5 ms·

> It's not enshrined in some document they got together and wrote down like the US constitution It’s also very brittle and one charismatic populist away from u

> It's not enshrined in some document they got together and wrote down like the US constitution It’s also very brittle and one charismatic populist away from unraveling like the American government. Too much depends on gentlemen agreements and people trusting other people to do the right thing. It works in a stable environment, but shatters the moment someone with no shame and no scruples shows up.

01jonny01 8mo ago
Britain's problems are due to uncharismatic Blairite socialist.
- skibble 8mo ago
  All of them? Hmmm.
- ordinaryradical 8mo ago
  This comment may or may not be wrong but it is quintessentially low effort. The point of HN is to discuss, not to tweet about your political enemies.
  - 01jonny01 8mo ago
    I'm parroting back the opposite of the original reply, which was upvoted That leaves me to conclude HN is a left leaning circle jerk echo chamber, much like reddit. With any dissent to the right triggering the non-hateful liberal lefties.
- b00ty4breakfast 8mo ago
  I don't know much about UK politics but I definitely know enough to know that there's no such thing as a "Blairite socialist".
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- kitd 8mo ago
  A populist far-right racist would fix all the potholes and bring HS2 in under budget? Got it.
  - 01jonny01 8mo ago
    You don't understand the core issue at heart in Britain. The real distraction is the economic argument. The truth of the matter is natives feel like a stranger in their own country. I say this as someone who is mixed race and 2nd gen before you try and label me a racist. Yawn.
    - kitd 8mo ago
      You need to change your social media algorithm.
hardlianotion 8mo ago
Most western democracies have exactly the same fault, maybe having unscrupulous, shameless legislators are the end state of the current models of democracy being practiced.
brailsafe 8mo ago
But they're cycled through much more rapidly, and seem generally more vulnerable than the dictators in the U.S or otherwise. A small concession to be sure. It seems like a fundamental failure of government that in many cases, there are no consequences for deliberately or accidentally screwing your people. You either get murdered eventually or the country is just left to fix itself later, which disproportionately affects people with little resources.
philistine 8mo ago
While no democratic system is completely protected from tyrants, at least the UK (and the Commonwealth nations who inherited their principles) uses the living tree doctrine in its courts, which means that the written text is not sacrosanct and the intention and usage is to be considered. That and unwritten tradition has force of law and can be challenged in court. Look at Boris Johnson's reversal of his prorogation as an example.
laughing_man 8mo ago
There's really no way around the possibility that whatever you've written down in your constitution will be ignored in the heat of the moment, or become degraded over time.
- Jensson 8mo ago
  But you don't need to put the military under the direct command of the civilian president like US does, if parliament can take military action against the civilian president and civilian action against the military leader then they have ways to deal with both. American president is too powerful to deal with since he controls both the civilian and the military side.
  - marcus_holmes 8mo ago
    This is the one argument left for monarchy; that the military in the UK (and technically Australia) swear loyatly to the monarch, not the Prime Minister. In the event of an obviously-lunatic elected official ordering the troops into civilian areas to "pacify" civilian populations, the monarch could (in theory) countermand that order.
    - r14c 8mo ago
      Isn't that worse? You don't even get to elect the commander in chief, its just some random guy who was born into it?
      - deleted 8mo ago
        [deleted]
      - ChocolateGod 8mo ago
        The monarch being Commander in Chief is ceremonial. Everything is done on the advice of the Prime Minister and their cabinet. The chance of the monarch overriding said request is less than 1%. Even then, parliament is sovereign. Whilst the logistics are complicated due to how things are introduced to the house, if parliament says no to a prime ministers decision, it overrides anything the prime minister who has no absolute power like a president does.
charcircuit 8mo ago
Being able to vote in a strong leader to fix things directly is a feature. Democracy is not always the answer and when it is it can be too slow when time matters.
- subscribed 8mo ago
  I think it's quite obvious now how this leads to the erosion of rights and laws, looking at the current state of the affairs.
  - charcircuit 8mo ago
    That's the point? Adding laws and rights is not necessarily a good thing. People tried to work towards a local maxima but it turns out that the approach is no good so it needs to be torn down and another direction of hill climbing needs to be tried. Or circumstances where a law made sense are no longer the same. Problems that the law makers did not foresee may come into the picture.
- Someone 8mo ago
  For “fixing things” there are well-defined mechanisms such as state of emergency declaration of war. Those give the leader extra powers, but do not give them carte blanche to do as they wish. Those extra powers are limited to handle specific problems.
throwaway85825 8mo ago
Constitution and laws are just pieces of paper. They only matter if the population acts as if they matter. Liberia has the same Constitution as the US.
tshaddox 8mo ago
> It’s also very brittle and one charismatic populist away from unraveling All sufficiently large governments (really all organizations of any kind) are necessarily like this, from the most successful attempts at open societies to the most autocratic. They all require constant vigilance both to perform their intended function and to preserve themselves into the future.
petesergeant 8mo ago
Strong disagree. It's uncontested that supreme authority lies with parliament, not with the leader of the day. PM can't do shit if parliament doesn't want him to, because they can always simply change the rules on him.

