[alancalverd]

I think thats streching it, when was the last time any priminister got elected

The prime minister is not elected, whatever the gutter press may want you to think.

The Queen asks whoever appears capable of commanding a majority in the Commons to form a government. This is usually but not always the leader of the Party with the most seats but parties actually have no constitutional existence and it is perfectly in order for others to form a coalition with a majority.

The leader of the parliamentary Conservative party is chosen by a simple majority of paid-up members, of whom there are about 180,000. Other parties choose their leaders by popular ballot or conference vote.

This all made sense until 1979 because the country was governed by Parliament and the PM was just that: primus inter pares - the chairman and spokesman for the executive, and answerable as such to all MPs. Margaret Thatcher introduced government by an unelected president and subsequent holders of the post have simply evaded answering any questions and usurped the position of head of the armed forces, that is constitutionally the monarch, as in civilised countries.

The country is currently governed by Dominic Cummings, who holds no public office, is above the law,  and is accountable to nobody.  Typically British, the revolution was bloodless.

[Petrochemicals]

I think thats streching it, when was the last time any priminister got elected

The prime minister is not elected, whatever the gutter press may want you to think.

The Queen asks whoever appears capable of commanding a majority in the Commons to form a government. This is usually but not always the leader of the Party with the most seats but parties actually have no constitutional existence and it is perfectly in order for others to form a coalition with a majority.

Just out of interest could you name me the last time a priminister was not the leader with the most seats ?  Even coalitions its the leader of the party with the most seats leading the coalition.  It is twaddle. The monarch has been under the thumb of parliament ever since the invite back after cromwell , and has been gotten rid of by parliament when wanted. 

[Bored chemist]

Just out of interest could you name me the last time a priminister was not the leader with the most seats ? 

2010 Gordon Brown, for a few days in May before he realised he was better off resigning.

In 1974 the Conservatives got more votes (though not more seats) than Labour, but Labour got the PM job.

Parties don't exists which is why MPs can change party without causing a by-election.

[alancalverd]

Conservatives lost their majority in 2017 but Theresa May gave lots of your money to the DUP in order to form a government. Had the Liberals offered to support Labour, the result would have been quite different, less obviously corrupt, and arguably just as disastrous.  As I said earlier, the monarch asks the person most likely to command a majority to form a government, regardless of integrity, aptitude or intent. Parties have no constitutional status.

[Petrochemicals]

I think thats streching it, when was the last time any priminister got elected

The prime minister is not elected, whatever the gutter press may want you to think.

The Queen asks whoever appears capable of commanding a majority in the Commons to form a government. This is usually but not always the leader of the Party with the most seats but parties actually have no constitutional existence and it is perfectly in order for others to form a coalition with a majority.

Just out of interest could you name me the last time a priminister was not the leader with the most seats ?  Even coalitions its the leader of the party with the most seats leading the coalition.  It is twaddle. The monarch has been under the thumb of parliament ever since the invite back after cromwell , and has been gotten rid of by parliament when wanted. 

Is that a "talking misleading rubbish tantamount to spam" then Alan. Once more name a priminister that the queen has chosen who had less seats under their control than anyone else, OR a priminister who was not the leader of their party. Please.

[alancalverd]

Gordon Brown, as stated. Prior to that, Harold Wilson, 1974.

Not "less than anyone else" which would be absurd, but not necessarily the leader of the largest party in the Commons. Just, as the constitution requires, the person most able to command a majority.

Even the Parliamentary Labour Party has from time to time not been peopled entirely by paid-up members of Labour, but all sorts of  Cooperatives, Scottish Labour and independent socialists who accept the Labour whip. Likewise the Conservative and Unionist party is a somewhat more homogeneous agglomeration of whatever people will vote for under a blue flag.

[Petrochemicals]

Just, as the constitution requires, the person most able to command a majority.

So basically no the queen doesnt.

Scarce details, gordon brown no, harold who ? Was he a party leader at some stage ?

[Bored chemist]

Scarce details, gordon brown no,

Are you allergic to facts or something?

[alancalverd]

Now add Alec Douglas-Home (1963-4) who was not even a member of the House of Commons.

[Petrochemicals]

Now add Alec Douglas-Home (1963-4) who was not even a member of the House of Commons.

But was the leader of the party.

[Bored chemist]

Now add Alec Douglas-Home (1963-4) who was not even a member of the House of Commons.

But was the leader of the party.

Constitutionally, parties do not exist.

[Petrochemicals]

Conservatives lost their majority in 2017 but Theresa May gave lots of your money to the DUP in order to form a government. Had the Liberals offered to support Labour, the result would have been quite different, less obviously corrupt, and arguably just as disastrous.  As I said earlier, the monarch asks the person most likely to command a majority to form a government, regardless of integrity, aptitude or intent. Parties have no constitutional status.

Has no bearing therefore spam

[Petrochemicals]

Gordon Brown, as stated. Prior to that, Harold Wilson, 1974.

