Queen's Consent happens in secret and is immune to parliamentary debate. You claim this is an advantage but it's actually a disadvantage. The Prime Minister is not a president and is not democratically elected by the entire country. He should not have the power to skip debate on embarrassing subjects.

Queen's Consent was used to give the Palace immunity to claims of race discrimination in their hiring. That's unconscionable. Nobody should be above the law.

The Parliament, and specifically the elected Commons, get to make the rules. If Blair didn't have a majority for even that decision to avoid debate he couldn't have done it †

This is why Theresa May couldn't get anything done, she didn't really have a majority for any actual policy. She needed the DUP (barely "allies" in any useful sense, even when substantially bribed to stay on side) and so even small rebellions in her own ranks meant she was constantly in danger of No Confidence.

It's uncomfortable to know that the majority of the people you sent, some of whom may have assured you personally that they agree with you, actually couldn't give a shit and are focused primarily on their own careers. But there it is.

† The Government controls the Crown powers, but Parliament's confidence in the Government is needed, any majority against the Government can get rid of it, with a single motion, "That This House Has No Confidence In Her Majesty's Government". This was not a realistic threat against Blair, or, sadly Boris, because for all the pantomimed outrage they're actually annoyingly popular - but it is why May couldn't get anything done.

Yeah, there was even a bizarre period prior to the last general election when the majority of the House of Commons was in fact opposed to Boris but didn't want to hold a confidence vote because they knew he'd win the resulting election (and couldn't find a majority of MPs who'd support any replacement). So instead they tried to puppet him around using their legislative powers whilst carefully avoiding the possibility of an election, which really isn't supposed to happen. All this was only possible due to the ill-advised Fixed Term Parliament Act, which made it impossible for the Prime Minister to force an election or make any vote on government policy into a confidence vote. This failed in its goal of stopping governments calling an early election in the hope of electoral gain, but did block an election when the current prime minister had lost the confidence of the house and the UK parliamentary system really needed one. The press avoided pointing out how much of a disastrous anti-democratic mess this whole thing was because it was helping the anti-Brexit side...

I thought generally the government made the rules. And Parliament votes on them.

In order to form a British government you need a working majority in the House of Commons (the elected half of Parliament), this is because you need Confidence, as if a majority don't have Confidence in the government it can be dissolved.

The very least you can scrape by with in practice is called "Confidence and supply". An agreement between your political party and whatever other tiny parties or individual members can make up a simple majority (half plus one vote) of the Commons, to vote that they have Confidence in the government, and to vote through "Supply" bills, taxes and spending.

Parliament can choose to do whatever it wants, but as we see, in general the Parliament will be dominated by the governing party. So to an extent this is a distinction which makes no difference. Except, as Democrats are keenly aware in the US, just because somebody is a member of the Party doesn't magically mean they do whatever the executive led by that party says they should do...

So yes, in practice the UK Government and Parliament are much more cohesive than in the US where the Executive and Congress are run by completely different people with different agendas even on the rare occasions they're politically aligned, this is on purpose, but not by definition. If Johnson annoys enough "back bench" (ie elected politicians who aren't part of his executive) Tory MPs there's nothing he can do to ensure they vote how he wants and then he's probably fucked.

The Queen doesn't have any real power really...??

Do I need a counter argument?

Clearly one of the most powerful people in the world. She controls the majority of British wealth and doesn't pay taxes on it because she owns a whole countries to embezzle it with

Her son just sold a chalet in Switzerland for millions so he could settle an international case

That's without getting into the good graces from the media

No power literally can't name a single person more powerful and less accountable to any laws

> Clearly one of the most powerful people in the world. She controls the majority of British wealth and doesn't pay taxes on it because she owns a whole countries to embezzle it with

This is so wrong it is laughable. HN when discussing politics it seems is as big a cesspit as reddit.

There are real issues to be discussed here and its come to this.

> Do I need a counter argument?

She's been on the throne for a long time. Can you list the policies she has enacted into legislation that were not policies of the government of the day?

Look, I’ll absolutely be first to back scrapping the monarchy - but “she controls the majority of British wealth” is just objectively not true. We don’t have to make shit up in order to object to hereditary wealth and power.

The office she holds exists under the same rules as Peel’s constabulary: they have power only because the people consent to it.

The moment the monarch overdoes it they’ll get their head chopped off (trad.)

Imagine a world where politicians (or their descendants) couldn't abdicate except though untimely death? Arguably they would take their profession much more seriously, like a monarch.

British Members of Parliament are, in fact, notionally forbidden from resigning. There is deliberately no provision to "step down" as the representative. Historically there were cases where people probably did not want to be made MP.

Today, however, in practice you can resign. What happens is you tell the people who look after day-to-day business in the House, and they arrange for you to be offered a job by the Crown which you then accept. Obviously the people's elected representatives can't be the Monarch's employees, that's no sort of democracy -- and so this immediately terminates their membership of the Commons (fresh elections will be held some months in the future to replace them) and immediately the same offer can be re-used. The "jobs" given aren't real jobs, one that's used is Crown Steward and Bailiff of the three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiltern_Hundreds

Basically the wooded hills where I grew up were once bandit country and so the Crown used to pay somebody to sort out the bandits, the job still legally exists, but today the sort of bandits who live in those hills (bankers, executives, sometimes the Prime Minister himself) would need more than merely a "Crown Steward" to sort them out.

> She controls the majority of British wealth

No, she doesn’t.

"Liz doesn't have any real power, at least, no more than any other very rich old ladies."

Technically you're right. However, I've seen first hand what the wielding of 'power and influence' looks like that comes from her position and institutions of the Monarchy.

It's very easy to dismiss her as just a bunch of money, but it's far more than that. Insiduously so, and is very representative of the culture of power in the UK.

Just as any CEO sets the culture of their organisation. So Monarchy sets the culture of the power in the UK. Take a small look at how the City of London works.

You may live in the UK and think she/they do not have any democrative power over you. But you'd be wrong in so much as the influence they have on 'democratic' and government institutions.

With respect, you're being a little naive.

You’re being very vague. What is a specific example of the Queen exercising the power that you claim she has?

"Parliament executed the King for starting wars"

Isn't that why the folks in the Army have to take oaths to the sovereign and heirs while people in the Navy apparently don't?