Britain is ejecting hereditary nobles from Parliament after 700 years • Hacker News Board

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

#391

Post by xp84 » Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 8:40 AM UTC

hunterpayne wrote: post #251

xp84 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

unelected hereditary nobles Let's break down what Senators are: > Unelected In most states a single party will always win statewide elections, so our Senators are what I'd call "marginally elected" since they only have to face a quiet low-turnout primary election and then they sail to an easy re-election. They're nearly always guaranteed to win their primaries as long as The Party supports them, and they'll do so as…

Just checking, but you do realize that this kind of unhinged, populist takes are exactly the kind of propaganda you use to destroy a democratic system. You know that right? Only a couple of states are like you describe and none of them are red. The governor of KY (the reddest state) for example is a Dem. One of the Senators for Montana is a Dem, etc. In fact, if you want the Dems to win the presidency in 2028, one of…

You can't destroy a democratic system that isn't democratic and already doesn't serve the people. The Senate was never designed to be democratic in the first place. The House was, but its main problem is just campaign finance decadence that means to the extent those guys do any governing during their 2-year terms, it's a part-time gig in between fundraising. And together, the legislative branch has become a joke. They now just fart around, either rubber-stamping whatever the President says, or shutting down the government whenever the party out of power can't accept that the public has rejected their policies. So I hope I can be forgiven for being pessimistic about whether this "democratic system" even serves any purpose at this point.

But back to the Senate. Jon Tester was defeated in 2024. There is a peppering of Democrats in statewide office here and there -- Fetterman and Beshear, and the Virginia and Georgia Democrats, the latter of which got really lucky to both run in the election that was a referendum on Trump's COVID chaos, and the one getting to run against a proud child molester. They are also the exact kind of politicians that don't get support from the blue-state Democrats in primaries for national elections, because they are too moderate. If you don't check every box, the primaries will destroy you. To be fair, Republicans have the exact same problem. Blue-state moderates certainly could have been persuaded to support say, Jeb Bush, but the party only supports... well, since the phenomenon became locked in, they have only given their support to one man. Sorry to ramble, my point is that the practice of split-ticket voting is dying off faster than discounted DRAM.

There used to be a lot of these cross-party appeal people like Bill Clinton, Ann Richards, Jon Tester, Evan Bayh, Ben Nelson, and on the Republican side George Pataki, Mitt Romney, Chris Christie. But this is now massively the exception, and trending down.

BTW I'm all for getting rid of gerrymandering, but the Democrats have set that cause back by 100 years by selling out their supposed deeply held beliefs last year in California. Now we're just being honest that it's only about power.

I don't remember who's running for governor in California, but I am guessing there is only one Dem running it's because the California Democratic Party is powerful and disciplined in ways neither national party is, and has told everybody but the party's favorite to sit down and shut up. That's speculation - let me know if I'm wrong.

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

#392

Post by xp84 » Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 9:01 AM UTC

hunterpayne wrote: post #232

xp84 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's in my opinion one of the great tragedies of our time that some of our established countries are so hard to change. I don't mean this as the policy needs change, everyone will differ on those. I just mean the technology of government like you're saying. Efficient and more fair ways of voting on laws and electing representatives do exist. For example my own (US) has a political system basically frozen in ambe…

Do you not understand why PR isn't a state? Seems like you don't. Support for PR statehood is only about 50% (on the island). That largely has to do with the fact that their taxes would increase if they became a state. Additionally, they would have to switch to English (along with Spanish) which makes things a lot more complicated. They are already US citizens and can move to anywhere in the US if they want to vote i…

You just explained in your second paragraph how one party would block PR statehood for no valid reason, not because it shouldn't be one, but because it would presumably advantage Dems. That is literally what I said: any change gets blocked for fear it would advantage the other guys. And whether it's "always worked that way" doesn't make it right. A fair system would have said that an existing territory with enough people that can organize a government and vote to join the union must be admitted, to avoid those shenanigans. Leaving them unrepresented is embarrassing.

And your first paragraph sounds like it's quoted from an anti-statehood propaganda flyer. PR has high taxes today -- an 11.5% sales tax, and a high local income tax, because PR has to pay for everything itself, and because Congress screws them over, such as refusing bailouts when natural disasters devastate the island. Many states receive significant money from the Federal government that PR doesn't get. If it were a state, some people would have to pay some federal income tax, but it would not be automatically a worse tax burden.

Same for language, there's nothing in the constitution that mandates that. PR already has two official languages. And nothing lawmakers decide will stop people from choosing to speak Spanish all day long if they want. If you don't agree with me, walk around any city in California, Arizona, or Texas.

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

#393

Post by xp84 » Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 9:15 AM UTC

troad wrote: post #386

xp84 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's in my opinion one of the great tragedies of our time that some of our established countries are so hard to change. I don't mean this as the policy needs change, everyone will differ on those. I just mean the technology of government like you're saying. Efficient and more fair ways of voting on laws and electing representatives do exist. For example my own (US) has a political system basically frozen in ambe…

>> For example my own (US) has a political system basically frozen in amber from a time before many of the political and policy challenges of our day were not even thought of yet. Please, please, please go read the Federalist papers. The Founders thought of a lot more than you realise. The design of a constitution is the design of the distribution of power. The nature of power hasn't changed.

Things they appear to have not thought of:

1. Any voting system other than the disastrous FPTP which forces a two-party system and punishes any attempt to break this duopoly.

