5 ms·

Right the monarchy has to go, or should have no part in government affairs. That’s not democracy.

verisimi 4y ago
'Representative democracy' - where you vote for someone to represent you and thousands of others for years, over thousands of governance decisions - is not democracy. Even if we call it 'democracy'.
- Youden 4y ago
  Representative democracy can be augmented by direct democracy though. Switzerland for example has elected representatives who operate in a similar manner to other countries. The difference is that when the people have an issue with something the representatives did, they can trigger a referendum on the issue. I think it's a good tradeoff between both systems.
  - indemandgirl 4y ago
    I'd hate to see decisions delegated directly to the Great British Public in an endless series of referendums, though. For a start, I don't think I could stand to live in a state of endless political campaigning - it's bad enough reading the "culture war" nonsense in every paper now. Secondly, within months, we'd have the immigrants deported, a statue of Maggie in every town square, transgender people made to wear badges with their birth sex and the BBC removed from the airwaves and replaced with a perpetual loop of the Nigel Farage show.
    - throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
      and if that is the people's will, then it must be done. isn't that what democracies are supposed to do?
      - agoose77 4y ago
        Not entirely. Democracy isn't a fixed concept, and there are different interpretations of it. Direct democracy (via referenda) is fairly rare, and has clear flaws (look at the EU referendum!) Equally, the Good Friday Agreement signed in Ireland in 1998 is an example of where an arguably good outcome arose from holding a referendum. Clearly, referenda aren't "bad" in their own right, but they are a tool that should be employed when the circumstances are right.
      - FpUser 4y ago
        If bending minorities to the will of majority is all the democracy is about then fuck that democracy. It becomes a tool of oppression driven by the worst masses could offer.
        throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
        thankfully, in representative democracy we bend to the will of oligarchs represented by disposable sockpuppets whose campaigns they bankroll and retirement gigs they provide, instead of giving the unwashed masses of deplorable proles any say
    - Gordonjcp 4y ago
      Yes, but also Scotland and Wales would be independent within *days*, so there's a strong upside. The south of England could be its own little corner of a declining empire, we can stick up a hard border around the whole sorry mess, and Scotland and the People's Democratic Republic of Yorkshire and Lancashire will, as always,just get on with the job.
  - webmobdev 4y ago
    "Direct" democracy or rule by public referendum goes against democracy, as it invariably results in a majoritarian democracy. While it may partly work in a small geography with a largely homogenous culture (like Switzerland) , it cannot work in India or US (and to a certain extent UK), that have multi-cultural society. In a multi-cultural society, one of the major tenets of democracy is that it guarantees the minorities certain rights that the majority swear to protect. There are many democratic decisions taken by good democrats that have proven unpopular in their times, but later hailed as visionary. A majoritarian democracy prevents this, and invariably turns democracy into rule by the mobs.
    - sofixa 4y ago
      > While it may partly work in a small geography with a largely homogenous culture (like Switzerland) Homogeneous as in 4 different language and cultural groups? Are you sure we're talking about the same Switzerland? Not to mention tons of migrants from all over Europe and the wider world? The real problem with direct democracy is that most people are shortsighted. Governments often need to make long term decisions, like infrastructure, combat climate change, etc. and those are simply too big to be fully appreciated and grasped by your common voter - point in case, new "green" laws to reduce CO2 emissions were recently refused by referendum in Switzerland - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57457384 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57457384
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
tialaramex 4y ago
Liz doesn't have any real power, at least, no more than any other very rich old ladies. This is too often misunderstood or perhaps even just deliberately misexplained on HN. For example, you will see people saying that Liz blocked the Military Action Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill. Because hey, it says "Queen's Consent" so that means Liz had to authorize it right? Nope. The power of Queen's Consent is operated on behalf of the government. Liz doesn't get to decide what "she" consents to. That Bill was blocked because the alternative was a (probably rather lively) parliamentary debate about Blair's [the Prime Minister at the time] enthusiasm for starting wars. He had the numbers, but this would embarrass him because it would have forced people who'd prefer to say they hate war, they wouldn't want a war, to admit yeah, of course they want to put troops in harm's way to further their careers. Queen's Consent isn't a matter for debate, so nobody had to be made uncomfortable. If a non war-mongering government took up similar legislation, Liz wouldn't be like "Oh no, you can't take away my war starting powers" because they aren't her powers, they are government powers, and the government decides. Remember, a predecessor of this Parliament executed the King for starting wars. Since that point it's clear that the Monarch's "powers" belong entirely to the Government, and the Government answers to Parliament. If you're wondering why you've got this nasty lying piece of shit in Number Ten, don't look to Liz, the people you sent to Westminster gave him that role and they could take it away today if a majority of them wanted to. You sent them there, that's democracy.
- fit2rule 4y ago
- arethuza 4y ago
  "Parliament executed the King for starting wars" Isn't that why the folks in the Army have to take oaths to the sovereign and heirs while people in the Navy apparently don't?
- lozenge 4y ago
  Queen's Consent happens in secret and is immune to parliamentary debate. You claim this is an advantage but it's actually a disadvantage. The Prime Minister is not a president and is not democratically elected by the entire country. He should not have the power to skip debate on embarrassing subjects. Queen's Consent was used to give the Palace immunity to claims of race discrimination in their hiring. That's unconscionable. Nobody should be above the law.

