Hacker News Reader

> I increasingly do not recognise our government as one that is in any kind of alignment with my values as a UK citizen or even as just a decent human being.

every single political party in the UK is either for this law, or wants it strengthened. not only that, they're actively criticising the government for being too slow in adopting it.

and in a recent poll a majority want online speech to be regulated: https://inews.co.uk/news/online-safety-freedom-from-abuse-mo...

Labour pledges to toughen ‘weakened and gutted’ online safety bill https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jan/01/labour-pl...

Lib Dems: "However, does she accept that there are major gaps in this Bill? For instance, gaming is not covered. It is not clear whether things such as virtual reality and the metaverse are going to be covered." https://www.parallelparliament.co.uk/mp/munira-wilson/bill/2...

Cross-party support: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/15/online-safety-bi...

I agree. I'm disappointed in particular by Labour's approach to this too.

Similarly they (Labour) are not taking a strong enough position on honestly recognising the state of Brexit because they don't want to alienate their potential pro-brexit voters, nor are they taking a strong stand on a number of other policies which I think they should be.

The conservatives have lurched so far right that I can't help but feel that Labour is having to move in that direction too just to have a fighting chance of winning the next election. But this makes them not an effective enough opposition at the moment. Their strategy is clearly working - see uptick in pro-brexit votes in recent local elections - but I'm not sure at what cost...

So overall, personally, I'm just extremely disillusioned with all political parties right now. We have to recognise that we brought this on ourselves, collectively - such is the nature of democracy - but that doesn't help alleviate my current sense of despair!

> I agree. I'm disappointed in particular by Labour's approach to this too.

why would you expect labour to be better?

they are more authoratitian than the Tories

they brought in the Identity Register, the Terrorism Act (90 day detention without charge), the RIP Act (forced decryption), attempted to remove the right to trial by jury and the defence of double jeopardy

along with countless more

Fair point

labour doesn't surprise me one bit.

but i am surprised by the liberal democrats. i don't really understand why they keep calling themselves "liberal" when for the past years they have been anything but liberal.

> However, you should know that this [liberal democracy] has precisely nothing to do with the Liberal Democrats in the UK. The Liberal Democrats are so named because they're the result of a merger between the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party. The best combination of the names was "Liberal Democrats." -- cpast

https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/7812

That's a meme in politics, the words in party names have nothing to do with the ideas they commonly represent. Names in this space just work according to the "laws" of marketing.

The term liberal is only a magnitude, it's not a vector. In common parlance, people understand it to mean social liberalism, i.e. a proponent of personal freedoms; but in most parties, it's much more likely to refer to economic liberalism, i.e. laissez-faire market policies.

That said, I don't know enough about the UK's political parties to know along what axis the Lib Dems consider themselves to be "liberal".

>The conservatives have lurched so far right that I can't help but feel that Labour is having to move in that direction too just to have a fighting chance of winning the next election.

Oh no, political parties moving in response to the expressed will of the general public in a democracy. What an outrage! How dare a party in a democratic system change its policy to match voter preferences. Won't someone think of the people that know better??

> Oh no, political parties moving in response to the expressed will of the general public in a democracy.

Consider a very simple model of a two party system, expressing views on one left/right axis. Members of the population vote for the political party that is closest to their views on that axis. Political parties want to win as many votes as possible.

Under that model and those assumptions, if one party moves in a particular direction, the 'correct' behaviour for the other party is to move in that direction also to capture more votes, regardless of what the underlying 'will' of the general voting public is.

> political parties moving in response to the expressed will of the general public in a democracy

They dont care about the people, they are simply occupying the political ground that has been abandoned by the other party.

"It's a big club and you ain't in it"

> every single political party in the UK is either for this law

The SNP motioned to have it repealed, they are still, sadly, a party in the UK.

> Not even a majority now, retrospectively, even wanted to leave the EU.

There was a democratic vote in which a majority wanted to leave. Until such a vote is repeated, this is the current state of things. If there was a majority of people in the UK that wanted to join, there’s nothing stopping them from doing so, the EU would probably happily welcome the UK back, albeit on different terms.

You can hate your government all you want, but this is what the majority wanted and supposedly currently wants.

The majority did not vote for leaving the customs union. We have Vote leave representatives swearing they dont want to leave the single market.

> "There was a democratic vote"

Somehow this feels like that XKCD alt text[1] "I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."

If the best thing anyone can say in defense of Brexit is that it was "a democratic vote", that is an implicit concession that there is nothing else worth saying in its favour. There were 100 people on the bus, only 30 bothered to vote, 16 of those voted to drive the bus off a cliff and kill everyone, and now you are compelled to agree with that course of action because "it was a democratic vote"[2] and anything else would be anti-Democratic and therefore bad. It's pretty clear that there was a lot wrong with the vote (it was said to be non-binding then was treated as binding, for example, which may have affected how many people bothered to vote), and the media around it - claims made which have not panned out and the people who made the claims are not being held accountable for their misrepresentation, or the messaging around "control of borders" which (a) we already had, and (b) post-Brexit has more immigration not less, in fact record high levels[3], and etc.

