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

271–280 of 413 posts

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

#271

Post by kitd »

01jonny01 wrote: post #82
kergonath wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Britain's problems are due to uncharismatic Blairite socialist.

A populist far-right racist would fix all the potholes and bring HS2 in under budget? Got it.

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

#272

Post by subscribed »

Jensson wrote: post #165
laughing_man wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's really no way around the possibility that whatever you've written down in your constitution will be ignored in the heat of the moment, or become degraded over time.

But you don't need to put the military under the direct command of the civilian president like US does, if parliament can take military action against the civilian president and civilian action against the military leader then they have ways to deal with both. American president is too powerful to deal with since he controls both the civilian and the military side.

This just happened.

The government, unilaterally, against the country's prevalent feelings towards this illegal war of aggression, permitted USA to use British bases, and if I'm not mistaken, without as much as the parliament vote.

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

#273

Post by watwut »

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…

Oh yeah, gotta love the "if you dont join our illegal unnecessary war, you support religious dictatorship".

Spoken by supporter of a goverment who prefres dictatorships over democrscies, claims does not even want regime change in iran, claims they dont care about targetting civilian infrastructure.

That just made it so goverment in Iran is more hardline. And that just gave a lifeline to Russia while being at it.

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

#274

Post by hunterpayne »

Ziomislaw wrote: post #166

Will they do the same for hereditary monarchy? When I was a kid I was appaled that a country in this age can have a king/queen. Then I understood that they are basically like an animal in a zoo, all for show with no actual power. It's a dreadful fate to be born as a monarch.

Royalty are zoo animals kept by countries for tourism purposes.

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

#275

Post by Ekaros »

telesilla wrote: post #248
fy20 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 pe…

Because 150 years ago the labour to keep the estate running was very cheap. Now that labour is expensive, it costs more in maintenance than the property is worth, unless it's highly productive land. Reminds me of the joke, how to make a thousand dollars: buy a million dollar boat.

On other side my guess is also that net labour productivity of land has dropped significantly. What I mean that same amount of farm land does not produce same amount of excess labour buying power. So even if productivity itself for farming has risen massively. The amount of labour that you can buy with produced production has plummeted.

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

#276

Post by subscribed »

charcircuit wrote: post #184
kergonath wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Being able to vote in a strong leader to fix things directly is a feature. Democracy is not always the answer and when it is it can be too slow when time matters.

I think it's quite obvious now how this leads to the erosion of rights and laws, looking at the current state of the affairs.

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

#277

Post by AnthonyMouse »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #244
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is that the US constitution was written before people realized that the natural consequence of that type of constitution is a two party system. The two party system is a consequence of using first past the post voting, which the US constitution doesn't even require. Use score voting instead, which can be done by ordinary legislation without any constitutional amendment, and you don't have a two party sy…

Are we reading the same constitution? Article II, Section 1 > The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President

A party is a thing where multiple elected officials band together in a persistent coalition. The section you're quoting from only applies to a single elected office in the whole country. Are only two parties are going to run candidates for President when there are five or more parties in the legislature?

On top of that, that section applies to how the votes of the electoral college delegates are counted. It doesn't specify how the electoral college delegates are chosen, which it leaves up to the states. There are plenty of interesting ways of choosing them that don't result in a structural incentive for a two-party race.

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

#278

Post by AnthonyMouse »

watwut wrote: post #270
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not supposed to cause things a significant plurality of the public wants to happen. It's supposed to cause things a significant plurality of the public doesn't want to not happen.

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

#279

Post by Chinjut »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #69
Chinjut wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Senate is, while not the whole story, a significant part of the reason the government constantly fails to do what is either the desire of the people or what's in their interests. I wouldn't lament losing the Senate.

Aren't you supporting parent's point? The senate is elected these days after all ...

The Senate gives a rather disproportionate democracy in which the votes of a small number in small states take on disproportionate significance compared to the votes of a large number in populous states.

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

#280

Post by hunterpayne »

KK7NIL wrote: post #32
kbelder wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about a chamber populated by random lottery? Like jury duty?

Perhaps you're joking, but Athenian democracy had a significant amount of randomness, with candidates being chosen randomly from the top vote winners. Terms were also only 1 year for most positions. These, and other systems, helped prevent any one person from monopolizing power. This is a good video on this: https://youtu.be/pIgMTsQXg3Q

Also Renaissance era Florence did something similar. Also, fun fact, juries in Athens had 500 members to make it too expensive to bribe them.
Post reply on HN