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

The strange case of Britain’s demise

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 584 posts

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#281

Post by TapWaterBandit »

roenxi wrote: post #258
dignick wrote: post #145

Like in the US, democracy in the United Kingdom is faltering. Our first past the post electoral system means the Tories can retain power with a third of the (active) electorate voting for them. Labour believes first past the post serves them well, but it doesn’t, because they would have been leading a coalition government in the last several elections under Proportional Representation. Instead it requires Labour to b…

Democracy is remarkably robust and people fighting is not an indication that it is faltering. The UK has a long and proud history of tenuous balance between different groups that are all on the verge of doing violence to one another, the current era is remarkably peaceful and cooperative. People are undercalling the effects of a multi-decade campaign against energy security in favour of environmentalist goals. The dr…

https://www.britainremade.co.uk/

There are some grass roots efforts emerging to convince people of the importance of purely technocratic improvements that society needs. In this case, cheaper energy and faster transportation.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#282

Post by mtklein »

marcusverus wrote: post #248
908B64B197 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Now that the implications are becoming clear, a majority want to return to the EU Why not simply have regional votes to separate from the UK and join the EU? Scotland tried not that long ago.

Our legacy governments make this very difficult. Sadly, while many of our governments readily adopted the concept of representative democracy, they retained other oppressive aspects of the ancient systems which they replaced. The old monarchies claimed a right to rule their subject peoples in perpetuity, deriving their power directly from God. Our modern governments claim the same thing! Instead of that divine right…

Not saying it's worked out perfectly, but the US Declaration of Independence must count among those crusty old documents, and its preamble explicitly declares that throwing off such a government is the right and duty of the governed (admittedly preceded with some couching from "Prudence, indeed...").

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#283

Post by astrange »

sega_sai wrote: post #133
skippyboxedhero wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason you spend that time is because of the rules. Actually, the homeless rate in Edinburgh (which actually has an eviction ban and, even, rent controls now) is 3x the rate of SF...the reason why is that most of the rental market disappeared because eviction control meant that landlords could only sell properties at the end of rental periods (and when these came up in September, they all just removed properties…

"is 3x the rate of SF" -- citation needed. I live in Edinburgh and have been in SF and very much struggle to believe it.

Most homeless people in SF aren't living out on the streets, but instead living somewhere invisible like crashing on a series of couches or in their car or RV. So you do have to look at the numbers.

And of course they also aren't bussed in from other states and on drugs or whatever the common story for not building them housing is.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#284

Post by foolswisdom »

lambertsimnel wrote: post #278
Adverblessly wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here in Israel with proportional representation, every small party has outsized power since every one of them has enough power to vote down the current government by joining hands with the opposition. As a result, decisions that are undesirable by the majority are consistently made. We are currently after an election but before forming a new government and as part of the coalition negotiations the upcoming government…

> Here in Israel with proportional representation, every small party has outsized power since every one of them has enough power to vote down the current government by joining hands with the opposition. If small parties' power is such a problem, why don't the big parties form another grand coalition? Or form Scandinavian-style pre-election pacts with the small parties? [Edited to acknowledge grand coalitions aren't a…

Simple, because you aren't going to form a coalition with parties radically different than yours, you choose those that are mostly aligned with you. But now any party within the coalition, even a small one, can force the coalition to listen to them, because the alternative is to form a coalition with parties even more at odds.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#285

Post by stopnamingnuts »

JPKab wrote: post #233
neaden wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump were all born within a year of each other, with Biden being 4 years older. There is a specific generation of politicians Born within a decade period who managed to get elected young and have clung to power in both parties very successfully, see John Bohner, Nancy Pelosi, and Ted Kennedy for other examples.

Tyranny of the boomers, or apathy of gen X? That's the question I always ask when viewing the gerontocracy. In academia at least it's been very clear that the boomers were shameless about working long past the time they should retire, preventing gen Xers from rising to top positions.

Most broad statements including GenX really need to be qualified by noting its size (slightly greater than half) relative to either of the two pigs working their way through the python before and behind it. Three when you count GenZ.