01jonny01 8mo ago

Britain's problems are due to uncharismatic Blairite socialist.

skibble 8mo ago
All of them? Hmmm.
ordinaryradical 8mo ago
This comment may or may not be wrong but it is quintessentially low effort. The point of HN is to discuss, not to tweet about your political enemies.
- 01jonny01 8mo ago
  I'm parroting back the opposite of the original reply, which was upvoted That leaves me to conclude HN is a left leaning circle jerk echo chamber, much like reddit. With any dissent to the right triggering the non-hateful liberal lefties.
b00ty4breakfast 8mo ago
I don't know much about UK politics but I definitely know enough to know that there's no such thing as a "Blairite socialist".
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
kitd 8mo ago
A populist far-right racist would fix all the potholes and bring HS2 in under budget? Got it.
- 01jonny01 8mo ago
  You don't understand the core issue at heart in Britain. The real distraction is the economic argument. The truth of the matter is natives feel like a stranger in their own country. I say this as someone who is mixed race and 2nd gen before you try and label me a racist. Yawn.
  - kitd 8mo ago
    You need to change your social media algorithm.

hardlianotion 8mo ago

Most western democracies have exactly the same fault, maybe having unscrupulous, shameless legislators are the end state of the current models of democracy being practiced.

brailsafe 8mo ago

But they're cycled through much more rapidly, and seem generally more vulnerable than the dictators in the U.S or otherwise. A small concession to be sure. It seems like a fundamental failure of government that in many cases, there are no consequences for deliberately or accidentally screwing your people. You either get murdered eventually or the country is just left to fix itself later, which disproportionately affects people with little resources.

philistine 8mo ago

While no democratic system is completely protected from tyrants, at least the UK (and the Commonwealth nations who inherited their principles) uses the living tree doctrine in its courts, which means that the written text is not sacrosanct and the intention and usage is to be considered. That and unwritten tradition has force of law and can be challenged in court. Look at Boris Johnson's reversal of his prorogation as an example.

laughing_man 8mo ago

There's really no way around the possibility that whatever you've written down in your constitution will be ignored in the heat of the moment, or become degraded over time.

Jensson 8mo ago
But you don't need to put the military under the direct command of the civilian president like US does, if parliament can take military action against the civilian president and civilian action against the military leader then they have ways to deal with both. American president is too powerful to deal with since he controls both the civilian and the military side.
- marcus_holmes 8mo ago
  This is the one argument left for monarchy; that the military in the UK (and technically Australia) swear loyatly to the monarch, not the Prime Minister. In the event of an obviously-lunatic elected official ordering the troops into civilian areas to "pacify" civilian populations, the monarch could (in theory) countermand that order.
  - r14c 8mo ago
    Isn't that worse? You don't even get to elect the commander in chief, its just some random guy who was born into it?
    - deleted 8mo ago
      [deleted]
    - ChocolateGod 8mo ago
      The monarch being Commander in Chief is ceremonial. Everything is done on the advice of the Prime Minister and their cabinet. The chance of the monarch overriding said request is less than 1%. Even then, parliament is sovereign. Whilst the logistics are complicated due to how things are introduced to the house, if parliament says no to a prime ministers decision, it overrides anything the prime minister who has no absolute power like a president does.

charcircuit 8mo ago

Being able to vote in a strong leader to fix things directly is a feature. Democracy is not always the answer and when it is it can be too slow when time matters.

subscribed 8mo ago
I think it's quite obvious now how this leads to the erosion of rights and laws, looking at the current state of the affairs.
- charcircuit 8mo ago
  That's the point? Adding laws and rights is not necessarily a good thing. People tried to work towards a local maxima but it turns out that the approach is no good so it needs to be torn down and another direction of hill climbing needs to be tried. Or circumstances where a law made sense are no longer the same. Problems that the law makers did not foresee may come into the picture.
Someone 8mo ago
For “fixing things” there are well-defined mechanisms such as state of emergency declaration of war. Those give the leader extra powers, but do not give them carte blanche to do as they wish. Those extra powers are limited to handle specific problems.

throwaway85825 8mo ago

Constitution and laws are just pieces of paper. They only matter if the population acts as if they matter. Liberia has the same Constitution as the US.

tshaddox 8mo ago

> It’s also very brittle and one charismatic populist away from unraveling All sufficiently large governments (really all organizations of any kind) are necessarily like this, from the most successful attempts at open societies to the most autocratic. They all require constant vigilance both to perform their intended function and to preserve themselves into the future.

petesergeant 8mo ago

Strong disagree. It's uncontested that supreme authority lies with parliament, not with the leader of the day. PM can't do shit if parliament doesn't want him to, because they can always simply change the rules on him.