There's a difference between the running mate - the defacto deputy taking over in a foreseeable move and the nth choice person taking over after the two previous incumbents have been forced out.

There wasn't 3 separate leaders after Brown though. He lost a GE to a coalition that he wasn't prepared to form.

People don't vote for PMs though. I see this discussion elsewhere, didn't really expect it on HN where folks are generally well educated.

That's a pretty patronising comment. Also, I think in practical terms that a lot of people do vote for the Prime Minister rather than their consituency MPs now, whatever the niceties of the UK poltical system are supposed to be.

I thought that people on HN didn't resort to ad hominem when they're being so visibly sanctimonious.

I know that, in theory at least, people vote for the party, not the leader. The Blair-Brown transition wasn't unprecedented, but equally morally and ethically questionable. The difference here is that the Tories, who currently have a significant majority, are in complete disarray and are clinging to power that, if the latest polls are to be believed, would see them all but wiped out.

Nor when May took over from Cameron, when Major took over from Thatcher, when Callaghan took over from Wilson, when Home took over from MacMillan, when Churchill took over from Chamberlain or when Chamberlain took over from Baldwin.

It's extremely common in British politics for the prime minister to change without calling a general election. In fact there were only two PMs in the entire 20th century (Heath and Attlee) who both entered and left the premiership as the result of an election.

Anyone who complains about "unelected PMs" needs to read more history.

And that was also a point of criticism at the time.