9 ms·

The fact that we regard as "democratic" (because they are good guys, or so we'd wish) a country with king and lords (even a House of Lords, or even "Lords Spiri

The fact that we regard as "democratic" (because they are good guys, or so we'd wish) a country with king and lords (even a House of Lords, or even "Lords Spiritual" [1]), is the greater joke. [1] Just a random click https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_House_of_Lords https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_House_o... on the Bishop of Chichester https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_of_Chichester#List_of_bishops https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_of_Chichester#List_of_b... reveals a list of bishops going back as far as 681, the year 681. Particularly funny is how the majority of the bishops seem to have "died in office". To call a land with 1,300+ years of hegemony "democratic" is beyond satire.

circuit10 3y ago
The king doesn’t really have any power in practice, I think the royal family mainly exist for tradition/tourism reasons at this point At least according to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index it’s one of the most democratic countries at 18th in the world (to be fair that’s made by a UK company but I don’t see why they would be biased)
- c0m 3y ago
  > The [monarch] doesn’t really have any power in practice Entirely untrue. The monarch has a weekly meeting with the Prime Minister. There have been many cases of the Queen getting carveouts, influencing laws, and vetting bills. There is no law forbidding the monarch from not granting Royal Assent. This notion that the British monarch has no power is an absolute farce. There’s also the whole concept of King’s Consent, wherein the King gets to vet every single bill for affect the crown's own prerogatives or interests, and negotiate secretly with the government to change the contents of that bill. The Guardian articles detail this process as well. If you seriously believe the King has no power in practice I have a bridge to sell you. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Consent https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Consent https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-lobbied-for-change-in-law-to-hide-her-private-wealth https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-l... https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/queen-lobbied-for-changes-to-three-more-laws-documents-reveal https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/queen-lobbied-fo... https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/28/queen-secretly-lobbied-scottish-ministers-climate-law-exemption https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/28/queen-secretly-l... https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/28/revealed-queen-vetted-67-laws-before-scottish-parliament-pass-them https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/28/revealed-queen-v...
  - eternalban 3y ago
    Also the command-in-chief of UK and other Commonweath militaries? Canada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-Chief_of_the_Canadian_Armed_Forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-Chief_of_the_Cana... As all executive power is legally reposed in the Crown, the role of commander-in-chief is the only constitutional means by which decisions are made over the deployment and disposition of the Canadian Armed Forces.[6] Under the Westminster system's conventions of responsible government, the cabinet—which advises the sovereign or his viceroy on the exercise of the executive powers—generally exercises the Crown prerogative powers relating to the Canadian forces.[6][7] Still, all declarations of war are issued with the approval, and in the name, of the monarch and must be signed by either the sovereign or the governor general, as was done with the proclamation that declared Canada at war with Nazi Germany, issued on September 10, 1939; it stated: "Whereas by and with the advice of Our Privy Council for Canada, We have signified Our Approval for the issue of a Proclamation in the Canada Gazette declaring that a State of War with the German Reich exists and has existed in Our Dominion of Canada as and from the tenth day of September, 1939." Australia: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s68.html http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca4... COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 68. Command of naval and military forces. The command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor-General as the Queen's representative.
    - c0m 3y ago
      It’s concerning to think of some sort of major constitutional crisis taking place during wartime due to disagreement between PM and King. I’m a little baffled that this has never been framed as a national security issue, at least it hasn’t been a popular narrative in my lifetime. At the same time, whatever government opens that particular Pandora’s box is in for a hell of a ride, so I understand why. I'm obviously an abolitionist but I would be much less worried about this if the powers matched the role. I'm sure HN could empathise better than most websites that giving a supposed read-only user unused, powerful permissions is probably not the best idea.
