News2 mins ago
Unelected Prime Ministers
62 Answers
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?
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?
Answers
http://david
07:57 Mon 25th Mar 2013
It is quite correct to define Cameron as being a PM that wasn't strictly elected. Far be it for me to defend the Tories but we ended up with Cameron as PM, because he was the leader of the party that gained more votes than any other. I am far from happy with it but this is the price we pay for having our first-past-the-post system. Its worth bearing in mind that we love to indulge in celebrity and personality issues but we vote for parties, not people. Cameron, Brown or Clegg never appeared on any ballot paper that was used in 2010. Except in their own constituencies of course !
But we should remember that our system of government in Britain allows for the very situation that materialised in 2010 to occur.
If the results of the 2010 election are broken down, they appear like this ::
Con 306 seats
Lab 258
Lib 57
There are 650 seats in the House of Commons, so 306, and 258 and 57 make 621. (I am leaving out the remaining total of 29 "others" to make the arithmetic easier.)
But if we show the main parties standing in popular vote, we get a very different picture ::
Con 36%
Lab 29%
Lib 23%
If we then translate that into proportionate Parliamentary seats, :::
Con 234
Lab 188
Lib 149
The minor parties votes would have made relatively little difference to the above proportions.
So it might have been more just if Labour and the Liberals took the trip along the Mall to have afternoon tea with the Queen in 2010.
Or even the Tories and Labour !
First-past-the-post worked fine when we only had two parties to contend with. But the arrival of UKIP, and the recent rise of the Liberals, together with the Nationalists and other perhaps not-so minor groups make what happened three years ago to be perhaps more common in the future.
Why can't we try a REAL coalition, like we had during WW2 ? Is that such a strange thing to consider ? Surely its worth a try, rather than this constant bickering that we have today. And some of that comes from me !
But we should remember that our system of government in Britain allows for the very situation that materialised in 2010 to occur.
If the results of the 2010 election are broken down, they appear like this ::
Con 306 seats
Lab 258
Lib 57
There are 650 seats in the House of Commons, so 306, and 258 and 57 make 621. (I am leaving out the remaining total of 29 "others" to make the arithmetic easier.)
But if we show the main parties standing in popular vote, we get a very different picture ::
Con 36%
Lab 29%
Lib 23%
If we then translate that into proportionate Parliamentary seats, :::
Con 234
Lab 188
Lib 149
The minor parties votes would have made relatively little difference to the above proportions.
So it might have been more just if Labour and the Liberals took the trip along the Mall to have afternoon tea with the Queen in 2010.
Or even the Tories and Labour !
First-past-the-post worked fine when we only had two parties to contend with. But the arrival of UKIP, and the recent rise of the Liberals, together with the Nationalists and other perhaps not-so minor groups make what happened three years ago to be perhaps more common in the future.
Why can't we try a REAL coalition, like we had during WW2 ? Is that such a strange thing to consider ? Surely its worth a try, rather than this constant bickering that we have today. And some of that comes from me !
// "Because, QM, no-one liked Brown." What, in heaven's name, has liking or disliking got to do with electedness or unelectedness? //
Nothing, but as I explained, it does have something to do with your question..
// why was Brown the only PM to have this ‘accusation’ constantly thrown in his face? //
Do pay attention QM.
Nothing, but as I explained, it does have something to do with your question..
// why was Brown the only PM to have this ‘accusation’ constantly thrown in his face? //
Do pay attention QM.
So, Ludwig, if you don't like someone, it's OK to start a cat-call campaign against him for some supposed reason totally different from your dislike, is it? Or is doing so, just evidence of a lack of intelligence? Let's face it, the 3-word mantra was probably devised by some hack on a gutter-rag.
Lots of Labour supporters were far from fond of Macmillan or Douglas-Home - the latter being the most 'unelected' of Prime Ministers ever according to the AbEd above - but none of us was even remotely tempted to whine on about their unelectedness. Too posh, too out-of-touch, too uncaring, too whatever, but never too unelected.
We Labour folks realised 'way back then that they simply WERE the Prime Ministers...and yes, I did live through their premierships as well those of the previous five!
What mental flaw exists in Tory heads that made the opposite response in Brown's case appear rational?
But I'll leave it there.
Lots of Labour supporters were far from fond of Macmillan or Douglas-Home - the latter being the most 'unelected' of Prime Ministers ever according to the AbEd above - but none of us was even remotely tempted to whine on about their unelectedness. Too posh, too out-of-touch, too uncaring, too whatever, but never too unelected.
