The Queen has almost no political power so our Prime Minister is a President in all but name. If he or she was elected as such it might lead to a better outcome.
I'm against the entire concept of the monarchy, but I'm not sure an elected President would make much of a difference, unfortunately.
The same is true of the second chamber.
I'd like to see them both replaced, in theory, but I can't help but feel that we'd just end up with more of the same ****e that we've already got.
One more group of bought and paid for arseholes working for the same people as the main mob. What's the point?
Not sure what a good alternative would be without it being completely undemocratic, though.
It didn't seem like a constitutional nicety when sin the case of Alec Douglas-Home in 1963. When the Harold Macmillan stepped down as PM due to illness, he suggested that Douglas-Home should replace him - not only did The Queen not appoint him as PM, but before he was appointed he was expected to renounce his peerage.
Douglas-Home was appointed after he'd gone through the proper motions.
The Queen actually tried to stay out of it as much as possible, getting the Tories to make their selection before the appointment.
Douglas-Home wasn't the Deputy Prime Minister and there were powerful cabinet members who opposed him taking the post.
She knew and liked him, so it would've suited her very well.
As for the peerage, that was a simple matter of him becoming the leader of the House of Commons.
It had nothing to do with the Monarch, if something to do with the monarchy itself.
Nobody was supposed to be a member of both chambers. He still did so, though it was very temporary.
First of all, I've debunked plenty: I have proven that Qatar isn't a dictatorship based on the following grounds:
i.) The dictionary definition of what a dictatorship is
ii.) By proving that there is nobody with absolute power in Qatar as the Emir and the Prime Minister are not the same person - which is what the definition of absolute power is
iii.) Citing websites such as nation Master who clearly state Qatar is not a dictatorship, and they clearly know more about the subject than you do since it's their job to know what is and is not a dictatorship
iv.) Our monarchy's website says that, by your own definition, that The Queen qualifies as a dictator - but apparently she's not because of reasons
v.) I'm not the one posting false statistics on this forum just to say QATAR BAD
And that's the point right there: if the 2022 tournament was awarded to China under similar circumstances, would every discussion about FIFA soon degenerate into people slagging off China rather than focusing on the FIFA problem instead? Of course they ****ing wouldn't - and I'll back this up by stating that nobody was calling for Blatter's head when it emerged Morocco were caught trying to bribe FIFA officials for the right to stage the 2010 tournament, just like nobody is saying South Africa only got the 2010 tournament through bribery even though it's recently emerged they topped up Jack Warner's pension fund.
I'll go through your points:
i.) The dictionary definition fits Qatar's Emir perfectly.
ii.) Irrelevant. The Emir controls the Prime Minister, selects him, can remove him at will and he's a member of his family.
iii.) Nation master defines Zimbabwe as a Parliamentary Democracy. It also doesn't define monarchies as dictatorships.
iv.) No, it doesn't.
v.) No, you're the one defending a ludicrous decision and a dictatorship with awful arguments for no apparent reason.
Nobody slagged of the decision to give South Africa the World Cup?!

Is that really the argument you're going for?
What reason do you think people are actually criticising Qatar for, then? You've lost me. Islamophobia?