      - ck425 3y ago
- jabradoodle 3y ago
  This is a tiring narrative. They do have power, e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Action_Against_Iraq_(Parliamentary_Approval)_Bill https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Action_Against_Iraq... That the royal family is useful for tourism is also laughable
  - iso1631 3y ago
    You're quoting royal prerogative, which is held by the government, specifically by the prime minister, who has to have the support of the house of commons, and aside from Alec Douglass Home for a period of 20 days in recess has always been a member of the house of commons for over a century.
  - tialaramex 3y ago
    You need to learn to at least read between the lines. "On the advice of her government" means it's what the government decided to do. Why so? Because although they had sufficient numbers to ensure the bill wouldn't become law, using Consent allowed them to prevent debate.
    - jabradoodle 3y ago
      You need to learn to read. I am stating that the monarch has the power to veto legislation, not that the power was used in opposition to the advice of ministers. That you don't see an issue with democratic debate being shutdown on the advice of a government minister to the monarch is another issue.
      - vixen99 3y ago
        That's just rude.
      - iso1631 3y ago
        The government has the power to veto legislation, not Charlie Windsor the billionaire guy with a fancy hat.
  - Veen 3y ago
- iso1631 3y ago
  The king does have some power, but it's mainly lobbying. Big party donors in America have far more power.
  - bee_rider 3y ago
    Do they lobby much? I vaguely remember a bunch of silliness about trying to figure out the Queen’s preferences around Brexit based on the brooch she was wearing or something like that… I’ve always just thought of royalty as sort of like the prototype for American celebrities like the Kardashians. Just a bunch of people who are famous for being famous.
    - iso1631 3y ago
      Oh no, they definitively lobby, as listed in the sibling comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35687508 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35687508 I'm just not sure that "rich person lobbies government" is the jackpot that republicans think it is. The day that Biden, Trump. Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Bush I and before don't get lobbying on a regular basis from major donors then I'll consider it one. Indeed I'd rather Charlie spend an hour a week lobbying Sunak as it takes an hour of lobbying away from anyone else.
      - bee_rider 3y ago
        Huh, interesting, well there goes one of their few redeeming virtues in my mind, I guess.
        iso1631 3y ago
        I guess the question is would an elected head of state mean more lobbying from more corrupt people. Sure Charlie might lobby against something happening in his back yard, and that's a pain, but I'd rather that than have big pharma lobby to loosen safety features on drug approvals, or big food lobby to bypass animal welfare
        3y ago
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > The king doesn’t really have any power in practice No, even aside from soft power, the monarch has some hard power (which can serve as a powerful lever for soft power, as well). Notably, for instance, the requirement for Monarch’s consent (not just the more pro forma Royal Assent) to legislation affecrtng the hereditary revenues, personal property or personal interests of the Crown or the Duchy of Lancaster or Cornwall, including the Royal Household and the Royal Palaces (including the Palace of Westminster), the Crown Estate and the Crown Estate Commissioners, the Monarch's private estates, and the Monarch's interest as a landlord or an employer.
jen20 3y ago
The UK is no less democratic (and perhaps more so, in important ways) than the US, so getting off the high horse there wouldn't hurt.
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  But OP didn’t say that the US is democratic.
PhilipRoman 3y ago
The key word in "liberal democracy" is "liberal", not "democracy". There exists only a single political system - an oligarchy. When the oligarchs decide to be nice, we call that "democracy".
- woah 3y ago
  Not saying this applies to you, but generally when I see someone espousing this opinion online, they are about to endorse a country who literally has a single king-like ruler, who will throw you in jail if you speak ill about them
  - Slava_Propanei 3y ago
    [dead]
  - Brian_K_White 3y ago
    "citation needed" I certainly agree that there is really only oligrachy everywhere, and I certainly do not think any individual hero ruler would be better. The statement only observed a bad thing. It did not advocate or even hint at some other bad thing as a proposed solution. Putting words into someone else's mouth is worse even than whatever they might have said if they had actually said it. It's an actual wrondoing that you did vs a fabricated wrongdoing you accused someone else of doing.
    - jonas21 3y ago
