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

261–270 of 413 posts

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

#261

Post by hunterpayne »

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…

I feel it is important to point out that the UK doesn't have freedom of speech, has never had freedom of speech and at this point doesn't look like it ever will. The idea of freedom of speech actually comes from the Netherlands and was first codified in the US. The UK never adopted it.

The person floating this idea (of removing jury trials) would gain the power to imprison people simply for criticizing the government (and anything he didn't like really). But sure, plea bargaining isn't a perfect idea so whatever the British government does is fine.

PS A few more sacred cows while I'm at it (just for fun): - The stereotypical British accent was formed after the US Revolution, before that Brits sounded like Americans (and visa versa) - Richard the Lionheart didn't speak English but instead spoke French - Churchill was lousy at military strategy and opposed the Normandy landings

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

#262

Post by ivell »

kennywinker wrote: post #107
kiba wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I’d go further. To bypass the deadlocked congress, obama used executive orders in new and expansive ways. That ratcheted things up. Now trump is using executive orders even MORE expansively, to do things that are patently undemocratic and unconstitutional (federalizing who can vote, ilegal tariffs). The kludges and hacks are causing a crumbling of democracy, not just mediocre law.

It could be my interpretation, the framing of the above comment feels as if Obama gave Trump the idea to use executive orders in expansive ways. I think Trump would have used executive orders expansive even if no president ever had used executive orders.

Trump is just trying to get away with as much as he can. The tariffs used by Trump and his "jokes" about skippings election and other things he did are quite unprecedented.

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

#263

Post by kitd »

seanhunter wrote: post #237
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.

The Lords doesn’t actually have the power to veto bills thanks to the Parliament act. They also have a principle of ultimate legislative priority under which they defer to the commons in matters where the commons puts its foot down. They generally act as a revising body rather than outright attempting to defy the commons. > Under the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 it is possible for a bill to be presented for Royal As…

On the other hand, the process of having Commons legislation rejected by the Lords, then amended and sent back can take almost a year. A government looking to push its legislative programme in a single parliament may choose to remove the most controversial elements in return for an easier passage through the Lords. In this way, just the threat of Lords scrutiny can be enough to moderate the output of the Commons.

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

#264

Post by pjc50 »

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.

Not hereditary, but SCOTUS functions somewhat worse than the House Of Lords: unelected, unremovable, life appointments, but ability to change the law. Hence the decades spent shifting the balance to reverse Roe v Wade.

A lot of important US freedoms only came from the courts in spite of the legislatures, which I think is an under appreciated problem of the system.

The US system skews much older for some reason too. The only president born after 1946 was Obama. Like being stuck in a time warp.

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

#265

Post by vintermann »

michaelt wrote: post #160
kennywinker wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d go further. To bypass the deadlocked congress, obama used executive orders in new and expansive ways. That ratcheted things up. Now trump is using executive orders even MORE expansively, to do things that are patently undemocratic and unconstitutional (federalizing who can vote, ilegal tariffs). The kludges and hacks are causing a crumbling of democracy, not just mediocre law.

> 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…

There's a long political tradition which doesn't acknowledge that there are political questions. In their world, there's only good policy and bad policy, and making the first is only a question of competence. Conflicts of interests they won't talk about. These people fight a constant battle to take political power away from people (not just regular people, elected representatives as well), and give it to their preferred "experts".

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

#266

Post by InvertedRhodium »

hunterpayne wrote: post #254
InvertedRhodium wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I look around the world and don’t see much, if any, practical difference. The US has had two presidents that were direct relatives, I can’t believe that’s by pure chance or some kind of genetic skill at being president.

If you don't see any difference between people who won US presidential elections and those appointed for political favoritism, then I don't know what to tell you. Also, if you look at the current state of the UK vs US and don't see any difference then you need to get out more.

Well. Looks like you don’t know what to tell me, hopefully someone who does comes along.

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

#267

Post by pjc50 »

jfengel wrote: post #81
pjc50 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unpopular opinion: deadlock is fine. Most legislation is bad. What really matters is the budget. And the rule that failing to pass a budget can automatically force an election avoids the absurd US "shutdown" that isn't a shutdown.

Deadlock would be fine if the other two branches weren't running amuck.

Not a problem in the UK system, although the PM has a lot of power he is very much removable if the party doesn't support it.

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

#268

Post by hunterpayne »

derriz wrote: post #159
tacticalturtle wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You probably know this - but in most jurisdictions in the US, including federal, charges have to be approved by a grand jury of your peers. There’s an old adage “a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich”* implying that the grand jury is easily mislead - but in my anecdotal experience of serving on a grand jury - this isn’t really true. We definitely said no to overreaches. And you can also see this happening in high…

I'm getting a lot of downvotes for the comment you're responding to so will likely withdraw from this discussion. But to be clear, I deliberately talked of prosecutors threatening charges, not actual indictments. Conviction through plea-bargaining is almost exclusively a phenomenon in the US. It just doesn't feature in the normal process of public prosecution in countries like Ireland, the UK or Australia. Also as an…

Also, I feel like there is something important you don't understand about the US system. A grand jury isn't a jury trial. A grand jury just allows a jury trial to happen (for a defendant to be charged at all). The defense isn't part of a grand jury. That's why the quote is what it is. It isn't talking about jury trials, just that a prosecutor can charge someone with a crime (the outcome them winning at a grand jury) pretty easily. Hope this helps.

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

#269

Post by hunterpayne »

u1hcw9nx wrote: post #121
derriz wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So you are telling me that the people who make money from criminal trials don't like the part of the system that would make a trial not necessary. Weird huh...its almost like they have a significant monetary reason to get rid of plea bargins.

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

#270

Post by watwut »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #224
Panzer04 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that if you can't do the thing the democratic way (because the system is so biased against change as to make it impossible) then people will look for workarounds. The workarounds are accepted since otherwise nothing would get done at all, and then people are surprised when the workaround gets used in ways they no longer like.

When people say "nothing gets done" they mean "we can't do things that a substantial plurality of the public doesn't want done" -- which is exactly what's supposed to happen. If you break the mechanisms ensuring that stays the case, what do you honestly expect to happen the next time it's you in the minority?

Things substantial plurality of public wants are not being done. The votes in legislature dont match what plurality of voters want.

Public opinion is not really represented in a way your comment implies.

Post reply on HN