UK Election 8th of June

[RandBlade]

No, our courts will be integral. Like other nations or the League of Nations etc

[Steely Glint]

The first thing that happens is that House of Lords sends the bill back with alterations which amount to 'omg no', what happens after that depends on the specific situation - the composition of parliament, support for such a move amongst the public.

[Loki]

The first thing that happens is that House of Lords sends the bill back with alterations which amount to 'omg no', what happens after that depends on the specific situation - the composition of parliament, support for such a move amongst the public.

Public support is the bare minimum you expect in any democracy. In this case, you wouldn't even care what women thought about the issue because they wouldn't be able to vote in future elections.

The House of Lords "no" is utterly pointless. The assumption is the Conservative Party is behind this proposal and has a majority.

[Khendraja'aro]

The first thing that happens is that House of Lords sends the bill back with alterations which amount to 'omg no', what happens after that depends on the specific situation - the composition of parliament, support for such a move amongst the public.

Oh, like they did with the Brexit bill? Yeah, that worked sooooo great. Not.

[Steely Glint]

Oh, like they did with the Brexit bill? Yeah, that worked sooooo great. Not.

What reason would the Lords have had to vote down Brexit?

[Khendraja'aro]

What reason would the Lords have had to vote down Brexit?

Please, if they were not even able to get a rather minor addition onto the Brexit bill, what chance would they have with a more serious veto?

[Steely Glint]

If the policy wasn't in the Tory manifesto, which is likely given that otherwise it would have required women to vote to give away their own suffrage, the House of Lords can delay the bill for up to a year. plenty of time to allow for legal challenges and parliamentary rebellions and so on. There's also the serious possibility that the monarch would just outright refuse to sign the bill, precipitating even more of a constitutional crisis than there already was because the government was trying to disenfranchise 50% of the country on a whim.

Really, the scenario is so outlandish it's hard to predict what would actually happen.

[Loki]

If the policy wasn't in the Tory manifesto, which is likely given that otherwise it would have required women to vote to give away their own suffrage, the House of Lords can delay the bill for up to a year. plenty of time to allow for legal challenges and parliamentary rebellions and so on. There's also the serious possibility that the monarch would just outright refuse to sign the bill, precipitating even more of a constitutional crisis than there already was because the government was trying to disenfranchise 50% of the country on a whim.

Really, the scenario is so outlandish it's hard to predict what would actually happen.

The next election is a good 4 years away. A year's wait wouldn't be a problem. Legal challenges will fail because of parliamentary supremacy. We're assuming the Party supports this policy.

So the only thing that could serve as a check would be the Queen's signature. Good luck with that.

[Aimless]

This would be one of the few kinds of legislation that may actually be subject to judicial review because it may violate some aspect of the ECHR.

[Loki]

This would be one of the few kinds of legislation that may actually be subject to judicial review because it may violate some aspect of the ECHR.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume Rand wouldn't be in favor of the ECHR having jurisdiction.

And for those who think the woman example is unrealistic: you can change it to revoking the vote from all naturalized citizens.

[Steely Glint]

The next election is a good 4 years away.

If the government carries on like this, the next election is going to be a lot less than 4 years away. The words 'confidence' 'no' and 'vote of' would be uttered.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume Rand wouldn't be in favor of the ECHR having jurisdiction..

Assuming the Human Rights Act has been repealed and that the ECHR is therefore no longer applicable it's going to be replaced with something similar.

And for those who think the woman example is unrealistic: you can change it to revoking the vote from all naturalized citizens.

I don't really think that any less unrealistic.

Really, Loki, if your standard for checks and balances is 'if enough people magically agree that we should do this one egregious thing then you can't stop egregious thing happening' then no government in the world has checks and balances. If the Republicans just somehow had the required majorities in the house and senate and controlled enough state legislature then could they be stopped from amending the constitution to roll back civil rights or do some other Republican bullshit?

Look at your own mess. Checks and balances are barely functioning because one party controls both the executive and legislature, and the legislature are unwilling to fully hold the executive to account for fairly mundane political reasons. Separation of powers, it turns out, is not magic because politicians from different branches of government aren't hermetically sealed away from other and the rest of the country.

