undefined | Better HN

0 pointsorra2y ago0 comments

> Ironically, this was largely done by self-declared leftists

Eh, the Parliament Act 1911 was passed by a Liberal Government.

> who utterly failed to anticipate how fascism could easily manifest through such a system.

The Liberal Party, and its successor the Liberal Democrats, has long been in favour of electoral reform.

0 comments

toyg2y ago

> Parliament Act 1911 was passed by a Liberal Government

... sustained by Labour MPs, and mostly in order to bust a ironclad Tory majority in the Lords that was effectively "ruining" every progressive bill.

It was then further strengthened in 1949 (Lab) and 1999 (Lab).

I mean, there is no shame in this: it was a worthy and progressive cause to drag a XVIII-century model (kicking and screaming) into modernity. It's just a shame that the execution was fairly poor, particularly in 1999 - when there was a unique chance to build something more theoretically sound, and (unlike 1911) there was a lot of history to learn from.

orraOP2y ago

This is useful context, however I wanted to make clear it was the 1911 Act that made the supremacy of the Commons; as you say it was further strengthened in 1949, by shortening the veto timescales.

Labour's position changing from 'abolish the house of lords' originally, to 'get rid of some hereditary peers' in 1999 was incredibly poor, as you say.

blibble2y ago

and the RIP Act was passed by a Labour government

(and the Terrorism Act)

kevviiinn2y ago

From what I've heard, the UK Labour party does absolutely nothing for labor. They're turning into the US democrats

toyg2y ago

It's not that "they're turning", it already happened. Tony Blair and Bill Clinton shared political platforms almost precisely.

A recent effort to go "back to their roots" (the Corbyn years) ended with a stalinesque purge of such leader. Sadly this leaves free reign for upstart neonazi and neonazi-adjacent parties (BNP, UKIP, Brexit Party/Reform UK...) to rip through traditional Lab heartlands.

1 more reply

orraOP2y ago

Yes, but we were discussing the supremacy of the House of Commons.

vintermann2y ago

I think most of us agree that lack of enough aristocratic rule isn't the source of UK's problems.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

toyg2y ago

> Parliament Act 1911 was passed by a Liberal Government

... sustained by Labour MPs, and mostly in order to bust a ironclad Tory majority in the Lords that was effectively "ruining" every progressive bill.

It was then further strengthened in 1949 (Lab) and 1999 (Lab).

orraOP2y ago

This is useful context, however I wanted to make clear it was the 1911 Act that made the supremacy of the Commons; as you say it was further strengthened in 1949, by shortening the veto timescales.

Labour's position changing from 'abolish the house of lords' originally, to 'get rid of some hereditary peers' in 1999 was incredibly poor, as you say.

blibble2y ago

and the RIP Act was passed by a Labour government

(and the Terrorism Act)

kevviiinn2y ago

From what I've heard, the UK Labour party does absolutely nothing for labor. They're turning into the US democrats

toyg2y ago

It's not that "they're turning", it already happened. Tony Blair and Bill Clinton shared political platforms almost precisely.

1 more reply

orraOP2y ago

Yes, but we were discussing the supremacy of the House of Commons.

vintermann2y ago

I think most of us agree that lack of enough aristocratic rule isn't the source of UK's problems.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse