3 ms·
Perhaps the UK has to descend further towards third-world country status before its citizens will be prepared to stand up and take charge of their governance in
by hilbert42 3y ago
Perhaps the UK has to descend further towards third-world country status before its citizens will be prepared to stand up and take charge of their governance instead of allowing small groups of narrow-minded do-gooder elites to do so.
Presumably—if they bother to so act at all—that will be after just about every high-tech company has left for more fertile grounds.
- DropInIn 3y ago> do-gooder Hmm..... so we don't want people in governance positions trying governance to do good? Is that your position? Because if not I question why you included that term....
- rcme 3y ago> instead of allowing small groups of narrow-minded do-gooder elites to do so. Isn’t that the entire history of UK governance? They literally have something called the House of Lords.
- jlokier 3y agoThe House of Lords are usually the sane and reasonable ones that block abusive legislation created by those in the House of Commons. The latter are far more political, and almost all the scandals, drama, grifting, public lies and human rights abusive legislation originates in the Commons. It's a strange thing that the "lords" protect individual freedom and democracy of the common person more than the "commons" but that's how it often appears to be. Case in point: The legislation this article is about. If it passes the Commons it is quite likely to be bounced back by the Lords following a more human rights focused debate there.
- nly 3y agoThe House of Lords can't block legislation though, they can only amend it and send it back, and only a limited number of times...and the amendments they propose are only advisory and can be ignored.
- cjs_ac 3y agoThe UK has a long tradition of reusing outdated institutions. If the only thing you know about the House of Lords is its name, you'll be very surprised about who's in it and what they do.
- rcme 3y agoEnlighten me
- fancyfredbot 3y agoBishops, hereditary peers, and the friends of ex prime ministers. It's great though.
- dragonwriter 3y agoBut except for who practically creates life peers, that’s the same as it has always been; not really a reuse, or surprising given the name. They have less substantive power, now, to be sure, but that's not what you seemed to be suggesting.
- stuaxo 3y agoI thought that stuff just worked to strengthen authoritarian government's ?
- hilbert42 3y agoSeemingly so. On the one hand I'm into wishful thinking, on the other, cynical me says 'if they bother to so act at all'. implying SFA good will come out of it. History bears this out, take the Russian Revolution/uprising of 1905 and the authoritarian crackdown, it erupted again in 1917 and was successful that time but quickly went pear-shaped a few years later and fell back into totalitarianism. That lasted until 1991 when there was a minor reprieve. Now it's pear-shaped again—totalitarianism again reigns supreme. No wonder it's so difficult to shake off one's pessimism.
- soligern 3y agoAs a commoner I’d trust the elites far more than the “commoners”. Populist stuff is invariably short sighted and historically doomed and only works to dislodge an unbearable incumbent, not realistically implement effective governance after the fact.
- hilbert42 3y agoGrant you, 'elites' should have been in quotes—and I wasn't referring to populist stuff but rather to those who are sufficiently powerful enough to launch influential memes that become part of the dominant discourse whether their effects are beneficial for society or not—society doesn't have effective filters against such discourses. Also, look at the facts, commoners have had precious little say yet the slide downwards has occurred anyway.