If cool means interesting then yes, it is cool because it's archaic and different but it's not effective. It's the equivalent of a verbal contract. It's simply not as clear or coherent as a written one.

Irish democracy in contrast uses STV voting and a written constitution and is modeled between the best of what the UK, the US and France had to offer when it was drafted and is a very representative democracy with many political parties compared to the duopolies in the US and the UK. It's also why Ireland is largely immune to hard shifts to the left or right relative to the UK and US.

> It's not enshrined in some document they got together and wrote down like the US constitution

It’s also very brittle and one charismatic populist away from unraveling like the American government. Too much depends on gentlemen agreements and people trusting other people to do the right thing. It works in a stable environment, but shatters the moment someone with no shame and no scruples shows up.

I go back and forth on this. It's a lot like the palace of Westminster itself: charming, whimsical, historical, connected to the past, hopelessly impractical, postponing repairs until things break, and at significant risk of being burned down.

On the other hand it avoids the illusion that power resides in a text and that you can legal-magic your way past a power structure.

There is something to be said for your written constitution though: having the fundamental principles on which your nation is founded enshrined in that way should, at least in theory, make it a lot easier to settle arguments (though in practice, and particularly recently, that does seem not to be the case). Constitutional wrangling in the UK is always really fraught though because it's all done by precedent and is therefore incredibly hard work to get to a clear understanding of what the situation really is.

I see brits describing it as "Dictatorship with Democratic characteristics" and "3 weasels leading the 4th rabid weasel around by the tail" it doesnt seem "cool" by any stretch, except maybe if it was fictional and the people it hurt were not real.

England's 'democracy' is cool insofar as the freemasons are cool. Old men in goofy hats sound fun until they end up raping some kid on an island somewhere in their old colonial posessions.

It's significantly ruined by automated royal assent. The balance that's meant to protect the realm has not functioned for decades.

What part of hereditary aristocrats and religious and otherwise lifetime appointees being able to send back bills to the parliament an infinite number of times until they are changed as they want them. There are cases in which they sent bills back as many as 60 times until they got them changed.

> gradually evolving them into a modern liberal democracy.

And yet, they are still not quite there.

There is something to be said for design over stumbling.

>> gradually evolving them into a modern liberal democracy

Yeah, this is the key observation. "a modern liberal democracy", a.k.a. replacing locals with third world, arresting citizens for posting comments online while letting rapists and murderers go with minimum sentences so they can strike again, making gayness and wokeness obligatory or at least the norm, colonizing white people and calling it reparatory justice, importing radical Islam and liberally supporting revolution (like in Iran) so we can all have a wonderful ayatollah regime... all that.

Definitely removing centuries old pure British tradition is a step forward into "modern liberal democracy", I cannot deny that!

[dead]

> British democracy and government is cool.

Oh sweet summer child.

The government there does not care about you and will promise anything to get another 5 years in power despite causing the issues they promised to solve in the first place.

You are essentially voting in the same party to be in government and progress there moves in the hundreds of years; hence the riddance of the scam that is unelected hereditary nobles which it took more than 700 years to remove them.