      > "citation needed" From the sibling comment by PhilipRoman: > But I would ask you this - when you are jailed for speaking, would it be of some comfort to know that the decision to jail you was decided by 100 politicians instead of 1? I realize this comment was written 5 minutes after yours, so you had no way of knowing, it is amusing how quickly the parent turned out to be right.
      - PhilipRoman 3y ago
        I'm a bit confused, how is the quoted part from my comment relevant here? I'm a liberal and as such, I don't "endorse a country who literally has a single king-like ruler, who will throw you in jail if you speak ill about them"
blibble 3y ago
the Lords have been completely subordinate to the elected Commons since 1911 they can be completely bypassed when necessary they are a scrutiny committee and despite the gold and pomp they do quite a reasonable job
- AlecSchueler 3y ago
  Wasn't there a kerfuffle where 1911 was overruled some years back or did it only nearly happen?
jabradoodle 3y ago
Yes, you've pointed out some of the ways in which the UK is not democratic, and many would like that to change. Democracy is not a 0 or 1 thing, it is a scale. There is statistically a good chance you are from the US, which has no concept of Lords, but which has its own very serious shortcomings.
- ly3xqhl8g9 3y ago
  Very much not from US. Just pointed out a hypocrisy of our language. As an aside, US has lords as well, perhaps even more powerful than UK lords, they just go by other names: Supreme Court judges, some Senators [1], some CEOs, and the like. [1] Just the top: Robert C. Byrd (D-WV), almost 51.5 years mandate, most kings couldn't even dream of such a lengthy reign, https://www.senate.gov/senators/longest_serving_senators.htm https://www.senate.gov/senators/longest_serving_senators.htm
  - pjc50 3y ago
    I don't know why this of all your comments is downvoted. The US Supreme Court is quite strongly analogous to life peers, in that they get to make legislative and even super-legislative decisions while being lifetime political appointees. And, it appears, accepting gifts.
    - ly3xqhl8g9 3y ago
      The sore points were hit right in the sore, so to speak. I am guessing the founder/CEO-as-dictator aspect is also not very welcoming. It's quite telling: how could a society be democratic if some of its most (if not the most) important aspects, the lifecycles of companies, are fundamentally non-democratic. I should know, I own 3 (not profitable, but that's another matter) companies on 2 continents.
gadders 3y ago
I think a lot of non-Brits hear "House of Lords" and think you have to have been born in a castle with a coat of arms. Whilst that may be true in the case of the hereditary peers (which are the minority in the HoL), there are also Life Peers. Some of these are ex/failed politicians, but some are appointed on the basis of their eminence in their field [1] or public works [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Winston,_Baron_Winston https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Winston,_Baron_Winston [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doreen_Lawrence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doreen_Lawrence
- ly3xqhl8g9 3y ago
  I know, I just like long hereditary lines [1]: if those don't show what power is, then I don't know what power is. Being hoi polloi myself, I barely know who my grandparents were, not to speak of their parents. [1] A really fun one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_of_Dunsany#Barons_of_Dunsany_(1439) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_of_Dunsany#Barons_of_Dun... Christopher Plunkett, 1st Baron of Dunsany (1410–1463) Richard Plunkett, 2nd Baron of Dunsany (died c. 1480) John Plunkett, 3rd Baron of Dunsany (died 1500) Edward Plunkett, 4th Baron of Dunsany (died 1521) Robert Plunkett, 5th Baron of Dunsany (died 1559) Christopher Plunkett, 6th Baron of Dunsany (died 1564) Patrick Plunkett, 7th Baron of Dunsany (died 1601) Christopher Plunkett, 8th Baron of Dunsany (died 1603) Patrick Plunkett, 9th Baron of Dunsany (1595–1668) Christopher Plunkett, 10th Baron of Dunsany (died 1690) Randall Plunkett, 11th Baron of Dunsany (died 1735) Edward Plunkett, 12th Baron of Dunsany (1713–1781) Randall Plunkett, 13th Baron of Dunsany (1739–1821) Edward Wadding Plunkett, 14th Baron of Dunsany (1773–1848) Randall Edward Plunkett, 15th Baron of Dunsany (1804–1852) Edward Plunkett, 16th Baron of Dunsany (1808–1889) John William Plunkett, 17th Baron of Dunsany (1853–1899) Edward John Moreton Drax Plunkett, 18th Baron of Dunsany (1878–1957) Randal Arthur Henry Plunkett, 19th Baron of Dunsany (1906–1999) Edward John Carlos Plunkett, 20th Baron of Dunsany (1939–2011) Randal Plunkett, 21st Baron of Dunsany (born 1983)
  - gadders 3y ago
    Out of interest, I googled the last chap in the list [1]. Class/socio-economic privilege is very much a thing, but he's not quite the Jacob Rees-Mogg type you might expect. Also "The current heir to his title is his younger brother, Oliver, a games designer and programmer who lives in the US." - he probably has a login on here :-) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randal_Plunkett,_21st_Baron_of_Dunsany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randal_Plunkett,_21st_Baron_of...