[RandBlade]

Indeed putting your faith into "systems" to protect your rights rather than vigilance to defend them doesn't work.

[Loki]

The standard for check and balances is if the government went nuts, who would be able to stop them. It's not a check if it's based on everyone acting properly. Again, parliamentary supremacy is the very antithesis to checks and balances. There is literally no other democratic system that has fewer checks and balances.

[Steely Glint]

The standard for check and balances is if the government went nuts, who would be able to stop them. It's not a check if it's based on everyone acting properly.

OK, name an example of a country where you could stop the government going nuts even if everyone was acting improperly.

[Aimless]

OK, name an example of a country where you could stop the government going nuts even if everyone was acting improperly.

Presumably he's referring to the ability of the judiciary to block unconstitutional laws even when the executive branch and the legislature have gone "nuts". Should be clear from context.

[Steely Glint]

Presumably he's referring to the ability of the judiciary to block unconstitutional laws even when the executive branch and the legislature have gone "nuts". Should be clear from context.

You can just change the constitution. And the highest judges in the land are all political appointees. And a judge is just as likely to be human garbage as a politician, just look at Jeff Sessions. Or they can be corrupted and/or threatened. A judge can quite literally say 'this is constitutional, actually' when it isn't, especially if the would-be dictator is clever enough to make their power grabs sufficiently ambiguous.

[Steely Glint]

Who's willing to take bets that this will hasten the UK's conversion into Orwell's Paradise?

And yet your grandiose CCTV did nothing.

Oh, and this is definitely an appropriate and normal response to a tragedy. So well done with that.

[Aimless]

You can just change the constitution. And the highest judges in the land are all political appointees. And a judge is just as likely to be human garbage as a politician, just look at Jeff Sessions. Or they can be corrupted and/or threatened. A judge can quite literally say 'this is constitutional, actually' when it isn't, especially if the would-be dictator is clever enough to make their power grabs sufficiently ambiguous.

I believe if you give yourself some time to think through this you'll realize that you're being somewhat misleading here.

[RandBlade]

You can just change the constitution. And the highest judges in the land are all political appointees. And a judge is just as likely to be human garbage as a politician, just look at Jeff Sessions. Or they can be corrupted and/or threatened. A judge can quite literally say 'this is constitutional, actually' when it isn't, especially if the would-be dictator is clever enough to make their power grabs sufficiently ambiguous.

Indeed, corrupt the judges and you can do anything. If your system is relying upon the integrity of the judges then your system is relying on people not acting improperly - which was an unacceptable requirement earlier.

[Loki]

OK, name an example of a country where you could stop the government going nuts even if everyone was acting improperly.

The question is what happens when a key institution, particularly the government, wants to act improperly. In the US, the presidency is checked by Congress and the courts, and the federal government is itself weakened by federalism. This is textbook checks and balances: no institution or level of government can undermine constitutional rule by itself.

In Britain, the executive and legislative branches cannot check one another because both are under the control of the prime minister (as long as they enjoy a majority, which is almost always true in a first-past-the-post electoral system). The courts can't overrule the Commons. The Lords can't overrule the Commons. There is no popular mechanism for challenging the government (i.e. referenda and recalls). And there's a unitary state structure (the national parliaments can be removed by a vote in the Commons, unlike state governments in the US or any other federal system). There is no super-majority requirement for fundamental constitutional changes, which means the opposition has no role in checking the government.

The UK is literally the textbook example of a democracy with no checks and balances. I don't see how anyone can disagree with this fact.

[LittleFuzzy]

The UK is literally the textbook example of a democracy with no checks and balances. I don't see how anyone can disagree with this fact.

There are no balances, I definitely agree there. The problem is that there are actually checks, they just aren't what you will acknowledge are checks because you left an important word unstated (you consider it implied but I understand why Brits don't, since again, their system is a lengthy ad hoc creation), "structural." There aren't any hard checks built into the structure, which doesn't mean behavior can't be, won't be, and is not checked regardless. Most of us like a more clear and formalized system for that sort of thing and I think we've got good reason to do so. But there is accuracy in the rebuttal that all those require people actually behave in a manner which maintains them which is also the case for the Brits. It never matters what system is in place if the system isn't actually adhered to. One can fairly argue that having the system in place makes it easier to maintain the desired behavior, but one can also argue that it provides a false sense of security. Both have historical examples.

