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

311–320 of 413 posts

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

#311

Post by thaumasiotes »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #277
kelseyfrog wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

> 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?

I don't think it's a coincidence that every US state is structured as a smaller mirror of the federal government.

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

#312

Post by nephihaha »

There are so many errors in this headline:

* Britain has not had a parliament for seven hundred years. The current parliament dates back to 1707 or 1801 depending on your POV. This is the usual conflation of England with Britain.

* If you want to take a more Anglocentric viewpoint then Oliver Cromwell ejected hereditary nobles back in the 18th century. So not the first time.

On a different note, it is worth saying that hereditary peers are often more independent. They are born into the role so hold their own viewpoints. Some of them were and are to the left of recent British governments, even though that may be hard to believe. The current Labour government wishes to replace them with appointees so that the entire House of Lords will become another party political machine.

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

#313

Post by benj111 »

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…

Could you explain this to a non USian???

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

#314

Post by krapp »

SoftTalker wrote: post #196
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…

In the American system as originally founded, most of these things were intended to be decided by the states.

In the American system as originally founded, black people were property.

It should be expected that the American system is not eternally bound to the will and scope of vision of the founding fathers, that it can and should evolve over time as the needs and nature of society evolves. Otherwise, it isn't a republic, it's a cult.

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

#315

Post by pjc50 »

hunterpayne wrote: post #283
pjc50 wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't members of the current PM's party publicly saying he needs to step down right now?

Yes. They can say what they like, but until they can find 167 votes from Labour MPs to remove him, he stays. https://members.parliament.uk/parties/Commons

This is where the intra-party coalitions become important. Every party of significant size has them. Labour is effectively a coalition between a rightwing faction (New Labour/Blue Labour) and everyone else who is more leftwing. The internal and external debate is the question: should they focus "right" (immigrant and queerbashing, welfare cuts) to appease the right wing of the party and try to pick up Reform/Conservative voters, or focus "left" on their base and people who are switching to Green?

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

#316

Post by fc417fc802 »

Chinjut wrote: post #279
fc417fc802 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That still does nothing to refute the parent's complaint about democracy. Lopsided representation is still representation (as opposed to a council of nobles or military generals or whoever).

Also the thing you're objecting to is literally the entire point of the senate from day one. It was intended to give less populous states an equal voice in contrast to the house of representatives. Unfortunately history happened and the house of representatives hasn't been proportional for a long time. But if you're going to complain about something it should probably be the latter rather than the former.

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

#317

Post by alexpotato »

jjmarr wrote: post #177
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…

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…

Shelby Foote has a great quote about this in regards to the Civil War:

“The war happened because we failed to do the thing that we have a true genius for and that’s compromise”

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

#318

Post by u1hcw9nx »

hunterpayne wrote: post #269
u1hcw9nx wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Prosecutors are also members of the Bar and they don't make extra.

Is it so hard to understand that people don't like to work for a system where people are treated inhumanely and can't get justice?

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

#319

Post by t43562 »

Nursie wrote: post #218
hunterpayne wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hered…

Being out of touch with the electorate is the thing they have as a feature over the house of commons.

i.e. they're not trying to win the next election.

They're also not there because of the favours they've done existing politicians.

I don't think this is "great" but it does make me wonder if the people who want an end to herditary peers are really going to like what they get.

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

#320

Post by t43562 »

s_dev wrote: post #49
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.

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…

Documents are meaningless. In rotten countries they simply get rewritten or ignored. Nothing beats an electorate who value honesty over being told what they want to hear and who punish corruption.
Post reply on HN