afavour 3y ago
I’m sorry but this is a very simplistic take. The King has no meaningful power at all, MPs have power over the Lords and they are democratically elected. I’m not for a second saying the system is wonderful and beyond reproach. But suggesting it’s equivalent to an autocracy or something is just flat out wrong. If you want to complain about the U.K. political system complain about first past the post or the creeping anti-democratic forces pushing things like voter ID laws. The House of Lords and the King aren’t anything comparatively.
- tekknik 3y ago
  if a voter ID is free and requires no effort on the citizens part, how is it anti-democratic? is this to say that all IDs are anti-democratic?
  - afavour 3y ago
    > if a voter ID is free and requires no effort on the citizens part That alone is a big "if". Getting an ID rarely requires no effort. But the bigger question above all that is why do it anyway? Why do anything to make it harder to vote? There is little to no evidence of voter fraud taking place in the UK (or US for that matter), certainly never on a scale that would come close to affecting the outcome of an election. Every time the number of people who would be unable to vote (even just because they've lost their ID) eclipses the number of fraudulent votes that would supposedly be caught.
- ly3xqhl8g9 3y ago
  It was just a quick quip how we regard as "democratic" a country (?) called "United Kingdom", language is funny like that. Sure, UK is a great place to live for many of their citizens, and a great country overall, culture and so forth. It's not for nothing we are speaking their language and not Esperanto or something. But it's not a democracy, and that is fine. If you ask me (I know you didn't, but just in case), not even the Nordic countries or Switzerland pass the main test of democracy: not being able to vote for everything, but being able to vote "No" to anything and everything. That should probably be the hallmark of a democracy. Even the toga-wearing Greeks did not have democracy to such an extent. In an ideal world, every ballot would have as a first option the option "No". I said in some other HN comment [1], a second point would be to tie the duration of the mandate to the voter turnout, if 30% vote, then the mandate is not 100%, but 30% also of the 4/5 years mandate. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35300083 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35300083
zackmorris 3y ago
I liked how the Netflix series The Crown depicted Queen Elizabeth II as having God's ear, as a last line of defense against corrupt politicians. The prime minister has to run everything past the king/queen, which hopefully keeps the system honest, or at least in line with tradition. There's nothing like that in the US, by design, due to our constitutional separation of church and state. The words "In God We Trust" were added to our currency in 1864, and "under God" were added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954. Although I think we'd benefit from having an ELI5 branch to provide a final sniff test by voters for all controversial legislation. There's only a 10% correlation between what the public wants and what congress passes, because we never managed to separate freedom of speech from freedom of money to buy speech. So the wealthy have a disproportionate say in our political discourse, that's why they push stuff like corporate personhood to maintain power. Which goes all the way back to the formation of the country as a democratic "republic" to hand off unethical decisions around slavery, sexism and colonization to a semi-elected ruling class that maintains the status quo, much like we hand off minor sins like killing animals for meat consumption to butchers. In other words, the US effectively has a lobbyist branch which worships money, instead of a religious branch. Of course the same argument could be used in reverse to say that all religious involvement in government is about the final control of money and power.
cryptonector 3y ago
Clearly Parliament is sovereign, and Parliament is elected, therefore the UK is a democracy. And it's been so for nearly 400 years. Not that any of that guarantees that the UK is a "good democracy", but a democracy it is.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Clearly Parliament is sovereign, and Parliament is elected Its not though. The House of Commons is elected. The House of Lords and the Crown are not elected, and all three are integral components of the Parliament. [0] [0] https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/relations-with-other-institutions/parliament-crown/ https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/relations-with-othe...
  - cryptonector 3y ago
    But the House has reformed the Lords repeatedly, and the Lords can't stop them. It's like the filibuster rule in the U.S. Senate which is constitutional because there is at least one day in every term where it can be amended by a simple majority vote (and, in fact, it can be amended by a majority vote at any time and has been).

