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

Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700 years

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 413 posts

Re: Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700 years

#121

Post by u1hcw9nx »

derriz wrote: post #74
sb057 wrote: post #27

Also in the pipeline: elimination of jury trials https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm2x01yne13o

It's simply a fact that common law jury trials are time-consuming and expensive and cause long delays and bottlenecks in the justice system. Different common-law countries have addressed this issue in various ways. Restricting jury trials for more serious offenses (in this case for more serious charges - ones that could potentially result in a sentence of more than 3 years) is one way than many common law jurisdictio…

American Bar Associaton agrees. ABA Plea Bargain Task Force Report is sad read. US criminal justice system is horrific and plea bargaining is big reason for it.

Re: Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700 years

#122

Post by fc417fc802 »

keybored wrote: post #86
theodric wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It provides an additional check. Much like a monarch, a noble's interests are tied to the welfare of the country itself. Without the country, they're just a toff with some money and an overinflated sense of self-importance.

The usual elitist slop. Every single citizen has a skin in the game of their country. They live there.

The comparison isn't to the average person off the street but rather the typical elected politician.

Re: Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700 years

#123

Post by tjpnz »

rvz wrote: post #26
mindwok wrote: post #20

British democracy and government is cool. It's not enshrined in some document they got together and wrote down like the US constitution, it's this organic thing that they've stumbled towards over the last ~800 years with small changes like this one gradually evolving them into a modern liberal democracy.

> British democracy and government is cool. Oh sweet summer child. The government there does not care about you and will promise anything to get another 5 years in power despite causing the issues they promised to solve in the first place. You are essentially voting in the same party to be in government and progress there moves in the hundreds of years; hence the riddance of the scam that is unelected hereditary nobl…

What on earth are you talking about? They were elected in 2024. If anything its the issues caused over the previous 14 years which must be fixed.

Re: Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700 years

#124

Post by bhk »

kiba wrote: post #83
alexpotato wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To play devil's advocate: Some people argue that the difficulty of passing laws in the United States is "a feature not a bug" b/c it prevents the US from creating laws too quickly. You could argue the House of Lords did the same: by vetoing bills, it acted as a "speed bump" to laws that might cause too much change too quickly.

It doesn't really help the United States create good law. You could argue that it worsen the quality of laws by forcing kludges to be built on top of kludges. A sortition panel collecting random people from all walks of life to give feedback on law would probably improve the quality of law more than any amount of procedure and paperwork ever will. We mistaken paperwork with deliberation and quality control.

"The more laws, the less justice." -- Cicero

Re: Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700 years

#125

Post by xp84 »

rvz wrote: post #58
pjc50 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fairness, this is not unique to Britain. For America read "4" instead of "5".

Are there unelected hereditary nobles somewhere in the US that is entitled to having a seat in congress and can vote against laws being passed? Nope. I don't think so, not even the length of the term is the same.

unelected hereditary nobles

Let's break down what Senators are:

> Unelected

In most states a single party will always win statewide elections, so our Senators are what I'd call "marginally elected" since they only have to face a quiet low-turnout primary election and then they sail to an easy re-election. They're nearly always guaranteed to win their primaries as long as The Party supports them, and they'll do so as long as you're loyal to The Party agenda.

> Hereditary

Many of them come from generational wealth, and a few suspiciously just happen to become wildly wealthy while in office, including through their stock trades, which has been decided to be 100% not illegal even when they know things the public does not know.

> nobles

Ours are called "elites," but most things are the same - they tend to all have gone to the top 2-4 colleges, and you can't 'break into' this set unless you were born into old money. Seems close enough from the perspective of those of us who aren't nobles or elites.

So, you can think of the Senate as the House of Lords lite.

Re: Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700 years

#126

Post by rybosworld »

kiba wrote: post #83
alexpotato wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To play devil's advocate: Some people argue that the difficulty of passing laws in the United States is "a feature not a bug" b/c it prevents the US from creating laws too quickly. You could argue the House of Lords did the same: by vetoing bills, it acted as a "speed bump" to laws that might cause too much change too quickly.