2. What if Congress is composed entirely of weasels and just, though formal law-passing or by sheer inaction, cedes nearly all their power to the executive branch?

3. What if the Supreme Court has at least 5 partisans who will say just about anything to keep in power the party (or even the individual) who put them there? What if they say stupid things like "A President has absolute criminal immunity for any act that falls within his 'conclusive and preclusive' constitutional authority, and presumptive immunity for all other official acts."

4. Even if SCOTUS is basically working as intended, what if the President just...ignores them?

5. What if a President is mentally incompetent due to age, and his whole party refuses to acknowledge it? (This one is Biden, arguably - I'm disgusted with both parties)

I do get checks and balances, I know that a big part of the whole "they can't pass anything" is a feature and not a bug. But come on, it's got out of hand when every single term we have multiple debt limit hostage negotiations -- and now BOTH parties are doing it!

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

#394

Post by xp84 » Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 9:16 AM UTC

queuebert wrote: post #189

xp84 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's in my opinion one of the great tragedies of our time that some of our established countries are so hard to change. I don't mean this as the policy needs change, everyone will differ on those. I just mean the technology of government like you're saying. Efficient and more fair ways of voting on laws and electing representatives do exist. For example my own (US) has a political system basically frozen in ambe…

New and shiny is not always better. Science has spoiled us in the last century, but it has little to say about how a good government should operate. Many of us have a popular set of ideals that we think are superior and have attempted to overlay those on every aspect of modern life, but they have little to no data behind them and are ultimately just beliefs that make us feel good. As such, there is no reason to expec…

Look, just let us get rid of first-past-the-post as the only voting method, and I'll be happy. I'm not asking for voting via Neuralink, holographic VR Presidential debates, or flying car taxis to the polling places.

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

#395

Post by b3nji » Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 11:14 AM UTC

Out with the old, in with the Goverment appointed Stooges. That will fix it!

Notice there is no mechanism for the citezens to vote on who goes in. This won't go well.

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

#396

Post by NetMageSCW » Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 2:25 PM UTC

WickyNilliams wrote: post #330

DrScientist wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of a second chamber is not controversial. The argument is how you populate it. Elected - you have the problem of two chambers claiming legitimacy and potential deadlock, and also the problem of potentially having the same short term view as the other elected chamber. Appointed - who gets to appoint, on what criteria, who are they beholden to ( ideally unsackable once appointed - I want them to feel free to s…

Abused is probably an understatement. The Tories made some extremely questionable and bizarre appointments in their recent terms. We have the son of Russian oligarch sitting there! Inexplicable advisors whose appointment is a mystery even after FOIA requests. And extreme partisans like Jacob Rees Mogg and Priti Patel. Imo they should be proposed and voted on by the house. That should at least offer some prevention of…

>Imo they should be proposed and voted on by the house.

Then why wouldn’t the house just stuff them with people that will agree with everything they do and remove any checks and balances? You only need one house at that point.

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

#397

Post by NetMageSCW » Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 2:40 PM UTC

kitd wrote: post #263

seanhunter wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If the Lords can’t veto bills, why does their rejection matter?

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

#398

Post by DrScientist » Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 3:00 PM UTC

NetMageSCW wrote: post #396

WickyNilliams wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Abused is probably an understatement. The Tories made some extremely questionable and bizarre appointments in their recent terms. We have the son of Russian oligarch sitting there! Inexplicable advisors whose appointment is a mystery even after FOIA requests. And extreme partisans like Jacob Rees Mogg and Priti Patel. Imo they should be proposed and voted on by the house. That should at least offer some prevention of…

>Imo they should be proposed and voted on by the house. Then why wouldn’t the house just stuff them with people that will agree with everything they do and remove any checks and balances? You only need one house at that point.

In part because the composition of the commons changes over time - so if the term timescales are different then they won't necessarily agree at any point in time - but I do agree it would potentially become too politicised if you had that kind of vote.

Ultimately in the UK system, the commons has the final say ( ignoring the monarch in the room here ), so most of the time what the Lords do isn't typically a big public issue - it's quiet revision, have you thought of this?, type stuff. Not that common to have a big conflict - though it does happen.

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

#399

Post by deaux » Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 3:48 PM UTC

hunterpayne wrote: post #286

wongogue wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Centre-left doesn’t mean the Left. It just means it’s to the left of the other centrist party (Tories). Just because they lean left doesn’t mean they are the Left, Radical Left, Commies etc

You do know that actual political scientists don't use left vs right to describe parties. They use terms like libertarian, socialist, etc. They do that because left vs right change from place to place and time to time. From the POV of the US, Labour are communists. In France perhaps they are center or center left or even center right. Even the things you call left vs right don't remain consistent. There are policies…

> PS You have be to be pretty extreme to think the Labour party isn't "left" enough for you. As in, I'm not sure what else they could do to appease the far left in practice without sever negative consequences for the UK.

Have you looked at actions rather than manifesto? There's very little change in policy actions from the previous non-Labor government, so it doesn't track unless you see the tories as left wing. Which is clearly more extreme.

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

#400

Post by pseudalopex » Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 5:13 PM UTC

koakuma-chan wrote: post #147

pseudalopex wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You need to have a very cynical worldview already to find my comment boring; as in; no information content. Boring does not mean no information content. But the part of your comment about comment voting was boring and noise.

I think that guideline means that if your own comment gets downvoted, don't reply complaining about it. A "why was this downvoted? it's true" from another user is fine, I think.

It could have said your comments if it meant your comments. And It never does any good, and it makes boring reading was not less true.