I'm not comparing her to Donald Trump, but there's the same sense of incredulity that the political system would install someone so populist and devoid of substance in such a position of power.
The office of Prime Minister is decided by the ruling party. Due to the timing of party politics and General Elections, she'll have been elected by the Conservative party, not by the actual UK electorate.
Unfortunately, the upper echelons of the Tory Party - and thus every candidate putting themselves forward to be PM - is filled with these vacuous puppets largely guided by the ERG[1] because they've somehow managed to capture the party, much like the Tea Party took over the GOP.
The UK electorate does not elect a Leader, it elects a Party. Currently, the elected party is the Conservatives, and that does not change even if the party leader (and as they are the party in power, the de facto Prime Minister) of the Conservatives change. There is no requirement for a General Election, as the elected party isn't changing.
I DO have issue with the process to whittle the clutch of candidates for the role down to two, as that process is restricted to tory MPs only who as we always observe, do endless back room deals to secure their own places in the new regime. I feel that this should have been a standard popularity election with all hopefuls listed on the ballot and the entire tory party membership voting.
Unless you’re espousing an opinion?
So, not really.
Until the cards are drawn, both are quite literally options.
The entire Conservative party are "non-options" from my perspective, but they're the government, so they were someones choice.
He managed to be prime minister.
But Wetherspoons used to have a “Rishi’s Dishes” deal thing, and that’s quite a lot of brand recognition from a very conservative voter base.
Democracy is an active, ongoing process, it doesn't stop at the election booth.
You deserve better than unelected leaders (unelected as by the people, not by a few selected Tory party members).