That's true. And much the same observation can be made about the Republican Party in the USA.
I remember in 2008 when the Democrats mocked Sarah Palin only to insist in 2016 that the only reason not to vote for Hillary Clinton was sexism. But then the Democrats delivered the first non-white President. I'm not familiar with more distant US political history so don't recall if Kamala Harris is the first female VP?
It looked, from afar, that the list of possible replacements for Boris didn't offer anyone else who was much better than she.
In a choice between Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss I found it hard to get overly excited about either.
Yeah. When have we ever before wondered if the Parliamentary system might be better than the mess we live with? When I was growing up, the accepted wisdom was that a Parliamentary system of government was prone to instability, whereas ours was protected from that problem. Now we suspect that it's the politicians who are protected from the voters.
I find it ironic the way the US threw off governance by a monarchy and then ended up with a President who can issue executive orders as well as state governors who can issue executive orders. There's no such thing as an executive order in the UK - even emergency legislation has to pass through Parliament. Although Boris Johnson was clearly way out of line hosting parties while telling the nation they weren't allowed to visit Grandma before she died in hospital it's particularly ironic when governors issue orders without passing through any legislative approval and then violate their own orders, and then don't even pay any political price for doing it.
Hard to argue with the notion that the politicians are protected from the people they allegedly represent. It shows how good a job they do of representing us, when they feel the need to be protected from us, no?