In the UK, the government is formed by the party that has the majority of seats in Parliament. It's unusual for the government to not have near complete control over what gets passed in Parliament. There's also a principle in our unwritten constitution that Parliament is sovereign and no Parliament can bind its successor.

So for example, when the LibDem/Con coalition of 2010-2015 formed, they passed a Fixed Term law saying that (instead of the prime minister being able to choose the election date as long as it was within five years), the election date would always be five years after the last one, unless two thirds of Parliament voted for a general election.

You'd think that when the Cons gained an overall majority that, as usual, was under two thirds, they would have to stick to fixed terms, but no, of course not! They simply passed a new law revoking the old one.

You seem to think that rights means something that's in the constitution, and Britain doesn't have a written constitution, nor does it seem there's a way of getting one, but the American constitution is illusory, because it binds only honorable presidents who pay attention to the supreme court and the supreme court ruled itself out of power when it ruled that trump couldn't be prosecuted for actions he took as president. Of course they left themselves room to call a Democratic president's act not official on the grounds that it was illegal or unconstitutional, but they were too busy ruling trump king to realise he was never going to party attention to their adverse rulings anyway.

Tyrants are enabled by sycophants who deny it's happening right up until they support it happening. On which topic, your denial that Putin couldn't possibly have trump in his pocket because this or that group wouldn't have allowed it flies in the face of the facts that (a) absolutely it was known that Putin wanted trump to win because that would weaken America and strengthen Russia and (b) the people you mention that would have stopped it all really like an extreme right wing government.

It was hyperbole.

You mean it was wrong, but you don't accept that word when used about you.

But this is a gish gallop on your part. Steve Bannon would be proud of you of he gave even one tiny shit about who you are.

No, confiscating Russian assets did not destroy the EU banking sector, it just provided a bunch of cash to spend. The EU banking sector is doing very nicely post brexit. London used to be the main hub for European banking. Now we're not in the EU, not so much, and Frankfurt etc are thriving.

Whereas if Putin takes over

What? What an enormous straw man! Putin doesn't need to be US president when he has trump appointed to do it for him. And he wouldn't be eligible to be US president and the Americans wouldn't allow him to stand for either party, and they would rebel if he tried military occupation and it would be impossible for Russia to overcome the US military. But Putin isn't anywhere close to that stupid! He doesn't need to be US president, he just needs someone who will so what he wants. Enter stupid, nasty, thin-skinned, easily duped, flattery-swallowing, compromat-laden, racist, geriatric, easily influenced donald trump. Putin had this idea a long time, I suspect, but it was only really with the reach of twitter that he could pull it off.

You're increasingly openly taking Putin's side of every point, which is probably why you set off my bad takes alarm in the first place.