Comment by foldr
1 day ago
>because [the King has] heard of what happened in France etc
And, err, in England: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_of_Charles_I
>there is no "bill of rights"
There very literally is a bill of rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
>which is akin to if we handed a bunch of decendants of the mayflower and rich industrialists and priests their own house of Congress.
The House of Lords does need reform, but this is not in any way an accurate picture of it since at least 1999 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords_Act_1999). When you strip away the historical baggage, the House of Lords is just an appointed second chamber. I'm fully in favor of removing the last vestiges of the hereditary principle in government, but hereditary peers do not have a significant amount of power in the current system.
>And when they "elect" a prime minister
Elections really do happen in the UK and really do determine who is Prime Minister. No need for the scare quotes here.
> so basically, there's this constant ritual of pretending they're a democracy when really it's only like that because the king current feels like it.
I'll resist the temptation to point out which country is more pertinently and accurately described this way in the present situation.
> Elections really do happen in the UK and really do determine who is Prime Minister.
Different person, but while this is true, it's also true that the Prime Minister is not elected: they [ordinarily] emerge as being the leader of whichever party commands a majority in Parliament. It's how we've had so much Prime-Minister turnover since the Brexit referendum: those didn't happen because the electorate "determined" it.
Yes sure, it’s a simplification to say that elections always directly determine who the Prime Minister is, and I probably should have been clearer on that point. However, this difference between a parliamentary system and a presidential one has nothing to do with rogue Kings going mad with power.