For R1G

Quizmonster | 16:58 Thu 28th Oct 2010 | News

31 Answers

Here's one for you, then...Remember how right-wingers used to whine on about Gordon Brown being "an unelected prime minister", despite the fact that John Major held that office for about a year and a half before going to the polls?
What do you think of David Cameron, who - despite being leader of a party that did not win the election - also holds that title? Is HE "an unelected prime minister", too? If so, the Tories are beginning to make a habit of it, aren't they?

Have you an opinion of Tony Blair's book 'A Journey '.

The Islamifcation of Britain

Answers

1 to 20 of 31

1 2 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by Quizmonster. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.

MarkRae

We don't elect prime ministers in this country - never have...

As a constitutional monarchy, we elect members of parliament to speak for us (vote = voice), and the leader of the party with the largest number of elected members is invited by the reigning monarch to form a government.

ludwig

This is a bit sad QM. There's a big difference between Cameron and Brown - for one thing Cameron won a contest to become leader of his own party - I don't think Brown ever did - he was simply shuffled into the job to honour a gentleman's agreement and to avoid a potentially embarrassing contest which would have highlighted the Blairite/Brownite split in the party.

The first chance the electorate got to demonstrate what they thought of the idea of Gordon Brown as PM was at the recent election - result - he's now retired.

-- answer removed --

MarkRae

By what possible definition of the term can the present coalition government possibly be said to be "non elected"...?

rov1200

At least Cameron is trying to stick to his election promises which he has kept to except for the removal of child benefit for higher earners.

Brown ditched New Labour policies and reverted to the old Labour which is why many think lost them the last general election. People did not vote for this change.

R1Geezer

I never ever did that QM, in fact I argued that he was elected same as I do for this PM. The simple fact is that those who argued that GB was not elected do not understand the system and should not be debating these issues. Go on search my answers I think you should research me a little better in future.

Cameron is elected he is he leader of he largest party, he failed to get an overall majority so had to deal.

R1Geezer

There is nothing in law that says an overall majority must be acheived. Are you really a lecturer steve.5? I doubt it more and more.

MarkRae

> I never ever did that QM, in fact I argued that he was elected same as I do for this PM.

Precisely how was he 'elected'? When you went along to cast your vote, was there one paper for your local MP and another for the prime minister...?

If he had died through the night of the election, would there have had to be another election...?

R1Geezer

Mark ilustrates my point perfectly QM.

The leader of the party in governement is the PM, yes?
GB won the leadership election of the Labour party, yes?

Geddit?

PS here's a clue, an election does not have to involve voting.
PPS under our system we vote for a local MP, not the PM, you even said that mark

R1Geezer

here's another one for you, if Cameron dies tonight, who's the PM in the morning?

ludwig

I don't think QM is claiming you ever said that R1. He's just saying 'Here's an interesting question' because you said it's boring around here lately.

R1Geezer

Perhaps but it's the use of the phrase "For R1G" and "Here's one for you then....", that first made me think it was aimed at me!

ludwig

Yes, but he's not saying you ever claimed GBrown was unelected you tw1t. He's just saying 'here's a question for you then' because you whinged about the news section becoming boring.

Quizmonster

Question Author

Thank you, Ludwig. Your last two answers above got it exactly right! Why, R1G, do you suppose I opened my question with the words, "Here's one for you then"? You had suggested you were bored with current questions, so I presented one that I imagined might interest you...simples! And, given that it evoked five answers from you, it seems to have done just that.
As regards "researching you a little better in future", I have to say that I did not "research you" AT ALL on this occasion and nor will I later. If you actually look at the question, you will see that I did not even remotely suggest that you personally had raised the "unelected" nonsense.
(Yes, Mark, I KNOW how the electoral system in the UK works.)

R1Geezer

Ok I get it. I thought you were labelling me with that view QM that's all.

-- answer removed --