Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Who owns Parliament?

whoownsengland.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 210 posts

Re: Who owns Parliament?

#91

Post by dane-pgp »

spacedcowboy wrote: post #76
kcartlidge wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are politically irrelevant, a few completely peripheral procedural and technical issues aside that make no real difference in the grand scheme of things. At the very least they own huge parts of the country, and the Queen has (and exercises as per recent Guardian stories) vetos and opt-outs of the laws the rest of us must follow. Regardless of that, even as a basic principle our country reeks of deference and…

shrug and it riles some people up, which at least is entertaining. Most of us don't care. Tbh, if you look at the performance of the queen compared to the performance of recent prime ministers, well, let's just say it's not a shining example of democracy at it's best.

By that logic we should make Charles the Prime Minister and shut down parliament.

Maybe the reason the Queen is so respected is that she doesn't (visibly) exercise much power, and the lesson there is actually that Prime Ministers should be more limited in what they can do of their own volition (without broad consent from the public, in the form of a truly representative parliament and an independent judiciary enforcing a codified constitution).

Re: Who owns Parliament?

#92

Post by eadmund »

bsedlm wrote: post #8
kcartlidge wrote: post #6

Here in the UK we're one day into a two day extra 'bank holiday' for the Queen's jubilee (70 years). Seems a good time to remind people of great sites like these, places that take the time to gather the evidence that reveals the truth behind royalty - descendants of thieves and murderers still profiting off the proceeds of their ancestral crimes, with their only 'qualification' being an accident of birth . We've neve…

I'd argue that while the current generation of nobles may in fact have done nothing much to earn them, they do have ancestors that fought bitterly, and in some cases quite sleazily, to earn and keep their privilege. the idea that "all men are equal" is not really true in Europe. And it's only supposedly true in America

> the idea that "all men are equal" is not really true in Europe.

It's not really true in reality. Some folks are stronger, some faster, some more intelligent, some have more social connections, some are more charismatic. Even if we lived in a Harrison Bergeron dystopia there would be some inequality somewhere.

I kind of admire an idealised British system which recognises inequality and attempts to channel it to good ends. I think the House of Lords as it was prior to 1911 made a lot of sense; I think that the honours system makes a lot of sense. I think that there's a lot to be said for having a monarch who is powerful in theory but weak in practice and a prime minister who is weak in theory although powerful in practice.

Re: Who owns Parliament?

#93

Post by kcartlidge »

annyeonghada wrote: post #60
kcartlidge wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't care about that. I also don't care about how dutiful the Queen is and what she's sacrificed to the role - though to be clear I do believe both those things at a personal level. It doesn't matter what incidental good it accomplishes if it goes against the fundamental principles of equality.

Equality is not "a fundamental principle", this is a modern conception of how society should be run while fundamental principles are absolute and eternal. Even going back to only 100 years ago the idea that "we are all equal" would have sounded ridiculous. As an example, we could take the accounts about the role of schools in various educational systems in Europe: it was widespread belief that the function of such in…

> Equality is not "a fundamental principle", this is a modern conception of how society should be run while fundamental principles are absolute and eternal.

Fundamental means foundational. But regardless of whether or not the definition you choose to follow (and they do vary) adds more nuance, it's pretty obvious what was meant by the phrase fundamental principle. And pretty obvious from the context that it was in fact referring to, as you put it, the "modern conception".

It really feels like you've picked up on a trivial phrasing at the cost of ignoring the intent, probably as a means of introducing some eloquent but irrelevant knowledge on etymology and derivation which adds nothing to the discussion.

It doesn't matter what it was like 100 years ago. We live now. And equality is fundamental to our current conceptions of an ideal democracy. Or foundational if you're still offended by the word choice.

Re: Who owns Parliament?

#94

Post by dane-pgp »

simonh wrote: post #51
kcartlidge wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are politically irrelevant, a few completely peripheral procedural and technical issues aside that make no real difference in the grand scheme of things. At the very least they own huge parts of the country, and the Queen has (and exercises as per recent Guardian stories) vetos and opt-outs of the laws the rest of us must follow. Regardless of that, even as a basic principle our country reeks of deference and…

As I said, peripheral procedural and technical issues aside that make no real difference. The idea that these mean we have no democracy is absurd, and does no credit to the reasonable arguments for disestablishmentarianism.