We Labour folks realised 'way back then that they simply WERE the Prime Ministers...and yes, I did live through their premierships as well those of the previous five!
What mental flaw exists in Tory heads that made the opposite response in Brown's case appear rational?
But I'll leave it there.
Eh? Your question was why was Brown the only PM to have this ‘accusation’ constantly thrown in his face?
People have said 'because he was crap'
Then you say of past PM's 'Lots of Labour supporters were far from fond of Macmillan or Douglas-Home - the latter being the most 'unelected' of Prime Ministers ever according to the AbEd above - but none of us was even remotely tempted to whine on about their unelectedness. Too posh, too out-of-touch, too uncaring, too whatever, but never too unelected.'
You seem to have taken exception to the comments Brown was crap and not that he was unelected yet there you are saying' Too posh, too out-of-touch, too uncaring, too whatever' about Douglas Home.
I don't see your point.
People have said 'because he was crap'
Then you say of past PM's 'Lots of Labour supporters were far from fond of Macmillan or Douglas-Home - the latter being the most 'unelected' of Prime Ministers ever according to the AbEd above - but none of us was even remotely tempted to whine on about their unelectedness. Too posh, too out-of-touch, too uncaring, too whatever, but never too unelected.'
You seem to have taken exception to the comments Brown was crap and not that he was unelected yet there you are saying' Too posh, too out-of-touch, too uncaring, too whatever' about Douglas Home.
I don't see your point.
It winds Q up when people point out the fact that Brown didn't have to win a ballot either to be Prime Minister, or even Labour party leader, so we get these semantic debates about what the word 'elected' actually means.
Brown's a tragic figure. He wanted the job from the age of about 6. Had to sit sulkily coveting it for years when Blair had the job, and when he finally got there, it turned out he wasn't any good at it.
Brown's a tragic figure. He wanted the job from the age of about 6. Had to sit sulkily coveting it for years when Blair had the job, and when he finally got there, it turned out he wasn't any good at it.
Bushbaby, did you bother to read all the earlier answers before posting your own? Had you done so, you would have seen that several people - including me - pointed out that we are well aware of just how parliamentary convention works and didn't need to be told again.
My question was (quote): "Remember how, a few years ago, right-wingers whined on about how Gordon Brown was 'an unelected Prime Minister'?"
In other words, I didn't create the silly phrase, THEY - the right-wingers - did!
My question was (quote): "Remember how, a few years ago, right-wingers whined on about how Gordon Brown was 'an unelected Prime Minister'?"
In other words, I didn't create the silly phrase, THEY - the right-wingers - did!
You still don't get it, Em, do you? Brown put himself forward for selection as leader of the Labour party and NO ONE ELSE did. That is, he was unopposed. In the British system in general, not just in the Labour Party, guess what that means...it means he wins! You'll probably find it's exactly the same at your local Con-club, WRI or whatever when committee-members etc are being chosen.
In horse-racing, it's called a "walkover", which is now used generally in English for any situation where there is a simple victory. You must have heard of it.
Macmillan, Douglas-Home and Major, as I've already pointed out, all took over the Prime Ministership in precisely the same circumstances and were, therefore, equally 'unelected'.
I did spend some years in education, but - really, for you - here endeth the lesson!
In horse-racing, it's called a "walkover", which is now used generally in English for any situation where there is a simple victory. You must have heard of it.
Macmillan, Douglas-Home and Major, as I've already pointed out, all took over the Prime Ministership in precisely the same circumstances and were, therefore, equally 'unelected'.
I did spend some years in education, but - really, for you - here endeth the lesson!
Ludwig, given that - as Bushbaby has again pointed out - the phrase "an unelected Prime Minister" is virtually meaningless in itself, then yes, Brown was one of these. The point I've been making throughout this thread is that so too were three such PMs out of the last five TORY holders of that office!
It still seems strange to me that supporters of one political party would use as a mantra against a PM of the opposite party an 'accusation' that - if it may be applied to any party - clearly applies to their OWN in spades!
Bushbaby, my apologies if I seemed rude, but please see contributions before yours timed on Monday at 0844, 0910, 1044, 1124 and 1245.
It still seems strange to me that supporters of one political party would use as a mantra against a PM of the opposite party an 'accusation' that - if it may be applied to any party - clearly applies to their OWN in spades!
Bushbaby, my apologies if I seemed rude, but please see contributions before yours timed on Monday at 0844, 0910, 1044, 1124 and 1245.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.