[1] https://xkcd.com/1357/

[2] see also https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tscc3e5eujrsEeFN4/well-kept-... where internet communities drive the bus off the cliff and die due to fear of being called "intolerant".

[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63743259

The UK had 3 different votes on this (the original referendum + 2 elections after), the UK government promised to follow the referendum again and again, and having a poor policy is hardly 'killing everyone'. When push comes to shove, British Remainers simply lost the vote, and Corbyn screwed them over and over afterwards.

See? You have nothing better to say about it than "you simply lost, ha ha". You aren't even trying to argue that anything has improved. (Even Nigel Farage has given up trying to argue that anything has improved!)

You don’t think it’s weird that a majority were in favour of “a democratic vote” and a majority were in favour of the coronation of a new unelected monarch? Or the difference between a Democratic vote and having rules “pushed on us” by Europe’s votes? Or how people in London are closer to Calais than they are to Glasgow and do more trade to Europe but some how see it as us/them?)

(And you are even agreeing that we all got screwed over - but you are somehow blaming a guy from 7 years ago who didn't get elected, rather than the Conservative government in power whose demonstrated behaviour is screwing the ordinary people over and over, decade after decade).

>See? You have nothing better to say about it than "you simply lost, ha ha"

Why would I argue about that? I'm not British. I don't make their decisions, and UK being/not-being in EU has zero effect on me. Devaluing the democratic process will have an effect on me. I kinda want my vote to not be entirely ignored if there's ever a popular referendum in my country (a non-zero possibility due to.. reasons, but the likely issues aren't related to the EU).

>You don’t think it’s weird that a majority were in favour of “a democratic vote” and a majority were in favour of the coronation of a new unelected monarch

The monarch has zero power.

>you are somehow blaming a guy from 7 years ago

I did follow the news. There was an option for the parliament to declare a new government without elections 4 years ago, which could have dramatically shifted from Brexit. This required Corbyn to vote for a compromise candidate to PM since Tory rebels would have never voted for him personally. Guess what happened? He said me or stay with Boris, and the UK ended with the 2020 elections and Boris.

> "Why would I argue about that? I'm not British"

You're happy to join in trying to close down the thread by dumping on the losers, why would you stop at arguing about it?

> "Devaluing the democratic process will have an effect on me."

Unless it involves the monarchy? Or all the other non-democratically run things like the civil service, companies, charities, the courts, etc. which are organised with a single CEO/leader/judge/hierarchy giving orders top down instead of democratically voting. And why would it be "devaluing the democratic process" if the vote had been arranged to require a supermajority instead of a simple majority, for example?

> "The monarch has zero power."

The monarch has power in a self-fulfilling way because they are famous and people listen to what they say; the monarch is Head of the Church of England and has power that way. The Monarch controls enormous wealth - estimated close to half a billion for the monarch and 88 billion for the combined UK royal family and has power and influence that way. They have power through networking with powerful people and organisations such as heading up the Commonwealth of Nations or weekly secret and private meetings with the Prime Minister. Even on a day to day basis the monarch is outside the law when it comes to not needing a passport or driving license and "civil and criminal proceedings cannot be taken against the Sovereign as a person" - are these things not devaluing what it means to live in a democracy, for you? That some people by birth have sovereign immunity to criminal procedings?

> "There was an option for the parliament to declare a new government without elections 4 years ago, which could have dramatically shifted from Brexit. This required Corbyn to vote for a compromise candidate to PM since Tory rebels would have never voted for him personally. Guess what happened? He said me or stay with Boris, and the UK ended with the 2020 elections and Boris."

Hang on, why aren't you blaming the "Tory rebels" for not voting for Corbyn, instead of blaming Corbyn? Why aren't you blaming the Tory government for not stepping down, instead of blaming Corbyn for not stepping down? Why aren't you blaming the Tory government for fucking things up, instead of blaming Corbyn for not saving the day?

>You're happy to join in trying to close down the thread by dumping on the losers, why would you stop at arguing about it?

Because a few of the arguments basically devolve to things that would affect me as explained above? I did get carried away...

>are these things not devaluing what it means to live in a democracy, for you?

Ultimately a democracy can contain single persons having a lot of unearned wealth and occasional meetings with the PM. If not, there are way bigger fish to fry (in the UK case: Murdoch for example). It would have been fine if the UK wanted a supermajority, but I wonder if membership was a politically survivable possibility if vote went the same way.

>Hang on, why aren't you blaming the...

