Only that you referenced Macmillan because you thought that the Queen, on her own, selected him as PM. As the link showed, she did not - she fulfilled her ceremonial obligation of appointing a politician who was selected by the majority of elite Conservative figures.<quoted text>
Let's try to remember which one of us who was saying that the monarch APPOINTED the prime minister!!!!
Let me check...
Oh, that was me!
So once again, Barefoot, you are simply wrong that the Queen is a serious political player in our system.
Macmillian was a unique case because the Conservatives at the time had no system of replacing their leaders. They, not the Queen, decided that Macmillan would be the next PM. Just like Labour decided that Gordon Brown would replace Tony Blair.<quoted text>
Wait, wait, that is that tricky definition of appointed that you (et al.) insisted was the "technically correct" meaning of the word...
It really is that simple to understand.
Wrong. Whenever you have brought up your dead horse about the PM's election I have simply restated that like the other 649 MPS, he is elected by his constituency voters.<quoted text>
And then you (et al.) INSISTED that the prime minister was ELECTED by the Parliament.
For the exact same reason that Democratic and Republican delegates select presidential candidates: to appeal to as many voters as possible.<quoted text>
(putting aside, the PM is "elected" by part of the (sometimes) majority party of the hOUSE OF cOMMONS.
Political campaigning 101.
Translation: there Barefoot goes again finding a unique case where a PM was selected by party elites, but because the Queen did her usual role of rubber-stamping their decision, he believes that she must have therefore selected Macmillan all by herself.<quoted text>
GOSH! there I go again... being..."factually" correct...