circuit10 3y ago

The king doesn’t really have any power in practice, I think the royal family mainly exist for tradition/tourism reasons at this point At least according to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index it’s one of the most democratic countries at 18th in the world (to be fair that’s made by a UK company but I don’t see why they would be biased)

c0m 3y ago
> The [monarch] doesn’t really have any power in practice Entirely untrue. The monarch has a weekly meeting with the Prime Minister. There have been many cases of the Queen getting carveouts, influencing laws, and vetting bills. There is no law forbidding the monarch from not granting Royal Assent. This notion that the British monarch has no power is an absolute farce. There’s also the whole concept of King’s Consent, wherein the King gets to vet every single bill for affect the crown's own prerogatives or interests, and negotiate secretly with the government to change the contents of that bill. The Guardian articles detail this process as well. If you seriously believe the King has no power in practice I have a bridge to sell you. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Consent https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Consent https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-lobbied-for-change-in-law-to-hide-her-private-wealth https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-l... https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/queen-lobbied-for-changes-to-three-more-laws-documents-reveal https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/queen-lobbied-fo... https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/28/queen-secretly-lobbied-scottish-ministers-climate-law-exemption https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/28/queen-secretly-l... https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/28/revealed-queen-vetted-67-laws-before-scottish-parliament-pass-them https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/28/revealed-queen-v...
- eternalban 3y ago
  Also the command-in-chief of UK and other Commonweath militaries? Canada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-Chief_of_the_Canadian_Armed_Forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-Chief_of_the_Cana... As all executive power is legally reposed in the Crown, the role of commander-in-chief is the only constitutional means by which decisions are made over the deployment and disposition of the Canadian Armed Forces.[6] Under the Westminster system's conventions of responsible government, the cabinet—which advises the sovereign or his viceroy on the exercise of the executive powers—generally exercises the Crown prerogative powers relating to the Canadian forces.[6][7] Still, all declarations of war are issued with the approval, and in the name, of the monarch and must be signed by either the sovereign or the governor general, as was done with the proclamation that declared Canada at war with Nazi Germany, issued on September 10, 1939; it stated: "Whereas by and with the advice of Our Privy Council for Canada, We have signified Our Approval for the issue of a Proclamation in the Canada Gazette declaring that a State of War with the German Reich exists and has existed in Our Dominion of Canada as and from the tenth day of September, 1939." Australia: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s68.html http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca4... COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 68. Command of naval and military forces. The command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor-General as the Queen's representative.
  - c0m 3y ago
    It’s concerning to think of some sort of major constitutional crisis taking place during wartime due to disagreement between PM and King. I’m a little baffled that this has never been framed as a national security issue, at least it hasn’t been a popular narrative in my lifetime. At the same time, whatever government opens that particular Pandora’s box is in for a hell of a ride, so I understand why. I'm obviously an abolitionist but I would be much less worried about this if the powers matched the role. I'm sure HN could empathise better than most websites that giving a supposed read-only user unused, powerful permissions is probably not the best idea.
    - ck425 3y ago
jabradoodle 3y ago
This is a tiring narrative. They do have power, e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Action_Against_Iraq_(Parliamentary_Approval)_Bill https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Action_Against_Iraq... That the royal family is useful for tourism is also laughable
- iso1631 3y ago
  You're quoting royal prerogative, which is held by the government, specifically by the prime minister, who has to have the support of the house of commons, and aside from Alec Douglass Home for a period of 20 days in recess has always been a member of the house of commons for over a century.
- tialaramex 3y ago
  You need to learn to at least read between the lines. "On the advice of her government" means it's what the government decided to do. Why so? Because although they had sufficient numbers to ensure the bill wouldn't become law, using Consent allowed them to prevent debate.
  - jabradoodle 3y ago
    You need to learn to read. I am stating that the monarch has the power to veto legislation, not that the power was used in opposition to the advice of ministers. That you don't see an issue with democratic debate being shutdown on the advice of a government minister to the monarch is another issue.
    - vixen99 3y ago
      That's just rude.
    - iso1631 3y ago
      The government has the power to veto legislation, not Charlie Windsor the billionaire guy with a fancy hat.
- Veen 3y ago
iso1631 3y ago
The king does have some power, but it's mainly lobbying. Big party donors in America have far more power.
- bee_rider 3y ago
  Do they lobby much? I vaguely remember a bunch of silliness about trying to figure out the Queen’s preferences around Brexit based on the brooch she was wearing or something like that… I’ve always just thought of royalty as sort of like the prototype for American celebrities like the Kardashians. Just a bunch of people who are famous for being famous.
  - iso1631 3y ago
    Oh no, they definitively lobby, as listed in the sibling comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35687508 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35687508 I'm just not sure that "rich person lobbies government" is the jackpot that republicans think it is. The day that Biden, Trump. Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Bush I and before don't get lobbying on a regular basis from major donors then I'll consider it one. Indeed I'd rather Charlie spend an hour a week lobbying Sunak as it takes an hour of lobbying away from anyone else.
    - bee_rider 3y ago
      Huh, interesting, well there goes one of their few redeeming virtues in my mind, I guess.
      - iso1631 3y ago
        I guess the question is would an elected head of state mean more lobbying from more corrupt people. Sure Charlie might lobby against something happening in his back yard, and that's a pain, but I'd rather that than have big pharma lobby to loosen safety features on drug approvals, or big food lobby to bypass animal welfare
        3y ago
dragonwriter 3y ago
> The king doesn’t really have any power in practice No, even aside from soft power, the monarch has some hard power (which can serve as a powerful lever for soft power, as well). Notably, for instance, the requirement for Monarch’s consent (not just the more pro forma Royal Assent) to legislation affecrtng the hereditary revenues, personal property or personal interests of the Crown or the Duchy of Lancaster or Cornwall, including the Royal Household and the Royal Palaces (including the Palace of Westminster), the Crown Estate and the Crown Estate Commissioners, the Monarch's private estates, and the Monarch's interest as a landlord or an employer.

