ‘unelected Prime Minister’ in the past half-century or so.
Given the Conservative 4/Labour 1 position, why was Brown the only PM to have this ‘accusation’ constantly thrown in his face? Is it just another case of right-wingers having pathetically short memories?

[Noth43]

//why was Brown the only PM to have this ‘accusation’ constantly thrown in his face? //

Because he was so broccoli?

[DangerUXD]

for what it's worth I have never thought that Brown or the others where unlected. People who say that do not understand the system we operate in this country.

[Quizmonster]

Despite my saying earlier on this thread that I didn't need any lessons on how our electoral system works, some have described the system. Fine, perhaps others have learned something from them.
A key point in my case is that there are multitudes of electors who probably would scarcely recognise their own favoured individual candidate if they found him/her in their soup! These people vote for the party and the leader they hope will finish up in government, regardless.
Obviously, I cannot answer for anyone else's ballot-paper in 2010, but there was no candidate on mine listed as a representative of the ConLibDem Coalition party, but that's the one now ruling us!
To "win" a British general election, you must have an OVERALL majority. not just a majority. This Cameron failed to do and he is, therefore, unelected by anyone apart from - as someone else pointed out here earlier - the voters of Witney.

[Quizmonster]

Noth, if people wanted to criticise Brown for his broccoliness, why didn't they do precisely that instead of going on about his supposed unelectedness? That was the point of my very question after all.

[DangerUXD]

good job we don' have PR, we'd never have an "elected" governement again!

[FredPuli43]

Cameron was appointed in direct consequence of an election. Brown never was; he was appointed internally, by his party. I see a distinction; one would not be PM but for the election. You evidently don't attach any significance to Cameron becoming PM in consequence of a general election result,QM.

[AB Editor]

Douglas-Home is very interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alec_Douglas-Home#Prime_Minister

"For twenty days Douglas-Home was Prime Minister while a member of neither house of Parliament, a situation without modern precedent."

Now THAT's unelected!

[Quizmonster]

Fred, that's because I don't accept that Cameron really became "PM in consequence of a general election result", as you suggest. He became PM in any meaningful sense only as a result of cobbling together a rather squalid "Tom and Trick" alliance. (See earlier Times cartoon reference.) Perhaps he might have gone for a minority government, but - had he done so - he would already be long gone. Would, therefore, that he had!

[DangerUXD]

He was leader of the largest party, generally that gives at least notional mandate to form some sort of coalition. What do you suggest should have happenned?

[ludwig]

// why was Brown the only PM to have this ‘accusation’ constantly thrown in his face //

Because QM, no-one liked Brown. In the all the other cases there were people willing to say, 'ok you're unelected, but we'll let it slide'. In Brown's case, there was only his little clique of bully boys and spin doctors, and er...you, that didn't mind.

[DangerUXD]

Brown was elected. The people elected the Labour government and he becaame it's. That's the system. Nobody votes for a PM they vote for a constituency MP.

[Noth43]

There you have it quizmonster, I've just checked back on here and found that DangerUXD has answered the question you put to me.

[ludwig]

Brown was the PM that had to consult his advisors before he was prepared to answer the question on which was his favourite biscuit.

Can we not just be thankful he's gone instead of dredging up bad memories?

[DangerUXD]

I meant to put "leader" after "he became it's" above!

[whiskeryron]

I'm always a little puzzled about what exactly PR means. As I see it, in UK politics a party who get the most votes could win a general election but the votes from all other parties could be more in total than the so called winning party which means to me that the majority of voters have not voted for the winning party, please explain to me how this can be truly democratic.

WR.

[Quizmonster]

Noth, I can't see in any of UXD's posts an answer to the question I put to you, so let me rephrase it...If it was his broccoliness that annoyed people, why didn't they keep pointing out his vegetal faults instead of his supposed unelectedness?
The two characteristics are quite different. If you dislike someone's views on exercise regimes, say, there's little relevance in constantly pointing out the fact that he's Cornish, for example!
Ludwig then makes exactly the same rather daft point, by writing, "Because, QM, no-one liked Brown." What, in heaven's name, has liking or disliking got to do with electedness or unelectedness?

[Noth43]

Oh right, as has been pointed out there have been a few PM's that, fit the criteria of your op. The reason (it has been mentioned here) people keep mentioning Brown above all others is because he was spectacularly bad at the job.

[Noth43]

I would have thought that was the main reason anyway.

[Gromit]

And John Major wasn't spectacularly bad?

[DangerUXD]

much to the chagrin of Kinochio, who innexplicably had an election victory party the day before the election, Major did actually win a general election.