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

551–560 of 584 posts

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#551

Post by jessaustin »

BrotherBisquick wrote: post #468
phist_mcgee wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an aside, it makes me very uneasy to see grown adults be so infatuated with Disney IPs. The quote from Alec Guinness about Star Wars in his autobiography: “A refurbished Star Wars is on somewhere or everywhere. I have no intention of revisiting any galaxy. I shrivel inside each time it is mentioned. Twenty years ago, when the film was first shown, it had a freshness, also a sense of moral good and fun. Then I bega…

Based. I'm surprised he hasn't been cancelled for "not letting people enjoy things."

It's less surprising than one might think, given that he passed away 22 years ago.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#552

Post by jen20 »

theGnuMe wrote: post #427
jen20 wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually no, they did not run on that. They ran on a platform of “sharing the proceeds of growth”, and then changed their mind after getting into office. I believe the outgoing minister left a (lighthearted?) note saying “I’m afraid there is no money left”, which was used as a partial justification.

08 financial crises the uk went full austerity and basically missed out on the economic boom.

This is untrue: the austerity era did not begin until 2010, after the general election.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#553

Post by brigandish »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #532
brigandish wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My first question would be, respected by whom , and my second would be, whose respect matters? My guess would be that it was the voters who were most important as they provided a majority to the next most important people, the executive. Do you think those voters respect those MPs? Let's see. 21 Tory MPs had the whip removed for defying the party line and signalling their intent to defy Brexit: - Kenneth Clarke, snif…

I'm impressed at the amount of effort you went into arguing against something I said that was pretty tangential to your point. An entertaining read though – thanks. I think it goes to demonstrate quite tidily the utter mind-rot on the part of some people in the UK right now.

> The “witch hunt” refers to the actions taken by the incoming Johnson government, who kicked a bunch of generally respected, experienced parliamentarians out of the party because they weren’t “Brexity” enough. We’re not even talking about anti-Brexit people - just the ones that resisted the obviously broken approach that was being taken.

That was half of your comment, the opening part, and in response to my comment, yet somehow, going into detail about

a) why it wasn't a witch hunt, and

b) refuting the premises upon which you relied

is somehow pretty tangential to my point?

> I think it goes to demonstrate quite tidily the utter mind-rot on the part of some people in the UK right now.

Do you always respond to cognitive dissonance with personal slights, and do you know that this is HN and not Twitter?

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#554

Post by refurb »

weard_beard wrote: post #537
refurb wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You include Hilary Clinton in that? When she called Trump an “illegitimate president”?

We treat speech differently based on context. Yelling fire in the middle of the ocean with no one around is legally distinct from yelling fire in a crowded theater. I would argue that without the intent or ability to act in a dangerous manner that this speech is legally distinct from the same statement with those qualifiers. The realities of limited resources in our judicial system and common sense require us to make…

Why do you read Hilary’s comments in the best possible light and Trump’s in the worst?

Why the double standard?

Either calling into question our electoral system is ok or not ok.

It’s important we hold all people accountable equally.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#555

Post by alvah »

nxmnxm99 wrote: post #533
alvah wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's basic math, how come China and India haven't ruled the world forever, since they have the largest populations? There's a lot more to it than what you say.

Um, they did - China was the global superpower for most of human history. Western (read: caucasian) dominance is a relatively recent phenomenon. And even that dominance is thanks almost entirely to the Islamic golden age that preceded it. And just like the ignorant muslim empires in 1200 who assumed they would rule the world forever, Westerners haven't realized the rest of the world has caught up to them and the Euro…

So your basic math has no explanation for Western domination over the last ~250 years. Got it.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#556

Post by refurb »

reducesuffering wrote: post #514
refurb wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right wing on what measure? With abortion restrictions in Europe, Europe looks further right than the US or Canada on that issue.

By all three measures I mentioned above? When it comes to abortion, it's more of a wash. By one measure, US is now more decentralized, less federal gov., thus more right wing. 13 US states have complete elective abortion bans at all times, thus much more right wing. Most other US states have somewhat more lenient abortion laws, roughly ~6 weeks longer in general, thus more left wing. If that's your best and only exam…

And Canada has no restrictions whatsoever on abortion.

Now do attitudes towards immigration and multiculturalism.

I’d argue Canada and the US are more “left” of Europe on that issue as well.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#557

Post by nxmnxm99 »

alvah wrote: post #555
nxmnxm99 wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Um, they did - China was the global superpower for most of human history. Western (read: caucasian) dominance is a relatively recent phenomenon. And even that dominance is thanks almost entirely to the Islamic golden age that preceded it. And just like the ignorant muslim empires in 1200 who assumed they would rule the world forever, Westerners haven't realized the rest of the world has caught up to them and the Euro…

So your basic math has no explanation for Western domination over the last ~250 years. Got it.

I’m not going to continue a conversation with someone being intentionally dense.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#558

Post by alltheworlds »

Adverblessly wrote: post #260
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…

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. As a result, decisions that are undesirable by the majority are consistently made.

Could you explain this a bit more? Surely if they are proportionally elected and have the numbers to outvote the current government, then they're representing the majority views, not minority?

In the UK, our government gets elected by winning 40% of the vote and therefore almost every decision it takes is against the wishes of the majority of voters.

PR should result in less of it, not more.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#559

Post by alltheworlds »

ashwagary wrote: post #446
version_five wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two components though. One is the ability to choose the party, the other is the pressure on a party to adjust so that it appeals to enough voters to elect it. If a party doesn't need to adjust to get some votes, as in proportional representation, then we (potentially) end up with coalitions that live or die based on narrow issues, which is what the original post I replied to alluded to. On the other hand, i…

Put simply, "when most of the thieving stopped, the thriving stopped." Britain faltering is not "strange" and has little to do with political party, rather its ability to use violence to extract capital from productive outside entities and support its welfare state is nearing an end. The Economist has a long history of avoiding the elephant in the room because the people running it are hopelessly biased.

Please could you link that aritcle?

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#560

Post by nine_k »

alltheworlds wrote: post #558
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. As a result, decisions that are undesirable by the majority are consistently made. Could you explain this a bit more? Surely if they are proportionally elected and have the numbers to outvote the current government, t…

A simple majority may not be enough in certain cases.

Let's imagine a parliament with parties with these shares of seats (proportional to electoral votes): A = 50%, B = 33%, C = 15%, D = 2%. (Note: Not an actual Israeli parliament!)

Even for cases where a simple majority is sufficient, A would be able to overpower all other parties combined, had it one more representative. But with precisely 50% (or, funnier yet, something like 49.75%), it has to seek a coalition with at least one other party, even if every A representative is going to vote the same way (which is not a given). The smallest party, D, voting in an agreement with A, can turn tables with a guarantee; D's representatives will be courted by every other party, but by A's most of all.

For cases where a qualified majority, like 2/3, is required, a coalition is a must. A + C would narrowly miss it, and again D has an outsized influence. A + B would definitely make it, but usually A and B are opposed to each other. Thus the votes of C are worth more than their modest 15% of electorate represented.

OTOH B + C + D is enough to block any bill requiring a simple majority.

So C and D, which collectively represent 17% of electorate, will be able to command serious concessions from both A and B, which collectively represent 83%, but are usually opposed to each other.

(And no, something like A = 87% may be even worse.)

Post reply on HN