It doesn't really help the United States create good law. You could argue that it worsen the quality of laws by forcing kludges to be built on top of kludges. A sortition panel collecting random people from all walks of life to give feedback on law would probably improve the quality of law more than any amount of procedure and paperwork ever will. We mistaken paperwork with deliberation and quality control.

Government needs to be more Agile.

Re: Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700 years

#127

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

bonoboTP wrote: post #50
tartoran wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would a hereditary system work any better? Plenty of monarchies based on heredity ran themselves into the ground.

It's interesting how people never even learn about any upsides to that. Even if the balance comes out on the side of elected officials, it's good to at least have some idea of why so many societies have worked like that (other than "they were dumb and evil I guess"). The main thing is long-term stability and limits on backstabbing and ruthless competition. Sure it doesn't bring it to zero, plenty of bloody examples f…

You already get this in the UK, and also in other countries, most of which have royal families and associated aristocrats.

There are also - notoriously - foreign-funded influencer, lobbyist, and donor operations.

And the traditional industries - fossil fuels, property, finance, arms - also have a huge say.

The reality is most decisions aren't made in Westminster. Parliament is a device for packaging and legitimising decisions made by the oligarchy. And the House of Lords is largely ceremonial.

It's not there to shape policy, it's there to provide a reward for loyal service to the country's real rulers.

Being in the Lords is a very nice deal. You get up to £371 a day just for turning up, with the option to claim expenses on top of that.

You get access to high quality heavily subsidised food and drink. And you get the status of being a lord, which opens doors if you happen to be someone for whom they weren't already open.

Re: Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700 years

#128

Post by tomatocracy »

derriz wrote: post #74
sb057 wrote: post #27

Also in the pipeline: elimination of jury trials https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm2x01yne13o

It's simply a fact that common law jury trials are time-consuming and expensive and cause long delays and bottlenecks in the justice system. Different common-law countries have addressed this issue in various ways. Restricting jury trials for more serious offenses (in this case for more serious charges - ones that could potentially result in a sentence of more than 3 years) is one way than many common law jurisdictio…

The thing is, the reason for the delays and inefficiencies is not really juries. It's mostly much more mundane things like the prison service not sending defendants to court at the right time, translators not turning up when they are supposed to, buildings which are falling apart, technology not working properly, and court time being double-booked. It's an administrative failure, not a problem with the system.

Alongside removing the right to trial by jury, perhaps more alarmingly the government are also planning to remove appeal rights from "minor" cases (from magistrates to the Crown Court). The current statistics are that more than 40% of those appeals are upheld.

The planned changes won't fix any of these things, but it will cause fundamental damage to trust in the system and result in many miscarriages of justice.

Re: Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700 years

#129

Post by ineedaj0b »

Directionally the UK gov has arrested more people for speech crimes than the Soviets..

Anything they pass or even look excited for is a negative signal. These people seem inept on every front, and I can’t even generously find something clever about them.

Iraq, Brexit, and Speech Laws.

If a Brit told me the sky was blue, I’d double check myself.

Re: Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700 years

#130

Post by cm2187 »

tehjoker wrote: post #104
cm2187 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the assumption is that the non hereditary peers are somehow more representative, but all they represent is being friends of the PM of the time. It's a historical oddity of questionable usefulness. Meanwhile the house of commons can wipe out any civil liberty with a majority of 50% plus one vote. It is remarkable how a system that seems so unstable and prone to abuses of power has served the longest continuously…

50% + 1 is called democracy. Civil liberties are more liable to be swept away by minorities that come to power. In the US, the republicans often do this because they have minority popular support but a disproportionate representation in government. So the key is to make sure that it's 50% + 1 but also representative of the real population. The nobility is another example of a minority with disproportionate power. It'…

All other democracies have safeguards against the tyranny of the majority. Whether it is representativity by state in the US or in the EU, a constitution requiring a large consensus to change in the US, or the senate being elected by the elected officials of small cities in France, it is not true that democracy is just 50% + 1 vote.
Post reply on HN