This post was written by a student. It has not been fact checked or edited.

Comments (2)

You must be logged in with Student Hub access to post a comment. Sign up now!

  • I agree with you about your opinion on what they should have done but at some point I feel like UK's government wouldn't agree with you because by use of that method you are completely killing their culture of appointing the prime minister by the monarch so I probably think that they shouldn't entirely leave the chance of electing the Prime Minister to the people fully but rather give the people a part in this act in a way that at least the post is first of all announced vacant then those with the required qualities apply for it and whereby these people have to be like 6 and coming from both the parties and not only the conservative Party like how it has been since 2010 then the screening and after that the big parts are here. After screening if all candidates qualify the people should be given the chance to select their best 2 candidates for appointment by the monarch and the monarch also looks through those two candidates and it finally selects the best person for the job or vice versa. And where if this is done the people are able to feel at peace with who ever the monarch appoints because they know that whoever they appoint is the best fit because her/she came from their decisions. And this method preserves UK's culture of appointing prime ministers by the monarch and also gives people chance to as well get part in electing their prime Minister so I feel like it's a win win for everybody.

  • Non of them should be primeinster

    1. What makes you feel this way?