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?

[FredPuli43]

Could be that critics on the left do not regard Cameron as 'unelected', QM, and therefore do not make that complaint. Can't remember whether Douglas-Home, who never won an election, was the subject of it. The Left, with fine logic, did, however, complain that he was the 14th bearer of his ancestral title, much as it now complains that Cameron is a toff. (Can't recall how many Lord Stansgates there had been before Tony Benn inherited the title)

[Quizmonster]

The only words of Alec Douglas-Home's that I can recall, Fred, were to the effect that Wilson was, "no doubt the 14th Mister Wilson." A brilliant retort in my view!
However, I can assure you that it did not become a war-cry of the Left back then that he was "an unelected Prime Minister". As I said here earlier, we just accepted that he - like Macmillan and Major - held the office because of British political convention whether we liked them or not.
I still see nothing from you - or anything that makes much sense from any other right-winger here - as to why the Tory press and its readers felt the slogan applied uniquely to Brown.
Just saying that he was unpopular would not qualify as an adequate reason in any court that I was a judge in! Calling him whatever pejorative term one wishes would be fine...but why would political opponents pick on an 'accusation' that is manifestly absurd, given that their own leaders in the same position outnumber him by three to one?