jen20 3y ago

The UK is no less democratic (and perhaps more so, in important ways) than the US, so getting off the high horse there wouldn't hurt.

avgcorrection 3y ago
But OP didn’t say that the US is democratic.

PhilipRoman 3y ago

The key word in "liberal democracy" is "liberal", not "democracy". There exists only a single political system - an oligarchy. When the oligarchs decide to be nice, we call that "democracy".

woah 3y ago
Not saying this applies to you, but generally when I see someone espousing this opinion online, they are about to endorse a country who literally has a single king-like ruler, who will throw you in jail if you speak ill about them
- Slava_Propanei 3y ago
  [dead]
- Brian_K_White 3y ago
  "citation needed" I certainly agree that there is really only oligrachy everywhere, and I certainly do not think any individual hero ruler would be better. The statement only observed a bad thing. It did not advocate or even hint at some other bad thing as a proposed solution. Putting words into someone else's mouth is worse even than whatever they might have said if they had actually said it. It's an actual wrondoing that you did vs a fabricated wrongdoing you accused someone else of doing.
  - jonas21 3y ago
    > "citation needed" From the sibling comment by PhilipRoman: > But I would ask you this - when you are jailed for speaking, would it be of some comfort to know that the decision to jail you was decided by 100 politicians instead of 1? I realize this comment was written 5 minutes after yours, so you had no way of knowing, it is amusing how quickly the parent turned out to be right.
    - PhilipRoman 3y ago
      I'm a bit confused, how is the quoted part from my comment relevant here? I'm a liberal and as such, I don't "endorse a country who literally has a single king-like ruler, who will throw you in jail if you speak ill about them"

blibble 3y ago

the Lords have been completely subordinate to the elected Commons since 1911 they can be completely bypassed when necessary they are a scrutiny committee and despite the gold and pomp they do quite a reasonable job