I was describing the sequence of events. The Tories locked themselves into supporting Brexit once Cameron resigned, so the only possible alternative path came from the opposition. There were several opportunities to change course, but the opposition bungled it up over and over even when the had the votes. In my country, it's obvious that when parliament has the votes for an alternative coalition, your duty is to compromise to get the government out, not hold on for PM post.

Meh it’s not that joining and leaving treaties is like having a picnic, while I agree with the democratic sentiment of your message I also think that it would be crazy to allow any majority dictate schizophrenic policies, the difference was under 4%, and it triggered a generational change, is that fair?

Of course not but this is a perfect example of why this type of democracy is a terrible idea.

Putting something like that to a vote was itself insane and stupid.

I don’t think putting it to vote was stupid, but enacting a generational change over a <4% was

It's crazy that if I press ctrl-q my web browser warns me I'm closing so many windows/tabs, but there's no such "are you sure" when it comes to such a major irrevocable decision

What you’re saying is true. And what I said is also true :)

I left Russia 15 years ago and whats happening in UK is what was happening in Russia 15 years ago.

Lile I get when people are racist, i get when they immigrants, but now we ahve MPs bragging that they swam in Sewage. How does that happen???

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-65615711

Much as I love to pile on the Conservatives, he isn't really bragging that he swam in raw sewage or saying "it did me no harm", he's saying that it's not a new problem in the UK.

What I would criticise him on is that a) the dream of the ratchet of progress making things better and better for future generations isn't working, b) it's backsliding, c) it's backsliding under his government's governance.

Maybe i got carried away amongst comments by NPs like 'stop eating tomatoes, eat turnips' and 'if you cant afford a cheese sandwitch, dont have a cheese sandwitch"

(Haha, I did include the cheese sandwich in my comment, but edited it out to stay on topic and stay a bit less politically ranty on HN)

Out of curiosity and with zero background knowledge on what you have communicated here I have a question.

Was there a denial that there would be a problem from mainstream sources? If so, was the cat out of the bag moment followed by 'nuthin burger' from the same sources?

That's what seems to happen in Canada at least.

Regarding the previous legislation which led to the wrongful arrest of protestors, a number of human rights organisations issued warnings about it before it was passed.

For example:

> UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, called the Public Order Bill “deeply troubling legislation”, after it completed its passage through parliament on Wednesday.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/04/1136107

In fact, the UK category of the UN news feed makes for pretty embarassing reading in general, speaking as a Brit:

https://news.un.org/en/tags/united-kingdom

Mainstream news sources (at least the ones I follow, I'll admit a left-leaning bias there) were all shouting about how this was the inevitable conclusion of the legislation, to be countered by ministers appearing to say that no, of course it wouldn't be abused.

> followed by 'nuthin burger' from the same sources? That's what seems to happen in Canada at least.

Didn't the government just suspend the constitution (that's a thing over there?) because of some peaceful, free-speech protected, protests in the capital and start arbitrary freezing protester's bank accounts?

> I increasingly do not recognise our government as one that is in any kind of alignment with my values as a UK citizen or even as just a decent human being.

Why not simply vote with your feet and move to SV. There are a lot of Brits here, and a lot looking to move here. It's the only way it will change.

Peasant: How goes the war Majesty?

King: It goes well!, We're winning!

Peasant: So why are we so poor?

King: You're losing

[some cartoon, long forgotten the source for it]

I thought all this shit would've disappeared when Theresa May stepped down

It comes and goes in cycles, all the way back to America's attempts with key-escrow (the "clipper chip"), and more.

A few years pass, and somebody will say "But think of the children (abusers)", or "The terrorists can plot & plan, and we need to read their messages to stop that".

Freedom and security exist in perpetual tension. This is why we need to take security breaches in stride, put them in perspective. Imagine giving up 5% growth because someone killed .000001% of your population! And yet, that's exactly what countries do. The histamine reaction to violence is many OOM worse than the violence.

If that's too politically charged, the same effect happens when there's a shark attack. Never mind it almost never happens, world-wide, and has negligible impact on the human population, but when an attack occurs suddenly there's an outcry to spend millions on patrols, shark hunts, whatever. Millions that could have been spent on much more pressing needs, like feeding malnourished kids or researching a Covid vaccine. And putting pressure on wildlife that is already under pressure. It's always a poor decision, but it plays to the voters.

Who can read this riddle?

The Conservatives recognize that they are probably set to lose the next general election, so clearly had to speed up the timeline on implementing their facist policies while they've still got the time left in power. Saying that, it seems to be in favor for both parties, so who's to say what happens with this.

That's what you get when you're the subject (not citizen - SUBJECT) of a crown that increasingly is disinterested in using its power to protect the people.

British subjects are very rare, and have been since the '80s: https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-subj...

I just checked my UK passport and it says "Nationality: British Citizen".

https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progre...

>Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:

>There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.=

From the guidelines:

> Eschew flamebait. [...]. Omit internet tropes.