> Er, me. (Sitting in Glasgow.) Seriously, Britain is a representative
> democracy, and while the royals (more Scots than anything else
> anyway) have some theoretical power, it hasn't actually been exercised
> since Queen Anne. One or two threats have been made (depending on the
> rumours you believe) but that's about it. So I guess the
> answer is Tony
> Blair, until the collective will of the people decides otherwise.
TB undoubtedly is the de facto head of state, but the UK is not a democracy. The queen forms the parliament at her discretion, and invites the PM to form a government at her discretion. The armed forces are not loyal to the state, they are loyal to the queen, and swear an oath to that effect.
The UK is a constiutional monarchy which permits its *subjects* the freedom to establish a republican parliament. But the queen does not have to obey the will og the people, as she demonstrated in the 70's (IIRC)- despite the Tories losing the election, she invited them to form a coalition government with the LibDems. Labout only took power when it became clear that the Tories and LD's would not work together.
Also note that the house of lords is still filled by patronage, not be democratic process.
Powered by hypermail