Not "less than anyone else" which would be absurd, but not necessarily the leader of the largest party in the Commons. Just, as the constitution requires, the person most able to command a majority.

Even the Parliamentary Labour Party has from time to time not been peopled entirely by paid-up members of Labour, but all sorts of  Cooperatives, Scottish Labour and independent socialists who accept the Labour whip. Likewise the Conservative and Unionist party is a somewhat more homogeneous agglomeration of whatever people will vote for under a blue flag.

Gordon brown  untrue

[Petrochemicals]

I think thats streching it, when was the last time any priminister got elected

The prime minister is not elected, whatever the gutter press may want you to think.

The Queen asks whoever appears capable of commanding a majority in the Commons to form a government. This is usually but not always the leader of the Party with the most seats but parties actually have no constitutional existence and it is perfectly in order for others to form a coalition with a majority.

The leader of the parliamentary Conservative party is chosen by a simple majority of paid-up members, of whom there are about 180,000. Other parties choose their leaders by popular ballot or conference vote.

This all made sense until 1979 because the country was governed by Parliament and the PM was just that: primus inter pares - the chairman and spokesman for the executive, and answerable as such to all MPs. Margaret Thatcher introduced government by an unelected president and subsequent holders of the post have simply evaded answering any questions and usurped the position of head of the armed forces, that is constitutionally the monarch, as in civilised countries.

The country is currently governed by Dominic Cummings, who holds no public office, is above the law,  and is accountable to nobody.  Typically British, the revolution was bloodless.

Queen doesnt ask. Leader of party in seat majority or largest minority ( some have struggled on) is pm, rather by default, as they have the most clout. Goes something like "who would you rather cast your parliamentary for ?"

[Petrochemicals]

Conservatives lost their majority in 2017 but Theresa May gave lots of your money to the DUP in order to form a government. Had the Liberals offered to support Labour, the result would have been quite different, less obviously corrupt, and arguably just as disastrous.  As I said earlier, the monarch asks the person most likely to command a majority to form a government, regardless of integrity, aptitude or intent. Parties have no constitutional status.

And commanded majority, was leader of party. Queen didnt pick the window cleaner. Queen couldnt pick the window cleaner.

[Bored chemist]

Gordon Brown, as stated. Prior to that, Harold Wilson, 1974.

Not "less than anyone else" which would be absurd, but not necessarily the leader of the largest party in the Commons. Just, as the constitution requires, the person most able to command a majority.

Even the Parliamentary Labour Party has from time to time not been peopled entirely by paid-up members of Labour, but all sorts of  Cooperatives, Scottish Labour and independent socialists who accept the Labour whip. Likewise the Conservative and Unionist party is a somewhat more homogeneous agglomeration of whatever people will vote for under a blue flag.

Gordon brown  untrue

That's a little harsh.
I'm sure he's at least  as honest as any other politician.

On the 6th of May there was an election. At that time, he was PM.
The poll result was that the labour Party had 258 seats.
The Conservatives had won 306
But there was a reasonable chance that some of the other parties would enter a coalition with Labour - in which case, he would (presumably) have remained PM.
In fact the  Conservatives and Liberals (who presumably didn't have a dictionary) formed a coalition.
But, until that was in place Brown was still PM.
So, he was leader of a party with the second biggest number of seats.
It was only on the 11th of May that he resigned as PM.

Now will you please shut up about UK politics because you clearly don't know about it.

[Petrochemicals]

Almost correct, except for one very important point.

The majority of US citizens are thoughtful intelligent and moral people, as evidenced by the last presidential election. The problem is that their votes don't count, as evidenced by the last presidential election.

δεμοσ - the people. κρασοσ - the worst. ∴ democracy = government by the worst people. QED.

Prediction: more of the same.

Not that the UK is much better. The prime minister is chosen by 90,001 paid-up members of the conservative party, does what he is told by an unelected moron who is above the law, and is treated like a president by everyone else.

America elects a president with a far greater vote share than the uk does a prime minister.

[Bored chemist]

America elects a president with a far greater vote share than the uk does a prime minister.

You just claimed that 46% is far greater than 44%
Were you expecting to be taken seriously?

One party states do even better in terms of the % of votes that the winner gets.
Is that a good thing?
Saddam Hussein got 100% That must be really democratic.

[alancalverd]

America elects a president with a far greater vote share than the uk does a prime minister.

but a smaller share of the vote than the loser. No wonder we Brits make  fun of the USA - it's a bent banana republic headed by an idiot - and not for the first time.

And for the nth time, the prime minister is not elected.

[Petrochemicals]

America elects a president with a far greater vote share than the uk does a prime minister.

but a smaller share of the vote than the loser. No wonder we Brits make  fun of the USA - it's a bent banana republic headed by an idiot - and not for the first time.

And for the nth time, the prime minister is not elected.

Again leader of party,  has largest proportion of seats in parliament, by election. Queen doesnt choose joebloggs, leader of party is elected via seats,  no chance of second choice as in us presidentials second rounds