Apathetic? Maybe. But even if we were all on the same page as a group (which we're not) I don't see how we have the numbers to force a systemic turnover on our own.

I am, of course, a member of GenX. Sometimes, as Planck said, progress has to happen one funeral at a time. None of this brings me any joy to observe.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#286

Post by Silhouette »

mjfl wrote: post #224
webmobdev wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Like in the US, democracy in the United Kingdom is faltering. This is unfortunately not unique. India too has seen the rise of the right, and its democracy threatened and at a perilous stage. Many other countries have seen the rise of the right too. However, I feel this is a political pattern that can be observed historically and generationally, where the political spectrum switch between extremes of left and right…

"democracy is under threat when people I don't like are democratically elected." Is it invisible to you how such statements are, themselves, bad for democracy?

The problem is that in many Western systems the people who gain power aren't democratically elected.

In a real democracy the big challenge should be how to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. However most of us aren't even getting that far because the people who gain power often don't even have the support or even acceptance of the majority.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#287

Post by foolswisdom »

version_five wrote: post #280
Adverblessly wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here in Israel with proportional representation, every small party has outsized power since every one of them has enough power to vote down the current government by joining hands with the opposition. As a result, decisions that are undesirable by the majority are consistently made. We are currently after an election but before forming a new government and as part of the coalition negotiations the upcoming government…

I subscribe to the idea that the most important aspect of democracy is to be able to kick out the incumbents (and less important is that every opinion gets direct representation). I think for all the challenges in the US, it does this quite well.

I agree. And I'll point out that in the US 200 years ago, the only federal office directly voted on was house of representatives (not the senate, not the president).

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#288

Post by TapWaterBandit »

SturgeonsLaw wrote: post #256
wazoox wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. In France Macron hold total power with less than 30% of voters and less than 30% of good opinion in polls. His "pension reform" has everyone against it, the unions, all political parties but his own, even the employers association, but it will be enforced anyway. Democracy is dead, and it even began to smell.

Curious to see what HN's opinion on mandatory voting is. We have that in Australia and the sense is that it tends to dull the extreme fringes of the party platforms since they need to broadly appeal to the mainstream.

It is hard to disentangle the temperament of the populace from the voting system.

The UK and all former settler colonies (Canada, Australia, New Zealand) all have very stable politics and that generally appeal to the median voter. None of them really have any extreme political incidents in living memory that I can think of. (maybe a few extreme incidents by their own standards but on a global standard they are still tame)

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#289

Post by VK538FY »

dignick wrote: post #145

Like in the US, democracy in the United Kingdom is faltering. Our first past the post electoral system means the Tories can retain power with a third of the (active) electorate voting for them. Labour believes first past the post serves them well, but it doesn’t, because they would have been leading a coalition government in the last several elections under Proportional Representation. Instead it requires Labour to b…

I understand your point. 'First past the post' may not be ideal for your country. For other countries, it is appreciated despite its inconveniences. Example: Québec. We inherited 'first past the post' from England. The results are obvious: small parties with significant numbers of voters in many ridings don't end up in parliament. But Québec is a rural province with only one city worthy of the name, Montréal, almost half the population of the province. That city has a demography very different to the rest of the province. In a proportional system, the will of the big city would simply sweep away the rural regions that don't have the same weight. People have learnt to accept 'first past the post' and any change would upset the balance that exists today.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#290

Post by astrange »

epistasis wrote: post #101
skippyboxedhero wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because those countries have planning systems which put planning authority in the hands of local govt. It is nothing to do with the language they speak but fairly obvious consequences of how the system is designed. All the UK needs to do is un-delegate authority for planning to local govt. I think it is accepted, amongst those advocate for this heresy, that local areas need to retain control over the design of houses…

I don't mean that the literal English language is the problem, but rather the entire legal system, cultural norms, and evolving attitudes about housing that spread through English language countries with cross pollination of media.

Japan is a relatively Anglicized country, had its government structure imposed on it by America, etc, and doesn't have this problem because they simply don't allow local control of zoning or planning.

(Also notable that when America rebuilds another country's government we never give them the American form of government.)

Post reply on HN