Why do people insist on saying Gordon Brown is an unelected PM?

Question

I keep hearing from people that apparently Gordon Brown came to the Premiership illegitimately and should step down purely on this fact. On what basis is this true?

If they studied the British constitution, they would find that there is absolutely no requirement from the Prime Minister to hold a General Election upon being appointed by the Queen. This did NOT happen in 1916, 1940, 1957, 1963, 1976 or 1990. Why does this fiction arise now?

There is no requirement in our constitution for an election - only that the Prime Minister commands a majority of the House of Commons, or that the Commons at least tolerates them. I am not a supporter of Mr Brown and look forward to his defeat in the next General Election, but he is in power legitimately and this silly theory should be properly buried forever.

Answer 1

But he is a tosser. You can't argue with that one

And TBH, elections are a joke anyway. Even if he was 'elected by the people' we are only given a handful of corrupt clones to choose from anyway, so it really wouldn't make any difference.

Answer 2

You're right, the lack of understanding of our system of government is terrible.

Answer 3

I agree with the asker. It happened as recent as 1990 when Thatcher stepped down and Major took over, however I think the main reason why this Blair/Brown passing of Premiership sticks in the throats of some people is because we are so desperate to remove New Labour from power, there wasn't this much hatred for the Tories back in 1990, irrespective of their problems as there is for New Labour right now.

Unfortunatly we have to wait until 2010 to try and do this.

But people should remember that they are voting for a party not an individual, Tony Blair was just a "representive" or a "figure head", a salesman if you were for the Labour party just as Brown is now. They could have had Mickey Mouse as PM if he was a member of New Labour because ultimately it is the party you are voting for. Although I'm sure Mickey Mouse would have more taste and grandiuer than to join the Labour party.

Answer 4

the difference is ,that for example (1990) john major won a tory leaderhip vote between himself,douglas herd & john redwood,but absolutely no one has ever voted for brown

Answer 5

Because he bottled the election that he should have held to make his leadership official.

Answer 6

Although technically we elect our own MP, and the party with the most MPs will elect a leader who will become PM, in reality many of us will choose our MP based on the policies and the leader of a party.

Whilst I don't agree that Gordon Brown is 'illegitimate' as a PM, I can see why a great number of people are upset.

But, to all of those who think that he's illegitimate - I clearly remember us all knowing that Tony was going to hand over the reigns to Gordon when he was running last time...

Answer 7

He was accepted as leader of the Labour party.Bliar was elected as leader.Just because the boss leaves.Does not give

the second in command the right to become boss.The Commons like the people does not get a vote on it.He is out of

he's depth and when people say he will be voted out.That annoys me as he was never voted in.

Answer 8

The point i would make is:- how exactly is this DEMOCRACY? Several wrongs do not make a right; so your citations of other elections are useless.

Answer 9

How many people know about the British Constitution. Elections are now seen as 'popular votes'. In their eyes Brown was not personally elected by the people. Unfortunately at general elections now, people vote for the face of the party rather than what the party represents...

Answer 10

Where did you access the constitution. I thought there was no Constitution here. I know America has got one but you obviously know different. Please tell.

Answer 11

He is not illegally the prime minister.

However, the question remains would Labour have won the last election if he was the Labour leader at the time or if he had actually had the courage to face the electorate when he first came to power. The fact that he hesitated and then cancelled a planned election points to the fact that he knows he's on very thin ice.

I suspect that the result would have been much the same as it is today. Labour would have won the election but with a substantially reduced majority not because Brown was any good but rather that the Tories and Lib Dems were not seen as viable alternatives. This is not the case anymore for the Conservatives.

If Brown now ruled with a much smaller majority, many of the policies that he has scraped through by wafer thin margins may not have been passed. Civil Liberties may well be in a much healthier state had this been the case.

I for one am looking forward to the day that the smug look on his face is removed and replaced by utter rejection when he is soundly beaten in a proper face off with the other parties within the next couple of years. Only then will this country be able to move forward again.

Answer 12

I agree in what you say, but we the "people didn't vote Brown in & there wouldn't have been a cat in a h***s chance of him being PM if it would have been an election. That's were you get the unelected saying from! It should have been an election, coz at the end of the day Blair steps down it's up to the people who they want not the next in line.

Answer 13

Surely you have just answered your own question?

He is in fact unelected in that there was no General election. He takes the role by being the leader of the labour party after TB stepping down. So taken literally it can be perceved that he is unelected.

You are correct in questioning why people call for him to step down due to this though. The ill informed Red top papers have a huge part to play I would imagine.

Personally I have had enough of politics and all politicians. They shouldn't be worrying who the person is at the top, but all pulling together to fix the economy, credit crunch, and housing maket. I am sure if they all stopped niggling and put thier efforts into this rather than a power struggle we would see a stronger, better british econmy.

But hey, I am no politician so what do i know?!

Answer 14

It's just all brought up as new labour are just so dire.

Yes it has happened before but never with such a deluded, inept, corrupt government.

Answer 15

People feel mislead - and want to see him go to the electorate as the leader of the party.  The trouble is that he bottled it - and ended up blowing his one realistic chance of actually winning, which nobody seriously expects now.  

We'll have one soon though if Labour can't hold out in Glasgow.

Answer 16

This is a common question. Both parties elect a new proime minister mid term from time to time and others try to make a point and pretend that it is somehow dishonourable.

Answer 17

Because that is what he is!An unelected Prime minister!Who keeps putting off the General Election as long as possible!Why? Because he believes people have short memories!And will forget his gross incompetence in his handling of the British economy!

Answer 18

People insist because they think he's a tax-hiking crook. He should never have been prime minister in the first place and the public want him out. In the game of politics the public rules at the end of the day. If the man isn't doing a good job they'll find a way to get the him out!!

Answer 19

You are quite right in your statement but should the question be asked - would the electorate have voted the labour party in if he had been leader and not Blair?