[Loki]

There are no balances, I definitely agree there. The problem is that there are actually checks, they just aren't what you will acknowledge are checks because you left an important word unstated (you consider it implied but I understand why Brits don't, since again, their system is a lengthy ad hoc creation), "structural." There aren't any hard checks built into the structure, which doesn't mean behavior can't be, won't be, and is not checked regardless. Most of us like a more clear and formalized system for that sort of thing and I think we've got good reason to do so. But there is accuracy in the rebuttal that all those require people actually behave in a manner which maintains them which is also the case for the Brits. It never matters what system is in place if the system isn't actually adhered to. One can fairly argue that having the system in place makes it easier to maintain the desired behavior, but one can also argue that it provides a false sense of security. Both have historical examples.

Except there are numerous examples of British governments radically restructuring the political and economic system in a short period of time because of the lack of checks and balances. Contrast the speed with which the British and US welfare states were created. Or the rapid nationalization of industry. Look at Thatcher's reforms, which made Reagan look like a moderate. See the elimination of the veto from the Lords. Not bothering to have an election between 1935 and 1945. The sudden creation of Scottish and Welsh parliaments. The temporary elimination of the North Irish parliament (which was not in rebellion). Entrance and exit from key treaties by a simple majority. What ever the ruling party wants, it will get, assuming it has a modicum of popular support behind it.

[Hazir]

There are no balances, I definitely agree there. The problem is that there are actually checks, they just aren't what you will acknowledge are checks because you left an important word unstated (you consider it implied but I understand why Brits don't, since again, their system is a lengthy ad hoc creation), "structural." There aren't any hard checks built into the structure, which doesn't mean behavior can't be, won't be, and is not checked regardless. Most of us like a more clear and formalized system for that sort of thing and I think we've got good reason to do so. But there is accuracy in the rebuttal that all those require people actually behave in a manner which maintains them which is also the case for the Brits. It never matters what system is in place if the system isn't actually adhered to. One can fairly argue that having the system in place makes it easier to maintain the desired behavior, but one can also argue that it provides a false sense of security. Both have historical examples.

Totally true. Written rules can be abused just as easily as unwritten ones.

[Steely Glint]

The question is what happens when a key institution, particularly the government, wants to act improperly. In the US, the presidency is checked by Congress and the courts, and the federal government is itself weakened by federalism. This is textbook checks and balances: no institution or level of government can undermine constitutional rule by itself.

Splitting the government into different bits doesn't stop the government acting improperly. It requires different branches of government to cooperate to act improperly rather than a single individual sure, just like under the UK system if you wish to act improperly you need the cooperation of a majority of MPs. I don't understand why you think breaking the government into different bits helps the situation. At the end of the day, if you're an aspiring dictator in the US or UK you need to somehow co-opt a majority of the political establishment and manufacture a degree of popular support.

In Britain, the executive and legislative branches cannot check one another because both are under the control of the prime minister (as long as they enjoy a majority, which is almost always true in a first-past-the-post electoral system).

The prime minster can only control parliament provided he or she broadly follows the wishes of their party. If they go off piste they can be thrown out of office very swiftly, far easier to remove than a President. Right now, you're suck with a Republican presidency right through to 2020 no matter how treasonous and corrupt they turn out to be.

There is no popular mechanism for challenging the government (i.e. referenda and recalls).

Here's how you can get rid of a prime minster under the UK system:

1) Leadership challenge from within own party
2) Party of government loses commons majority through, e.g. by elections or defections
3) Motion of no confidence

How do you get rid of a president in the US? You can only do it if they are literally a criminal, and even then it's a torturous process which is not guaranteed to succeed. It has happened once in US history, whereas in the UK all of the above have happened within living memory.