AlecSchueler 3y ago
Wasn't there a kerfuffle where 1911 was overruled some years back or did it only nearly happen?

jabradoodle 3y ago

Yes, you've pointed out some of the ways in which the UK is not democratic, and many would like that to change. Democracy is not a 0 or 1 thing, it is a scale. There is statistically a good chance you are from the US, which has no concept of Lords, but which has its own very serious shortcomings.

ly3xqhl8g9 3y ago
Very much not from US. Just pointed out a hypocrisy of our language. As an aside, US has lords as well, perhaps even more powerful than UK lords, they just go by other names: Supreme Court judges, some Senators [1], some CEOs, and the like. [1] Just the top: Robert C. Byrd (D-WV), almost 51.5 years mandate, most kings couldn't even dream of such a lengthy reign, https://www.senate.gov/senators/longest_serving_senators.htm https://www.senate.gov/senators/longest_serving_senators.htm
- pjc50 3y ago
  I don't know why this of all your comments is downvoted. The US Supreme Court is quite strongly analogous to life peers, in that they get to make legislative and even super-legislative decisions while being lifetime political appointees. And, it appears, accepting gifts.
  - ly3xqhl8g9 3y ago
    The sore points were hit right in the sore, so to speak. I am guessing the founder/CEO-as-dictator aspect is also not very welcoming. It's quite telling: how could a society be democratic if some of its most (if not the most) important aspects, the lifecycles of companies, are fundamentally non-democratic. I should know, I own 3 (not profitable, but that's another matter) companies on 2 continents.

gadders 3y ago

I think a lot of non-Brits hear "House of Lords" and think you have to have been born in a castle with a coat of arms. Whilst that may be true in the case of the hereditary peers (which are the minority in the HoL), there are also Life Peers. Some of these are ex/failed politicians, but some are appointed on the basis of their eminence in their field [1] or public works [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Winston,_Baron_Winston https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Winston,_Baron_Winston [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doreen_Lawrence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doreen_Lawrence

ly3xqhl8g9 3y ago
I know, I just like long hereditary lines [1]: if those don't show what power is, then I don't know what power is. Being hoi polloi myself, I barely know who my grandparents were, not to speak of their parents. [1] A really fun one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_of_Dunsany#Barons_of_Dunsany_(1439) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_of_Dunsany#Barons_of_Dun... Christopher Plunkett, 1st Baron of Dunsany (1410–1463) Richard Plunkett, 2nd Baron of Dunsany (died c. 1480) John Plunkett, 3rd Baron of Dunsany (died 1500) Edward Plunkett, 4th Baron of Dunsany (died 1521) Robert Plunkett, 5th Baron of Dunsany (died 1559) Christopher Plunkett, 6th Baron of Dunsany (died 1564) Patrick Plunkett, 7th Baron of Dunsany (died 1601) Christopher Plunkett, 8th Baron of Dunsany (died 1603) Patrick Plunkett, 9th Baron of Dunsany (1595–1668) Christopher Plunkett, 10th Baron of Dunsany (died 1690) Randall Plunkett, 11th Baron of Dunsany (died 1735) Edward Plunkett, 12th Baron of Dunsany (1713–1781) Randall Plunkett, 13th Baron of Dunsany (1739–1821) Edward Wadding Plunkett, 14th Baron of Dunsany (1773–1848) Randall Edward Plunkett, 15th Baron of Dunsany (1804–1852) Edward Plunkett, 16th Baron of Dunsany (1808–1889) John William Plunkett, 17th Baron of Dunsany (1853–1899) Edward John Moreton Drax Plunkett, 18th Baron of Dunsany (1878–1957) Randal Arthur Henry Plunkett, 19th Baron of Dunsany (1906–1999) Edward John Carlos Plunkett, 20th Baron of Dunsany (1939–2011) Randal Plunkett, 21st Baron of Dunsany (born 1983)
- gadders 3y ago
  Out of interest, I googled the last chap in the list [1]. Class/socio-economic privilege is very much a thing, but he's not quite the Jacob Rees-Mogg type you might expect. Also "The current heir to his title is his younger brother, Oliver, a games designer and programmer who lives in the US." - he probably has a login on here :-) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randal_Plunkett,_21st_Baron_of_Dunsany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randal_Plunkett,_21st_Baron_of...

