> I thought parliamentary elections in UK worked like in most of Europe: you vote for a party, not a candidate.
They are. It's a parliamentary system, not a presidential system. Nobody votes directly for who will become PM, who is ultimately selected by the monarch as the person who can best command a majority of the House of Commons – normally the leader of the biggest party, of course, but not necessarily. Perpetuating this view is frustrating because it's not what the system is designed for, and I feel a common misconception among voters that they are "electing the PM".
With the increasing breaking of two-party politics, it would not surprise me if we see this precedent of the monarch choosing a PM who can command a majority tested in close outcomes in future GEs where no party gains an overall majority. I'll be particularly interested to see how the press describes such an outcome, if it occurs, especially if the result is that the party with the most votes doesn't go on to join such a coalition.
Nevertheless, it frustrates me when these changes are described as "undemocratic", as that's a common talking point perpetuated by a poor understanding of the constitutional basis of UK elections. If there is a desire that the PM should be directly elected, that would mean a substantial rewiring of the UK constitution more broadly.
a common talking point perpetuated by a poor understanding of the constitutional basis of UK elections
Please don't presume.
I'm fully aware of the parliamentary vs presidential basis of our government, but it's naive to think the leader of the party isn't a significant factor in whether a party gets elected - that's the whole basis of the current situation!
People voted for a combination of Kier Starmer, Labour, and their local constituency MP - and to get rid of the Tories.
That landslide election result is now being subverted by internal Labour panic, mainstream media stirring up stories and the egos of his competitors (on top of course of any Labour and Starmer failings).
The idea that people voted strictly along paper theoretical purist party lines is for the birds.
At least here, it already happened, to have the PM resigning and then someone else from the party to pick up the role and that’s legally sound.