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

211–220 of 413 posts

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

#211

Post by JCattheATM »

tialaramex wrote: post #76
s_dev wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If cool means interesting then yes, it is cool because it's archaic and different but it's not effective. It's the equivalent of a verbal contract. It's simply not as clear or coherent as a written one. Irish democracy in contrast uses STV voting and a written constitution and is modeled between the best of what the UK, the US and France had to offer when it was drafted and is a very representative democracy with man…

> It's simply not as clear or coherent as a written one. No. As you have surely seen, the US written constitution just gets contorted to "clearly" mean whatever it is the partisan Justices decided suits their current purpose. The effect is extremely corrosive - they even decided it means their guy is above the law. I agree that using a better voting system (STV) is a meaningful benefit and worth replicating elsewhere…

The power of a constitution is in it being the highest law in the land, that legislation can't just override. It's only recently in the US that there is a blatantly corrupt kakistocracy who feels free to ignore it.

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

#213

Post by fy20 »

endoblast wrote: post #57

When Wellington thrashed Bonaparte, As every child can tell, The House of Peers, throughout the war, Did nothing in particular, And did it very well; Yet Britain set the world ablaze In good King George's glorious days! (from Iolanthe by Gilbert and Sullivan) Gather a group of the most powerful people in the land; give them ermine robes and manifold privileges; require of them nothing other than that they meet regula…

> these nobles have lost their inherent power

The nobles were the land owners, the business owners, the OG entrepreneurs, they were educated, and their children would grow up to be the same.

Historically the system made sense. But the last 150 years or so have basically taken their power away.

A couple of years ago an estate - that included a 9 bedroom country house, plus an entire village with a population of 100 people, and a church - was sold by noblety near where I grew up. The price was in the low tens of millions, not that much.

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

#214

Post by petesergeant »

kergonath wrote: post #78
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.

> It's not enshrined in some document they got together and wrote down like the US constitution It’s also very brittle and one charismatic populist away from unraveling like the American government. Too much depends on gentlemen agreements and people trusting other people to do the right thing. It works in a stable environment, but shatters the moment someone with no shame and no scruples shows up.

Strong disagree. It's uncontested that supreme authority lies with parliament, not with the leader of the day. PM can't do shit if parliament doesn't want him to, because they can always simply change the rules on him.

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

#215

Post by jjmarr »

kelnos wrote: post #208
jjmarr wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because that requires compromise and Americans are raging absolutists that need immediate results. In 1791, abolitionists tried to end slavery in the British Empire but couldn't get it passed by the House of Commons. Henry Dundas changed the bill so it would be phased-in. Existing slaves wouldn't be emancipated but their children would be. That bill did pass. Slavery naturally ended over the following decades until t…

> But that time, emancipation happened immediately after they got full power, there was no need to give money to racists, and no moral compromises were required. I really hope you were being sarcastic here... Emancipating the slaves during/after the Civil War was not an orderly, immediate process. And even once all slaves were freed, they continued to live second-class lives due to the laws of the time.

Yes, it's sarcasm. I'm contrasting how Britain made their legal process gradual enough to match reality with the USA's demand that legal processes create reality.

For reference, fully elective abortion legally doesn't exist in most of the UK. It's just that a fetus being dangerous to the mental health of the mother has progressively been interpreted more and more broadly...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_Kingdom

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

#216

Post by bigstrat2003 »

SllX wrote: post #202
michaelt wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To bypass the deadlocked congress, obama used executive orders in new and expansive ways. That ratcheted things up. While I agree - this has been an issue long before Obama. Any reasonable country should be able to decide on the legality of abortion through the normal political process - the public deliberates, they elect representatives, the representatives hammer out the fine print and pass legislation. But in th…

> Why doesn't America deal with political questions using their political process? Since 2022 we do. But it’s through the political process of the States. This has made a lot of people very angry because a bunch of States have got it all wrong, and the exact way they got it wrong depends on your point of view on the subject, but no matter which side of the debate you’re on, some on your side most assuredly want to pr…

> Since 2022 we do. But it’s through the political process of the States.

Which is exactly as it should be. There's nothing in the Constitution which gives the federal government power to act on this issue, therefore it should be decided on a state by state basis. Government works best when it is done based on the values and needs of the local population, not one solution for an entire heterogeneous nation.

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

#218

Post by Nursie »

hunterpayne wrote: post #197
trebligdivad wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that this change is not getting rid of the Lords; it's just getting rid of Hereditary piers - i.e. those passed down through generations. We'll still have Lords who have been selected by previous governments within their lifetime; so they still provide that speed bump; but do it in a way that means they were at some point chosen by an elected body.

Not sure how you think this will improve things. None of these people are elected. They likely got these positions by doing political favors. They are likely even more out of touch with the electorate. They are even more likely to make decisions based upon ideology instead of practical quality of life considerations. Seems to me this just centralizes power even more in the hands of a few. And that's the last thing th…

> They are likely even more out of touch with the electorate.

Not compared to the hereditary peers.

In theory these people have proved themselves useful in some way and bring expertise to the upper chamber, rather than just being born in the right family. In practice there is some of that and some political cronyism.

> Seems to me this just centralizes power even more in the hands of a few.

That is exactly what hereditary peerage is. The few, by definition. The aristocracy.

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

#219

Post by anon291 »

hunterpayne wrote: post #205
martythemaniak wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That view is a leftover from a bygone era, when others could look at the US with often grudging admiration. Today? The US itself doesn't think much of itself, and to the rest of us it is a cautionary tale.

"The US itself doesn't think much of itself" If you ever find yourself wondering why US voters elected someone like Trump...if you ever wondered why institutions in the US are crumbling and experts don't have much credibility, this is why. I assure you, most Americans think very highly of the US compared to the rest of the world (especially if they have traveled). Only the out of touch don't and the reasons why most…

> Because people who believe things like that have to twist around their worldview to such an extreme that its impossible for them to be competent no matter how smart or how much education they have.

Extremely well said

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

#220

Post by anon291 »

vkou wrote: post #110
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.

You get something far worse in the US. Which is a government that no longer feels any need to either pass or be bound by laws.

Ah yes, the country whose supreme court struck down its global tariffs and then forced the federal government into refunding all the money back is truly no longer bound by its own laws.
Post reply on HN