I believe that disestablishmentarianism is usually understood to refer solely to the question of whether the Church of England should be the Established (i.e. state) church.

There are probably some antidisestablishmentarianists who disagree with that definition, though.

Re: Who owns Parliament?

#95

Post by engineer_22 »

spacedcowboy wrote: post #82
exdsq wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don’t have a written constitution, so if you remove all the pomp and tradition it’s highly likely some things do actually go wrong as people forget they’re meant to happen.

Living in the US, and looking at how (for example) their second amendment has ruined their society, but it's considered heresy to countenance change to the holy document, I really don't want the UK to go down that path. There are places with written constitutions that have turned out better than the US one, but if you look at parallels between the UK and other nations, the US is the most likely one for the UK to foll…

The US Constitution has been regularly amended since the beginning. Your claim that it would be heresy falls flat here.

2nd amendment ruined society, exactly how? The US still enjoys the largest economy and military in the world respectively. Religious and personal freedoms are codified in law. What is in ruins?

Re: Who owns Parliament?

#96

Post by spacedcowboy »

dane-pgp wrote: post #91
spacedcowboy wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

shrug and it riles some people up, which at least is entertaining. Most of us don't care. Tbh, if you look at the performance of the queen compared to the performance of recent prime ministers, well, let's just say it's not a shining example of democracy at it's best.

By that logic we should make Charles the Prime Minister and shut down parliament. Maybe the reason the Queen is so respected is that she doesn't (visibly) exercise much power, and the lesson there is actually that Prime Ministers should be more limited in what they can do of their own volition (without broad consent from the public, in the form of a truly representative parliament and an independent judiciary enforci…

> By that logic we should make Charles the Prime Minister and shut down parliament

Uh huh. I think reductio ad absurdum wants to have a word.

Re: Who owns Parliament?

#97

Post by dane-pgp »

eadmund wrote: post #88
dane-pgp wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes it harder to introduce a land value tax, I guess?

Does it? Seems like if the State doesn't know who owns a piece of land, it can just auction it off.

If the state were so keen to serve the interests of the public, it would have auctioned off this land already, regardless of whether a land value tax had popular support.

I suppose I'm hoping that if people knew who really owned the country, and who would be the winners and losers of a LVT, there would be such strong support for one that it would be politically untenable to oppose it.

Re: Who owns Parliament?

#98

Post by scottswelsh »

cwillu wrote: post #77
hiddencost wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The queen was exercising secret veto power, I don't think root was disabled. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfr...

When you disable an account, processes running under that account are still live, and can still spawn children.

I hope you're not suggesting we kill the processes.

Re: Who owns Parliament?

#99

Post by MockObject »

eadmund wrote: post #88
dane-pgp wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes it harder to introduce a land value tax, I guess?

Does it? Seems like if the State doesn't know who owns a piece of land, it can just auction it off.

If the state really doesn't know who owns a piece of land, what's stopping someone from squatting? Wouldn't the owner have to prove ownership to the state, to activate law enforcement?

Re: Who owns Parliament?

#100

Post by jaywalk »

spacedcowboy wrote: post #82
exdsq wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don’t have a written constitution, so if you remove all the pomp and tradition it’s highly likely some things do actually go wrong as people forget they’re meant to happen.

Living in the US, and looking at how (for example) their second amendment has ruined their society, but it's considered heresy to countenance change to the holy document, I really don't want the UK to go down that path. There are places with written constitutions that have turned out better than the US one, but if you look at parallels between the UK and other nations, the US is the most likely one for the UK to foll…

You live in the US, but refer to "their" society as if you're not a part of it. So if "their" society is in ruins, why do you choose to continue living there? Surely you can head off to any number of countries that would suit you much better, and allow you to be a part of their society.
Post reply on HN