'Representative democracy' - where you vote for someone to represent you and thousands of others for years, over thousands of governance decisions - is not democracy. Even if we call it 'democracy'.

Youden 4y ago
Representative democracy can be augmented by direct democracy though. Switzerland for example has elected representatives who operate in a similar manner to other countries. The difference is that when the people have an issue with something the representatives did, they can trigger a referendum on the issue. I think it's a good tradeoff between both systems.
- indemandgirl 4y ago
  I'd hate to see decisions delegated directly to the Great British Public in an endless series of referendums, though. For a start, I don't think I could stand to live in a state of endless political campaigning - it's bad enough reading the "culture war" nonsense in every paper now. Secondly, within months, we'd have the immigrants deported, a statue of Maggie in every town square, transgender people made to wear badges with their birth sex and the BBC removed from the airwaves and replaced with a perpetual loop of the Nigel Farage show.
  - throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
    and if that is the people's will, then it must be done. isn't that what democracies are supposed to do?
    - agoose77 4y ago
      Not entirely. Democracy isn't a fixed concept, and there are different interpretations of it. Direct democracy (via referenda) is fairly rare, and has clear flaws (look at the EU referendum!) Equally, the Good Friday Agreement signed in Ireland in 1998 is an example of where an arguably good outcome arose from holding a referendum. Clearly, referenda aren't "bad" in their own right, but they are a tool that should be employed when the circumstances are right.
    - FpUser 4y ago
      If bending minorities to the will of majority is all the democracy is about then fuck that democracy. It becomes a tool of oppression driven by the worst masses could offer.
      - throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
        thankfully, in representative democracy we bend to the will of oligarchs represented by disposable sockpuppets whose campaigns they bankroll and retirement gigs they provide, instead of giving the unwashed masses of deplorable proles any say
  - Gordonjcp 4y ago
    Yes, but also Scotland and Wales would be independent within *days*, so there's a strong upside. The south of England could be its own little corner of a declining empire, we can stick up a hard border around the whole sorry mess, and Scotland and the People's Democratic Republic of Yorkshire and Lancashire will, as always,just get on with the job.
- webmobdev 4y ago
  "Direct" democracy or rule by public referendum goes against democracy, as it invariably results in a majoritarian democracy. While it may partly work in a small geography with a largely homogenous culture (like Switzerland) , it cannot work in India or US (and to a certain extent UK), that have multi-cultural society. In a multi-cultural society, one of the major tenets of democracy is that it guarantees the minorities certain rights that the majority swear to protect. There are many democratic decisions taken by good democrats that have proven unpopular in their times, but later hailed as visionary. A majoritarian democracy prevents this, and invariably turns democracy into rule by the mobs.
  - sofixa 4y ago
    > While it may partly work in a small geography with a largely homogenous culture (like Switzerland) Homogeneous as in 4 different language and cultural groups? Are you sure we're talking about the same Switzerland? Not to mention tons of migrants from all over Europe and the wider world? The real problem with direct democracy is that most people are shortsighted. Governments often need to make long term decisions, like infrastructure, combat climate change, etc. and those are simply too big to be fully appreciated and grasped by your common voter - point in case, new "green" laws to reduce CO2 emissions were recently refused by referendum in Switzerland - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57457384 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57457384
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

tialaramex 4y ago

Liz doesn't have any real power, at least, no more than any other very rich old ladies. This is too often misunderstood or perhaps even just deliberately misexplained on HN. For example, you will see people saying that Liz blocked the Military Action Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill. Because hey, it says "Queen's Consent" so that means Liz had to authorize it right? Nope. The power of Queen's Consent is operated on behalf of the government. Liz doesn't get to decide what "she" consents to. That Bill was blocked because the alternative was a (probably rather lively) parliamentary debate about Blair's [the Prime Minister at the time] enthusiasm for starting wars. He had the numbers, but this would embarrass him because it would have forced people who'd prefer to say they hate war, they wouldn't want a war, to admit yeah, of course they want to put troops in harm's way to further their careers. Queen's Consent isn't a matter for debate, so nobody had to be made uncomfortable. If a non war-mongering government took up similar legislation, Liz wouldn't be like "Oh no, you can't take away my war starting powers" because they aren't her powers, they are government powers, and the government decides. Remember, a predecessor of this Parliament executed the King for starting wars. Since that point it's clear that the Monarch's "powers" belong entirely to the Government, and the Government answers to Parliament. If you're wondering why you've got this nasty lying piece of shit in Number Ten, don't look to Liz, the people you sent to Westminster gave him that role and they could take it away today if a majority of them wanted to. You sent them there, that's democracy.

fit2rule 4y ago
arethuza 4y ago
"Parliament executed the King for starting wars" Isn't that why the folks in the Army have to take oaths to the sovereign and heirs while people in the Navy apparently don't?
lozenge 4y ago
Queen's Consent happens in secret and is immune to parliamentary debate. You claim this is an advantage but it's actually a disadvantage. The Prime Minister is not a president and is not democratically elected by the entire country. He should not have the power to skip debate on embarrassing subjects. Queen's Consent was used to give the Palace immunity to claims of race discrimination in their hiring. That's unconscionable. Nobody should be above the law.