It also established inter alia U.K. Parliamentary democracy in 1649. It threw off British colonialism in the US in 1776. And rid the Romanian people of Ceauşescu in 1989. Liberated the slaves in modern day Haiti in 1781. And in France in 1789, ushered in the modern world as we know it.
From which, surely, the logical conclusion is to be careful which revolution you pick? You noticeably left out the Russian, Chinese etc., revolutions, which were long, messy and led even via a charitable assessment, to long term authoritarian rule. And given the imperialist shenannigans of Napoleon, I'm not entirely sure the French Revolution was quite the boon to humanity you portray.
By contrast, the Romanian, American and other revolutions were more 'popular', represented pretty much homogenous groups and led to functioning Democracies.
I'm just left wondering what sort of revolution you'd expect in the UK? For a start, we are more comparable to 'former Yugoslavia', than to Romania, in that we already have existing tensions between four national groups, plus significant ethnic and religious minorities, all of whom can be reliably expected to make a bid for their own territorial, economic and religious objectives in the inevitable period of instability which revolution would certainly bring. I've already mentioned the inevitable outside interests, which would include at the least the US, probably Eire, and possibly EU/NATO or even potentially Russia.
But quite apart from all of my educated guesswork above. Consider this. We've spent the whole of this Electoral Campaign period agonising, along with a divided and confused nation, over which way to jump. We have numerous clear political groupings, most of which barely acknowledge the yolk of Neoliberalism under which we all struggle.. much less offer any real way out.
Which leaves me wondering, where is your consensus for a 'popular' revolution coming from..and even if you can create one, how do you prevent outside interference or catastrophic internal strife?