[Pseudoscience-is-malarkey (OP)]

Being that the UK still has a monarchy, a brit can hardly pass judgment on the failings of our democracy.
What do you think the Queen actually does?

Waves.

[Colin2B]

You Brits elected a man named BJ...

we always elect someone. This one happened to be initialed BJ.

[alancalverd]

The prime minister is not elected, and is not head of state, nor CinC of the armed forces.

He/she is (usually)  a constituency member of parliament (i.e. elected by and to represent only the citizens of one town or district), who has been chosen by the paid-up members of his/her party to lead the party in the House of Commons.

The monarch invites whoever he/she is advised can command a majority in the Commons, to form a government in his/her name. The term "prime minister" dates back only to the 1800s, was probably invented by a newspaper, and has no constitutional significance. The UK is governed by the monarch, advised by ministers (which is why he/she has to sign all legislation with "le roi/la reine le veult" before it becomes law) and the office of PM means nothing more than the chairman and spokesman of the ministers.

Sadly, few journalists understand this, and such ignorance is rife.

Blow Job or whatever its name is, was effectively elected by 80,000 members of the Conservative party (there are only 160,000 paid up and eligible to vote),  not by the public.

The enormous advantage of this civilised system is an orderly transfer of power any time a  minister is found in flagrante delicto or otherwise displeases his party, or after an election that alters the majority in the Commons. No riots, claims about stolen elections, blocking executive orders, or questionable appointments to the Supreme Court. The transfer is immediate and signified only by a royal handshake. No ridiculous oaths and ceremonies: "honoured to serve" is all that needs to be said, in private.   

 

[Bored chemist]

The UK is governed by the monarch, advised by ministers (which is why he/she has to sign all legislation with "le roi/la reine le veult" before it becomes law)

The trouble is that she always does sign it.

[Origin]

The trouble is that she always does sign it.

I think there should be term limits on the monarchy.  Like every 20 years or so a new family gets to be royalty.  Have it like a lottery.

[alancalverd]

The trouble is that she always does sign it.

Not always. It's a murky business because the Powers that Be have to maintain the appearance of democracy as mandated by Oliver Cromwell, in that Parliament must be seen to be supreme in matters of legislation, but there are plenty of wellfounded rumors of instances where the monarch, on behalf of the entire population, suggested some delay, watering-down or modification of a proposed Act.

Either way, it's a damn sight more  civilised than having a bankrupt liar issue random executive orders to please the National Rifle Association or whoever has their hand up his backside at the time.

[alancalverd]

I think there should be term limits on the monarchy.  Like every 20 years or so a new family gets to be royalty.  Have it like a lottery.

Worth studying the training schedule for the next monarch.  I'd be fairly happy to have my kids represent the country at ceremonial affairs, or chair important charities, but I'm sure everyone can think of at least one family they'd prefer not to be represented by, or have their mitts on Oxfam's petty cash.

On the other hand a senate chosen by lottery would be a Very Good Thing. The House of Lords has limited powers of introduction and modification but can scrutinise and delay egregious legislative proposals, and submitting all Bills to 600 ordinary Joes would be very refreshing. It currently includes a (sadly diminishing) number of genuine experts - professors, generals, movers and shakers of industry and the like - who can talk candidly without fear of having to face party discipline or election.  How we can bolster that sector is also worth considering.