UK Election 8th of June

[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.

[Hazir]

No nation anywhere in the world met modern standards of democracy all throughout it's history. Even if you discount the Empire, Britain wouldn't have been called a democracy in today's world until right up until after World War I, because of restrictions on who could vote. That was also not the point Randblade was making, but I wouldn't expect you to see that past the enormous collection of chips you carry on your shoulder.

Anyway, if you want to list the numerous hypocrisies of the British why don't you, rather than constantly shitting up the election thread, go and start a new one? I look forward to not reading it.

It's highly amusing to see you go ape shit every time I challenge Randblade's British Empire 2.0 bull crap. Like showing how you don't get that pointing out the non-democratic nature of the British Empire is perfectly valid after a jingoist like Randblades parades out 1000 years of Britain being a paragon of human rights and democracy. You may have noticed that I didn't mention any other imperialist nation in my posts. That could be different if a German would start telling here that Germany has given this world nothing but Music and Arts for over a millenium.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[RandBlade]

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.

Yes we evolve with the times, that is part of the reason why our system has stood the test of time. Evolution is a good thing. Still doesn't mean there aren't checks or balances as LittleFuzzy wrote.

The Scottish Parliament was not just "suddenly" created, two decades before the referendum that created the Scottish Parliament there was another referendum to create a Scottish Parliament that failed, its failure was one of the key reasons behind the collapse of the 1979 Labour government (without its failure Labour would not have lost the No Confidence vote in the Commons in 1979 that triggered an early election).

The idea that the PM holds absolute authority is a myth and would be news to Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair and David Cameron that were all either replaced mid-term or faced a leadership challenge mid-term. There has not been a PM in my entire lifetime who has served a full term of Parliament without facing some form of a leadership challenge: Thatcher and Major faced literal leadership challenges that went to a vote, Cameron's more indirect via the split in the EU referendum which he lost and Blair's was a case of people in his party saying announce your resignation or we are challenging you and he resigned rather than fight on.

[LittleFuzzy]

Yes we evolve with the times, that is part of the reason why our system has stood the test of time. Evolution is a good thing. Still doesn't mean there aren't checks or balances as LittleFuzzy wrote.

I said I thought you had non-structural checks. But I also explicitly said I thought you had no balances.

[RandBlade]

Fair enough, I apologise.

[RandBlade]

This amused me given the lefts propensity to disown Blair now and the Liberals penchant for dodgy barcharts in election leaflets.

[Steely Glint]

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.

In terms of number of people you'd need to corrupt, the numbers are basically the same. So it's spread out over different elections instead of just one, what difference is that supposed to make? "Ooh, I want to be on the take but I'm in the Senate not the House, so I can't be "

Corruption is systemic, it's not just one-off bad dudes that can be stopped by an org. chart.

Power is held by the majority party, not the prime minister. What ever that party wants, it gets.

I hear the Parties always agree on what they want.

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.

The same criticisms could be levelled at your system. You were making basically the same point in the Trump thread; that impeachment is a political process and the chances of impeaching Trump rely on the Republican political cost/benefit analysis of the impeachment process not the truth of the accusations against Trump.

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.

There's still a lot a president powers a president does have, and I don't even then I don't think being unable to remove a criminal from the highest office in the land for four years is much of a consolation. Even if you could completely stop them from acting, how is having the office of the president effectively vacant for four years a feature?

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

Right, because governments have never had their legislative agenda thwarted by the commons/lords before. You should ask Gordon Brown about that.

And I really wonder how much the failure of those two projects was down to the protections of the constitution and how much can be attributed to Trump's incompetence.

[Ominous Gamer]

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...-a7744176.html

*sigh*

Your officials are already using the bombing to push this through.

You guys are fucked.

[RandBlade]

Hardly a surprise considering its precisely for things like the bombing that the government has been pushing that for a long time now.

[Steely Glint]

Your officials are already using the bombing to push this through.

You guys are fucked.

You'd think the whole wannacry fiasco would have tipped these clowns off that this was a bad idea.

Hardly a surprise considering its precisely for things like the bombing that the government has been pushing that for a long time now.

Well, not a surprise to me because I usually default to thinking the worst of the Tories, but I'm surprised you're not surprised.

[RandBlade]

I'm neither ignorant nor a blindly loyal partisan. I back the Tories because they represent better what I believe in better, where they don't do what I believe in I'm more than happy to say "this is wrong" rather than change my beliefs.

"Orange Book" Lib Dems could have swung my vote but the Lib Dems are just a joke under "Mr Gay Sex is a Sin".

[Steely Glint]

In a recent yougov poll, Labour have narrowed the gap to 5%.

More fallout from the Tory 'Fuck All the Things' manifesto, most likely. Lib/Lab coalition seeming like a remote possibility if this trend continues (still don't think Labour can win outright without Scotland), though I expect other polls to show a greater lead by the Tories and for the actual result on election day to show the Tories out performing their polls.

Quite remarkable given it was generally expected that the Tories would get a massive landslide. I really hope May fails to increase her majority or even loses it. There are a lot of policies the Tories want to implement at the moment that really need to be blocked.

[RandBlade]

Lib/Lab/SNP coalition surely, if not just a Lab/SNP. Is that something you'd really want, a coalition of Jeremy Corbyn and Alex Salmond?

[Steely Glint]

It's not something I *really* want, no, but it's better than May.

[RandBlade]

You just jumped the shark.

[Steely Glint]

Oh well, if you think I've jumped the shark I'd really better rethink things.

Oh wait, no, the exact opposite of that...

[Khendraja'aro]

Well, it takes a shark-jumper to know a fellow shark-jumper after all...

[Aimless]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-austra...ource=facebook

RB is misreporting the event as usual

[Steely Glint]

Twitter Link

[Steely Glint]

LOL, the Economist just endorsed the Lib Dems instead of the Tories as they did at the past two elections.

[Aimless]

The Economist is a leftist rag

[Steely Glint]

I read their editorial about it. It was pretty funny. Like, oh, are we still pretending that the Free Market is Sacred and mustn't be interfered with or else disaster will befall us? The early 2000s called, they want their version of conservatism back.

[Hazir]

It would be a bit of a laugh if these elections return a hung parliament.

[Steely Glint]

That would be worth a chuckle or two, but it's not going to happen. I'd call 5%-10% victory for May.