If a British monarch considers the government needs replacing...

They could try flapping their wings.

As Margaret Thatcher survived for 11 years I would have though that it is most unlikely.

no ,they have no powers
they just keep taking the money
happy days for them

The monarchy has the power to dissolve parliament whenever it feels like it.

I don't think that in effect the monarch can do anything, if she tried to dissolve parliament this would certainly cause a constitutional crisis but the government would just carry on as before (the 1689 Bill of Rights established the concept of parliamentary sovereignty). Strangely enough the monarch does have more of an established right to refuse a prime ministers request to dissolve parliament if she/he considers it "still vital, viable, and capable of doing its job" - this is known as the Lascelles Principles.

no, only john kerr has that's power...

The Lascelles Powers won't be invoked this time!

On paper, it is her majesty's government, and no law can be passed without her saying so.

Obviously, the second she starts being controversial, they'll be uproar and she'll be gone.

Shame really - wouldn't it be good if all the bumbling and snivelling etonians in parliament had someone real to report to?

Shame the Queen didnt have the power to stop the appointment of an unelected PM in the first place. The fact that this disaster has been caused by someone nobody ever voted for makes it even worse.

Man of Many moods is right. Coinstitutionally the Monarch can kick out the Government.

And by the way no PM in history has ever been elected by the people. We vote for a party to govern for up to 5 years. Whoever is Leader of that Party becomes PM.

unelected prime minister? - he was elected by his party same as every other prime minister.

In reality people vote for the leader as much as the party.

Actullay he didnt even fight an internal election did he? Who were his rivals?

The Monarch appoints the Prime Minister and he/she can appoint whoever he/she likes.

HarryCrumb 06 Nov 13:38


In reality people vote for the leader as much as the party.



I don't !!!

besides it is strange how many people who dislike Mr Brown seem to harp on about him being unelected, however unlike most previous 'unelected' prime ministers (see list for 20th century below) it was an 'open secret' at the last election that Mr Blair would not serve the full term and it was a 1.01 chance that Mr Brown would take over.

1990 John Major Conservative
1976 James Callaghan Labour
1963 Sir Alec Douglas-Home Conservative
1957 Harold Macmillan Conservative
1955 Sir Anthony Eden Conservative*
1940 Winston Churchill Conservative
1937 Neville Chamberlain Conservative
1923 Stanley Baldwin Conservative
1916 David Lloyd George Liberal
1908 Herbert H. Asquith Liberal
1905 Henry Campbell-Bannerman Liberal*
1902 Arthur Balfour Conservative

*called a general election at earliest possible opportunity after their appointment.

You might not but the reality is that most people do. By your logic if when Brown is kicked out it would make no difference if they make Alan Johnson leader or mad Harriet even though in practice Johnson would probably win a 100 more seats.
I accept Brown isnt the first and the same applied to previous changes. A new leader should result in an election.
The tragic thing about Brown is the fact that he has destroyed the country and affected generations with his incompetence and recklessness. Thats a pretty damning legacy for a so called democracy that it can put in power a complete fool without the approval of the electorate and ruin tens of millions of peoples lives because of it.

It's hard to have a conversation with people who want to blame everything on Mr. Brown - personally I think that he is no worse or no better than most prime ministers that I've seen come and go. I'm sure that Mr Cameron and Co will take over some time next year and we will have a honeymoon period for a few years and then eventually people will turn against him the same as they've done with just about every other PM over the years. If I'm still around in 10 years time it will be interesting to see which anti-Brownites become anti-Cameronites, at least then I'll know which camp they fall into - those that blame everything on the current government or those that support a political party like some people support football teams (i.e. it doesn't matter how bad things are they still won't hear a word said against them).

HarryCrumb 06 Nov 13:35


Shame the Queen didnt have the power to stop the appointment of an unelected PM in the first place. The fact that this disaster has been caused by someone nobody ever voted for makes it even worse.

Marvellous stuff!! Could never hope to make it up :-)

You give Gordon Brown too much credit.
The PM and the Chancellor and merely mouthpieces for the hidden powers that run the economy of the country.

How can Cameron have a "honeymoon period" The country is on the verge of collapse. He will be the most unpopular PM in history with a year or so.!!!!
Still Gordon will please that some people dont blame him for his actions.
Yeah alright rock- I get your point. but its just a cheap shot really.

man of many moods 06 Nov 14:19


You give Gordon Brown too much credit.
The PM and the Chancellor and merely mouthpieces for the hidden powers that run the economy of the country.

great post

what were his actions harry?

Is that a serious question or are you just taking the**?

just tell me smart boy