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

401–410 of 413 posts

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

#401

Post by AnthonyMouse »

Amezarak wrote: post #376
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Coalitions are pretty static in most parliamentary democracies except sometimes when forming governments post-election. The "except when forming governments post-election" is a major difference. It also presumes that a coalition in the legislature is required to persist for an entire election cycle rather than being formed around any given individual piece of legislation. You don't have to use a system where an ind…

All countries have these problems which vary by the local political environment and history. Multiple European countries are facing particularly absurd varieties of these dilemmas because of their refusal to form coalitions with the second or third largest party in their country.

Again, it seems like the flaw is in trying to form a long-term coalition instead of just passing the bills that have enough support to pass when you put them up for a vote among all the people who were actually elected. Why should anyone have to give a crap what someone else's position is on immigration when the bill in question is on copyright reform or tax incentives for solar panels?

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

#402

Post by Amezarak »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #401
Amezarak wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All countries have these problems which vary by the local political environment and history. Multiple European countries are facing particularly absurd varieties of these dilemmas because of their refusal to form coalitions with the second or third largest party in their country.

Again, it seems like the flaw is in trying to form a long-term coalition instead of just passing the bills that have enough support to pass when you put them up for a vote among all the people who were actually elected. Why should anyone have to give a crap what someone else's position is on immigration when the bill in question is on copyright reform or tax incentives for solar panels?

The coalitions do a pretty good job of representing people’s pre-existing positions. People aren’t not voting for copyright reform because their party said so, but because they agree with their party. Party discipline in the US is not nearly as strong as in most parliamentary systems.

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

#403

Post by trimethylpurine »

kelnos wrote: post #210
Affric wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Working very well as we can see currently.

It's worked well as a honeypot, but I don't think it's working well as a device for paralysis. The executive has seized an alarming amount of power (with the tacit approval of the party in control of the legislature), and the constitution isn't doing much of anything to stop it.

Sure. But it's amazing that we have a system where he needed the legislature. That's pretty new in the grand scheme.

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

#404

Post by foldr »

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…

Jacob Rees Mogg isn’t in the Lords.

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

#405

Post by foldr »

anon291 wrote: post #354
vkou wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did the government pass any laws to steal those 130 billion dollars from Americans? I can't recall that it did. Are there any consequences for the people who did it? The government has long ceased to govern by law. It now governs from the bench, and from executive order, because laws are too troublesome to actually pass.

America operates on a strong executive common law system not whatever system you are imagining. I took business law more than a decade ago and the professor basically said do what you want (money wise) if you can pay for it. This is the English legal system and is how it's always worked. Liability is purely monetary and the law only applies to those who can show standing to do anything about it.

So no-one affected by illegal tariffs has any legal standing?

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

#406

Post by foldr »

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…

I’m not sure if you can talk about a duopoly of parties in the UK at present.

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

#407

Post by burnt-resistor »

bradleyjg wrote: post #302
burnt-resistor wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The logic is to divide power into as many pieces as possible to prevent tyranny by structure. Unless you admire totalitarianism and unitary executive theory.

The Founders were wrong about this one. We have an overly powerful executive because they split up the legislative power too much and it doesn’t act as an effective counterweight. Look around the world and find the countries where the legislature rather than the executive is the most dangerous branch as Hamilton suggested. It’s a very short list.

Partially true. None of the mythologically-lionized founders were perfectly omnipotent and couldn't hope to have predicted changes in society, technology, economic development, or pervasive corruption. They also couldn't envision ignorant, craven, leaders of poor character being given immense power and ignoring traditions. It's bikeshedding whether a monocameral or bicameral legislature parts, executive, or judiciary is more important, because currently, all 3 are totally compromised in similar manners that cannot adequately be reformed from within in a reasonable timeframe. The problem is a small cabal of rich people and their enablers have corrupted it to the point where no lasting fairness or integrity can be restored and vigilantly assured. The token "clean money" elected officials are a drop in the bucket when 90% of their colleagues and their large benefactors are legalized and pardoned criminals whom deserve to be imprisoned.

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

#408

Post by troad »

xp84 wrote: post #393
troad wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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 any…

That's a lot of what ifs, some more fanciful than others. There is no political system that could withstand a such a barrage of bad intentions and corruption. But I'd note that despite how bad things seem, the things you describe for the most part haven't actually happened? The executive is generally complying with SCOTUS decisions, e.g. tariffs. The US remains a robust if fractious democracy, unlike much of the rest of the world.

More broadly, go look at other countries' politics. The facade of stability is being held up in a lot of places by restrictions on speech, on assembly, on political organisation of a kind that would be unthinkable in the US. It's borderline illegal to assemble for Palestine in Britain. Is that society less divided than the US, or just more controlled? And that's a democratic peer country. Things get much worse - Hungary, Russia, Iran, etc

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

#409

Post by bradleyjg »

burnt-resistor wrote: post #407
bradleyjg wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Founders were wrong about this one. We have an overly powerful executive because they split up the legislative power too much and it doesn’t act as an effective counterweight. Look around the world and find the countries where the legislature rather than the executive is the most dangerous branch as Hamilton suggested. It’s a very short list.

Partially true. None of the mythologically-lionized founders were perfectly omnipotent and couldn't hope to have predicted changes in society, technology, economic development, or pervasive corruption. They also couldn't envision ignorant, craven, leaders of poor character being given immense power and ignoring traditions. It's bikeshedding whether a monocameral or bicameral legislature parts, executive, or judiciary…

It’s naive to hang on to this fantasy of a small cabal of rich people ruining everything. It’s not at all the case. No one is being tricked. The voters are the problem. Go and talk to them instead of putting them on a pedestal as tricked victims. They are rotten and that’s why they vote the way they do.

We have a moral disease that infects tens or hundreds of millions not some tiny number of ultra powerful parasites.

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

#410

Post by keybored »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #122
keybored wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The usual elitist slop. Every single citizen has a skin in the game of their country. They live there.

The comparison isn't to the average person off the street but rather the typical elected politician.

I didn’t stutter. People criticize so-called democracy and then I take that as the charitable premise: we are indeed discussing genuine democracy, not just the fake and typical democracy of only politicians having any power.
Post reply on HN