Then why not move on? Either it's a waste of time or it's sad.
For better or for worse, the Queen acts as a final balance of power. She very, very rarely exercises her power, but some people are envisioning a situation in which she might in the very near future.
ATM, there is no actual law requiring a PM who has lost a vote of no confidence to resign. It's just been tradition and the "gentleman's agreement" of UK politics to date that has meant that every one who has lost such a vote did resign. If Johnson were to refuse to leave after losing a vote of no confidence, then the only way for him to be removed would be for the Queen to fire him and appoint a new PM.
It was reported a little while ago (last week, maybe?) that the Queen had indeed been seeking legal advice about her powers to remove the PM in an extraordinary circumstance like that.
This isn't to say that there can't be better systems, but she
does have a purpose. As does the
also-unelected-by-the-public House of Lords.
UK politics is set up with a series of built-in checks and balances. How effective they all are, and how democratic and fair they all are is a matter for debate. But the idea that we should just "move on" is simplistic.
It's also worth noting the difference between how it is on paper and how it is in reality. From my observations people in the US tend to be far more deferential towards and worshipful of their politicians than people in the UK are of theirs - or even the Queen.
Similarly, the UK has a state religion with the Queen as the head of it, and a law requiring an act of collective worship for schoolchildren in schools, every single day. Separation of Church and state is absolutely not a thing here (as the fact that the Lords Spiritual in the House of Lords are 26 Bishops).
But in practice it seems that US politics is more influenced by religion, and people in the US seem more accepting of religion in politics. There was a survey a while back which indicated that a politician who was openly atheist had very little chance of being elected in the US. OTOH, an overtly religious politician would be seen as strange and suspicious over here. I can't imagine a politician mentioning God in a speech, Tony Blair avoided converting to Catholicism until he was out of office and when asked about his religious beliefs a spokesperson famously said "we don't do God".
And as for the daily act of collective worship in schools? The majority of headteachers just ignore it and break the law, with zero consequence. I have, in fact, had debates with people who had been teachers in the UK for decades who had no idea that that law even existed.
A lot of how these things work are based on tradition and convention, and aren't quite how they seem. This is, in fact, why Johnson and Cummings are having the impact they're having and are quite as dangerous at they are - they're undermining the traditions and conventions. Perhaps that means that steps should be taken to mitigate the possibility of that kind of thing in the future, but these are extraordinary times and such protections simply haven't been needed before. Similarly, if the Queen were to try to overstep the limits of her power, that would almost certainly lead to her losing her power altogether.