You know, I was actually thinking recently about what would happen in the UK if we had a Trump like person come to power, and in the end I concluded they the issues would be basically the same: the unwillingness of his own party to actually stand up to the fucker would keep him in power. The one difference is that we'd have a chance of tossing him out early (a very good chance, actually, because a UK version of the 2016 US election would leave Prime Minster Trump-like a small majority) by one of the above means whereas you guys are stuck with either him or his equally vile VP until 2020.

which means the opposition has no role in checking the government.

I see.

[Loki]

Splitting the government into different bits doesn't stop the government acting improperly. It requires different branches of government to cooperate to act improperly rather than a single individual sure, just like under the UK system if you wish to act improperly you need the cooperation of a majority of MPs. I don't understand why you think breaking the government into different bits helps the situation. At the end of the day, if you're an aspiring dictator in the US or UK you need to somehow co-opt a majority of the political establishment and manufacture a degree of popular support.

Except the US equivalent to a majority of corrupt MPs would be a majority of corrupt Congressmen (from the House alone). In the US, you'd need 3 state-wide elections over a span of 6 years to get a corrupt Senate, a district-wide election to get a corrupt House, a national election combined with an electoral college vote to get a corrupt president, and decades of judicial appointments to get a corrupt judiciary. Then you'd need to repeat the process at the state level. In the UK, you need one general election. Where a party gets a majority of the seats on 40% of the vote.

The prime minster can only control parliament provided he or she broadly follows the wishes of their party. If they go off piste they can be thrown out of office very swiftly, far easier to remove than a President. Right now, you're suck with a Republican presidency right through to 2020 no matter how treasonous and corrupt they turn out to be.

Power is held by the majority party, not the prime minister. What ever that party wants, it gets. Comparing that to the US president is silly. The president is checked by Congress and the courts, and has limited ability to affect policy at the state-level (which is where most laws get passed). Compare the level of change brought about by the first Thatcher prime ministership with that of Trump.

Here's how you can get rid of a prime minster under the UK system:

1) Leadership challenge from within own party
2) Party of government loses commons majority through, e.g. by elections or defections
3) Motion of no confidence

How do you get rid of a president in the US? You can only do it if they are literally a criminal, and even then it's a torturous process which is not guaranteed to succeed. It has happened once in US history, whereas in the UK all of the above have happened within living memory.

1. You're hoping that the party will turn on itself. Not the more reliable check.
2. Won't happen as long as the party is relatively united. You're again depending on a party turning on itself.
3. You're again depending on the majority party turning on itself.

You call these checks? These are all hopes that a substantial number of MPs from the ruling party will vote their conscience, in a system that strongly values party loyalty. Again, as long as the majority party wants something, it gets it.

Getting rid of a president is unnecessary. Virtually each of his moves can be blocked by Congress or the courts. And his powers are already curtailed by a constitution that is difficult to change and by federalism.

You know, I was actually thinking recently about what would happen in the UK if we had a Trump like person come to power, and in the end I concluded they the issues would be basically the same: the unwillingness of his own party to actually stand up to the fucker would keep him in power. The one difference is that we'd have a chance of tossing him out early (a very good chance, actually, because a UK version of the 2016 US election would leave Prime Minster Trump-like a small majority) by one of the above means whereas you guys are stuck with either him or his equally vile VP until 2020.

If Trump had your system, Muslims would already be banned from the US and a wall with Mexico would be under construction.

[Steely Glint]

In the US, the presidency is checked by Congress and the courts

This turned out to be bollocks.

[RandBlade]

And how many other democracies have our track record of evolving success?

[Hazir]

And how many other democracies have our track record of evolving success?

You still didn't learn that boasting of your wonderful ancient system will only end in people pointing out that for most of that history the 'success' didn't go much further than a select group of white men in Great Britain having a say? While at the same time, very often with extreme violence, alll other subjects of your empire were kept from equality? Randy, Randy, Randy....

[RandBlade]

Because I don't see the relevance. Sams for any other Nation hence the word evolving.

Campaigning.bas been suspended due to last night's attack in Manchester.

[Hazir]

Because I don't see the relevance. Sams for any other Nation hence the word evolving.

Campaigning.bas been suspended due to last night's attack in Manchester.

No, that's not the same for every nation; your's in particular ruled an empire in which most of the subjects didn't even amount to second class citizens.