The "Loyal" Opposition

In the United Kingdom, the major party out of power always formed the "loyal" opposition, not meaning they held fealty to the party in control of Parliament, but rather that though out of power, they remained loyal to king (queen) and country. This is markedly different from a "controlled opposition" which we now see almost everywhere around the world where democracy in some form is reputedly practiced. The United States except under Trump is a fine example. Just look at the election efforts by the GOP against Obama. John McCain could not credibly challenge Barry over Tony Rezko because then Hussein Obama would have brought up the Keating Five. Then the Republicans trotted out Romney, who had introduced the precursor to Obama Care, Romney Care in Massachusetts, making Mitt the one major Republican uniquely unqualified to hold Obama's feet to the fire over his lousy healthcare plan. Parties that want to win nominate winners and fight hard on important issues. They do not find the least electable empty suit and make him their nominee. They do not compromise with (fold to) those destroying the country, so that they rarely triumph in elections, and on the rare occasion they do, they accomplish nothing, but still serve only to advance the agenda of DemocRATS. The uniparty is the ruling party imposing their will and then throwing an occasional crumb to the party out of power, so it looks to the voters that there are still two parties with a vigorous democracy in force, when unless a maverick like Trump takes over, then there really is looming totalitarianism with one party that is opposed by most voters holding all the cards.