Possibly because:
"The unelected Labour opposition proposed activist shills"
is difficult to understand.
"The unelected Labour opposition proposed activist shills"
is difficult to understand.
It's also unclear, to me at least, what you mean by "proposed" and by "shills" and who these people are, specifically, who you claim control the BBC and print media, since despite specifically referring to "Labour" you said you don't mean it's Labour.
unelected to government.
> , who you claim control the BBC and print media, since despite specifically referring to "Labour" you said you don't mean it's Labour.
I didn't use a present tense. Corbyn et al had a proposal to take control of editorial departments of major newspapers and tv media to set the agenda.
Your difficulty in reading comprehension is hardly relevant to the point
On the contrary. All you need to form a government is some way to get a majority for Confidence, and all you'd need to make that a working government is Confidence and Supply. That's all Theresa May had, she did not win the election but she had DUP promises to vote for her on the question of confidence and where necessary for supply, and that was enough to limp on for quite some time.
Cameron did win a plurarity of seats in 2010, but his 36% of the vote wasn't enough on it's own.
It's exceedingly likely the next Prime Minister will equally be appointed without a public vote.
Since it's only a convention the Commons certainly could just decide not to do this, and of course there isn't anybody to stop them - but that would be extraordinary. It hasn't happened at all in the modern era.
I guess the most plausible way it could arise now is if there isn't any majority in the Commons after an election, a conventional senior-junior coalition partnership in which the larger party gets PM but the smaller party gets some other roles is impossible for some reason, and the "obvious" compromise centrist politician has meanwhile been elevated to the Lords.
Nothing in the existing rules actually forbids a Lord being PM, it would just be incredibly inconvenient (the Commons hold the PM to account not the Lords so...) and look undemocratic, so I guess in that case they might decide the way forward is we put this chap in place as caretaker, his executive gets us out of whatever immediate hole we're in, and then hold fresh elections. If there is a decent majority in the Commons for that idea, it's enough to make it happen.
You didn't say Labour proposed to "take control", you said Labour proposed "shills" "took control". Took.
Why you're continually trying to pretend other people can't read what you wrote, when it's there[0] for anyone to see, is baffling.
> The Labour opposition had proposed that activist shills take control of the editorial policy of ...
It's your turn to ask for "evidence please", I believe. (-: