We now have a Prime Minister without a mandate from the electorate.
In addition to that todays re-shuffle gives us 7 Peers as Ministers.
Please dis-regard the debate about wether Brown is elected ornot, its not central to this thread, it is about the overall amount of unelected bodies in the Cabinet

Personally I am unsure how this leaves the UK in democratic terms

I like the (possibly unconcious) use of the word "wether" in conjunction with Brown.

As the more agrarian readers will obviously know, a wether is a castrated sheep.

A perfect description of the ball-less and spineless PM methinks...

Tubs

Duff spelling I'm afraid, but I'll leave it bee as it seems appropriate

Delusional megalomaniac would be my phrase. The last resort of someone who has patently had their time is this moaning that they have to stay and see things through. Instead we see straight through him.

In reality democracy as we practice it is not all it's cracked up to be. Does the will of the majority really prevail? Are the citizens of non-democratic countries always much worse off?

I do thake your point that all the talent (useing the word in its widest context, has desertd Brown so that he has had to resort to unelected members to fill in the gaps.
I think that this shows clearly that the Lords needs urgent reform Lord Archer for a ministerial post? i/c prisons perhaps - but there may be a bit of competition.

In answer to the thread title, I'd have to say no. I believe it's traditional that a dictator is actually able to dictate.

It looks like not even the No.10 typists are taking dictation from Brown these days.

Perhaps they darnt, as he is likely to throw another hissy fit, the odd moble and stationary across the office!

Perhaps we should call this the Last Stand of Brown's Autocrocy!! . . .

I agree fully. As he has not been elected into his current position,why does he feel the need to stay?

This is the attitude of someone who is delusional,as he has not at any point been chosen by the electorate to be Prime Minister.

The phrase," Clinging on by his fingernails," comes to mind.

Oh, don't worry.... 'This too shall pass'... and so will Pa Broone...... he will have a breakdown and will be trollied out of Number Ten on a gurney...... shouting at the sky and anyone to hear...."Your all twunts, you all twunts.... I AM the True and secret King of Scotland, England, Wales, Ireland, France... the World even.... you twunts...!"

Now that would be a sight to see.... but McRuin is far too stubborn even to do this..... He will leave like Mrs Thatcher did...with fat tears rolling down his chubby cheeks... and that chin all a quiver......

Gordon Brown is a megalomaniac who put Alan Johnson in his new post at the home office so he will fail like other ministers have. Brown wants all his ministers to be compromised or spineless like the Milibands. Now the Brown inferiority complex is in overdrive and he is replacing elected MPs in his cabinet with peers because they can not challenge him.

I strongly believe Brown will hold onto power at any cost to himself or the nation. It would not surprise me if he uses the the civil contingency act within the next year so he holds onto power I believe Brown to be that crazy.

I originally marked the YES spot, but only because there wasn't a NOT YET option. Brown will cling on regardless. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be anyone around to get rid of him as they did with the Thatcher creature.

The majority of the British public want him gone. People of all political beliefs have lost faith in him. Even die-hard Labour supporters are calling for an election... And yet he sits tight, refusing to do what's right, because his personal legacy is somehow more important than the future - or proud history - of our country.

Given his track record on civil liberties and the control he has sought to exercise over us, I find it easy to believe that Brown would become a dictator if the opportunity presented itself.

Our constitutional arrangements do not depend for their efficacy upon the mere parroted assertions of a myth invented by newspaper editors

This is not the United States. We do not elect our Prime Ministers. Nowhere on a ballot paper will you find a nomination for a British Prime Minister.

By Convention, the leader of a political party with a majority in the Commons is invited to form a government. If a leader surrenders his post, his party elect a new leader who steps into the shoes of the old. Hence we have Brown. He requires no democratic mandate whatsoever in our current constitutional framework.

If the electorate place their cross on a ballot paper next to a candidate to represent them in Parliament on the basis that they are voting for a man who does not appear on their ballot paper, then what does that tell you about the constitutional literacy of the average voter?

No, but party leaders are rarely appointed unopposed with no leadership election. And even when they are, if they are the ruling party then usually they have the decency to call a general election within weeks. Gordon the Golem looks like being the first PM to spend an entire period of office unelected by either his party or the public.

The party didn't have an election to appoint Brown.

Nice comment on the BBC site "have your say":

The abiding memory of the press conference for me will be the "I'm not arrogant" mantra repeated over and over by Golem Brown. A mantra followed by...

...but I'm the only person in the whole world who recognised the global nature of the economic crisis.

...but Barack Obama came all the way to London to learn from me how to deal with the economic crisis.

Yes, no arrogance there, I suppose, but an awful lof of delusion from our mumbling, stumbling, bumbling premier.

And Caroline Flint's called him a sexist. Ouch.

You may recall that no general election was called when John Major replaced Mrs Thatcher in the last Conservative Government. The potential opponents in Brown's case withdrew one by one from the leadership contest. He faced no serious challenge. There is no constitutional convention in existence that a newly-appointed leader should have to call an election.

Agreed, but I think this episode has shown that there should be. Brown's Government has shown itself to be an entirely different beast to Blair's.

I completely agree. But I further suggest that perhaps the steps to require a PM to be directly elected, rather than be simply the favoured choice of his party, should be incorporated into the next changes made to our political system.

Whilst a PM appointed by only his party is constitutionally sound, he hardly holds legitimacy or sway with the electorate, as ably demonstrated by the present incumbent. Perhaps the system should be changed so winning a GE is required to be PM, thus bringing constitutional matters more in line with winning personal legitimacy for what is a very personal office.

This is the result of a weak PM seeking to draft in people who truly owe their position to him.

You are quite right, the powers of patronage are profoundly undemocratic. But as usual its Parliament who have let this s*** go on for so long, just like the expenses thing.