afavour 3y ago

I’m sorry but this is a very simplistic take. The King has no meaningful power at all, MPs have power over the Lords and they are democratically elected. I’m not for a second saying the system is wonderful and beyond reproach. But suggesting it’s equivalent to an autocracy or something is just flat out wrong. If you want to complain about the U.K. political system complain about first past the post or the creeping anti-democratic forces pushing things like voter ID laws. The House of Lords and the King aren’t anything comparatively.

tekknik 3y ago
if a voter ID is free and requires no effort on the citizens part, how is it anti-democratic? is this to say that all IDs are anti-democratic?
- afavour 3y ago
  > if a voter ID is free and requires no effort on the citizens part That alone is a big "if". Getting an ID rarely requires no effort. But the bigger question above all that is why do it anyway? Why do anything to make it harder to vote? There is little to no evidence of voter fraud taking place in the UK (or US for that matter), certainly never on a scale that would come close to affecting the outcome of an election. Every time the number of people who would be unable to vote (even just because they've lost their ID) eclipses the number of fraudulent votes that would supposedly be caught.
ly3xqhl8g9 3y ago
It was just a quick quip how we regard as "democratic" a country (?) called "United Kingdom", language is funny like that. Sure, UK is a great place to live for many of their citizens, and a great country overall, culture and so forth. It's not for nothing we are speaking their language and not Esperanto or something. But it's not a democracy, and that is fine. If you ask me (I know you didn't, but just in case), not even the Nordic countries or Switzerland pass the main test of democracy: not being able to vote for everything, but being able to vote "No" to anything and everything. That should probably be the hallmark of a democracy. Even the toga-wearing Greeks did not have democracy to such an extent. In an ideal world, every ballot would have as a first option the option "No". I said in some other HN comment [1], a second point would be to tie the duration of the mandate to the voter turnout, if 30% vote, then the mandate is not 100%, but 30% also of the 4/5 years mandate. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35300083 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35300083

zackmorris 3y ago

I liked how the Netflix series The Crown depicted Queen Elizabeth II as having God's ear, as a last line of defense against corrupt politicians. The prime minister has to run everything past the king/queen, which hopefully keeps the system honest, or at least in line with tradition. There's nothing like that in the US, by design, due to our constitutional separation of church and state. The words "In God We Trust" were added to our currency in 1864, and "under God" were added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954. Although I think we'd benefit from having an ELI5 branch to provide a final sniff test by voters for all controversial legislation. There's only a 10% correlation between what the public wants and what congress passes, because we never managed to separate freedom of speech from freedom of money to buy speech. So the wealthy have a disproportionate say in our political discourse, that's why they push stuff like corporate personhood to maintain power. Which goes all the way back to the formation of the country as a democratic "republic" to hand off unethical decisions around slavery, sexism and colonization to a semi-elected ruling class that maintains the status quo, much like we hand off minor sins like killing animals for meat consumption to butchers. In other words, the US effectively has a lobbyist branch which worships money, instead of a religious branch. Of course the same argument could be used in reverse to say that all religious involvement in government is about the final control of money and power.

cryptonector 3y ago

Clearly Parliament is sovereign, and Parliament is elected, therefore the UK is a democracy. And it's been so for nearly 400 years. Not that any of that guarantees that the UK is a "good democracy", but a democracy it is.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> Clearly Parliament is sovereign, and Parliament is elected Its not though. The House of Commons is elected. The House of Lords and the Crown are not elected, and all three are integral components of the Parliament. [0] [0] https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/relations-with-other-institutions/parliament-crown/ https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/relations-with-othe...
- cryptonector 3y ago
  But the House has reformed the Lords repeatedly, and the Lords can't stop them. It's like the filibuster rule in the U.S. Senate which is constitutional because there is at least one day in every term where it can be amended by a simple majority vote (and, in fact, it can be amended by a majority vote at any time and has been).