New UK Prime Minister

@Northwest I agree

It's because under our parliamentary system, there is no separation between the legislature and the executive. When we vote in general elections, party leaders are not even on the ballot: just the MP candidate name and the name of the party. Obviously, much of the media centres around the party leaders and most people vote more for the party than the local MP. Some, though not all, MPs have a personal vote.

I'm watching BBC news now as journalists questioning a Tory MP on Sunak's lack of mandate and the Tory MP struggling to give a strong answer.

The reality (that Tory MPs don't trust their party membership) is quietly brushed under the carpet.

@Northwest we never vote for a PM. We only ever vote for an mp to represent us in our constituency. The PM is just the person who can command a majority of support from MPs. That normally means the leader of the party with the majority but its not actually required.

Remember we have no real executive like a president, the sovereign power is the majority of MPs.

@OldBrit We do have an executive but it's not separated from the legislature.

@Burnley123 it's complicated but point is pm can't operate as an executive is the point. Parliament is sovereign that's the point.

@OldBrit My point is that when you vote for MPs, you're generally also voting the defacto head of the ticket, whom you know will be voted in as Prime Minister, by the voted in MPs. It's been a revolving door, since the last MPs elections, so the new MP lacks any kind of mandate.

For the record, we do not vote for a President either. We vote for representatives (electoral college), that meets after the elections, to elect a President. This is how George Bush (43rd President) and Donald Trump (45th President), got to be Presidents, despite the fact that they lost the popular vote.

@Burnley123 Our legislature can override the chief executive, but the Prime Minister is also a chief executive position as well.

@Northwest Yes, absolutely.

One difference though is that in our system, the legislature can remove the executive a lot more easily. It's one of the few advantages of not having that separation. Parliament has constitutional supremacy so if you lose the confidence of MPs, you are toast.

I know I don't need to tell you how hard it is for the American legislature to remove an executive.

@OldBrit I think we are vigorously agreeing.

@Burnley123
Yes. Never been done.

@Northwest Though it would have happened to Nixon if he hadn't resigned, right?

@Burnley123
No one knows for sure. My guess is that if he had not resigned, the 25th amendment would have been invoked. For the record though, Nixon was never impeached. He had enough decency left to resign, after the articles of impeachment were prepared. For the record also, he would have faced criminal charges, but Ford pardoned him.

Trump was impeached twice.