And, to be fair, while I’m generally a small r republican, I’m seeing benefits of having a non politically aligned head of state after J6. While the monarch has limited power, booting out a PM that can’t command the confidence of Parliament is one of them. The question of whether Johnson would accept being dethroned a la Trump was always silly given his consent was never needed.
One of the benefits of a constitutional monarchy is the head of state did not campaign for the position.
It wraps ultimate power up in a contradiction, you have it but you can’t use it. Sure, technically you could but it would be your last act.
Another important aspect, the for and against is currently split between parties, so there’s somewhat of unification factor between parties on that divide as well.
It gets a lot of hate, because it is imperfect, but I don’t think it gets its fair shake. My views more of, if it ain’t broke is it really worth the risk changing it.
It was used in Australia in the 1970s
I guess the US equivalent is the leader of the house being unable to hold their majority together. In some ways the presidential election feels more democratic if a relative outsider (like Trump was) can win. But a 2 year lead up is crazy.