I recall years ago when Wikileaks did the big release of diplomatic cables that many of them were better characterized as instances of officials speaking honestly, rather than information that could create a threat to national security.
As Yes Minister put it, The Official Secrets Act doesn't exist to protect secrets, it exists to protect officials.
In fairness, keeping honest communications from the public can serve a purpose. There is strong pressure to avid saying things that makes the government look bad, which means if you can't say those things in private, you won't say them at all. And if your officials can't question official narratives, then you might (for example) think you can easily defeat a nearby country and get your military stuck in an disastrous invasion.
On the other hand, the public needs to know what a government is up to to hold them democratically accountable, so there is a real tension there.
For what its worth, I think Phillip H is right here. Building things attracts attention- it gives politicians an opportunity to show off that they're "getting things done". But nobody gets photo ops for maintenance - people just assume something will work forever until it actually fails and its easy to assume you won't be in office any more by the time that actually happens.
Warhammer 40K's setting is a good setting for miniature wargames, because it gives a plausible reason why any army might fight any other army (even ones that are in-principle on the same side), which helps make tournament or pick-up games make more sense. It honestly doesn't need to do any more than that.
This is one of the things that confuses me about US politics. In New Zealand, the National party has much stronger support in the country than in cities, but it still works to win votes in cities, because that's where all the voters are.
I assume this is a product of the US's primary system, The National party's MPs choose its leader, so they can pick someone who want sot win elections, while Republican politicians get appointed by the party's most extreme supporters.
While I very much prefer parliamentary system, recall strikes me as a good way to limit the harm a bad directly-elected leader can cause. And of course, recall can be beneficial even if its never used, because the threat of it can concentrate the mind wonderfully.
Voters will also get get of constant PM rotations, so it still works against them, and the last thing you want is to incentivise parties to stand by unsuitable PMs.
The voters can't force an election directly, but Parliament is incentivized to worry about what voters think of the PM. As voters do not vote for the PM directly, if the PM is performing badly that will be reflected in low votes for their party at the next election. That hurts the MPs of that party by jeopardising their careers. On top of that, because they are appointed by Parliament, the PM has no democratic legitimacy of their own. This means that Parliament can simply remove an under-performing PM with no real push-back by the voters.
Oh, and you think we've been getting that from the US lately? The fact that dangerous lunatics can be elected President and there is no meaningful way of removing them except for praying for them to keel over dead is supposed to reassure us?
Mid-50s is pretty standard for a world leader, so its really only Truss and Sunak that are young. I think its probably two factors - for one they've had high turnover so they've had to reach deeper down their bench. The second fact is Brexit. With Brexit, the people of the UK asked for a contradiction - they wanted a government to do do a foolish thing and have good things result from it. I can imagine this might make some of the more experienced Conservative politicians reluctant to have to wear the disaster that is unfolding.
Yeah, people want to assign single causes to a given event, but natural systems are simply too complicated for that to work. Strictly speaking, climate change doesn't make anything happen, but it contribute to almost everything.
It's less to do with the election as the lack of caucus support.
Prime Ministers in a parliamentary democracy don't have legitimacy in and of themselves, it's Parliament that is elected and that is what has legitimacy. Prime Ministers are only legitimate to the extent that they have the backing of Parliament.
This is why I'm so against the trend in past decade to make party leaders elected by the membership rather than the party's caucus. To me it seems like something copied from presidential systems (the US in particular), which is a mistake as presidential democracy is the weaker model.
Political faction != political party. Indeed, that misconception is exactly what I'm criticising. Any political party that isn't absolutely tiny will have many constituencies that support it. These constituencies may all agree that their party is better than the other party, but they will undoubtedly have policy preferences that conflict in some places. That idea is what I am taking issue with - that everyone who votes for the Democrats (or for that matter the Republicans) will all support the exact same policy goals, rather than party politics being about an ongoing political mediation between allied but distinct groups.
I blame the influence of Marx for this. If your model of political conflict is the Marxist Dialectic, naturally you will think of politics as being about conflict two, stable, mutually antagonistic factions.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Weekend Plans Post: A Glimpse Into Another Life”
Yeah, I've been eating very soft foods all week, I think I'm finally at the point where I can cook some chips in my air fryer tonight.
"
I had my wisdom teeth out on Tuesday, so this weekend is (hopefully) the rest of my recovery.
On “The Babyproofed Society: The Urge to Eliminate Risk From American Life”
You know, the more I think about this, the more plausible it sounds.
On “‘Not As Bad As Trump’ Is A Lousy Excuse”
As Yes Minister put it, The Official Secrets Act doesn't exist to protect secrets, it exists to protect officials.
In fairness, keeping honest communications from the public can serve a purpose. There is strong pressure to avid saying things that makes the government look bad, which means if you can't say those things in private, you won't say them at all. And if your officials can't question official narratives, then you might (for example) think you can easily defeat a nearby country and get your military stuck in an disastrous invasion.
On the other hand, the public needs to know what a government is up to to hold them democratically accountable, so there is a real tension there.
On “The Nationwide Ground Stop Explained”
For what its worth, I think Phillip H is right here. Building things attracts attention- it gives politicians an opportunity to show off that they're "getting things done". But nobody gets photo ops for maintenance - people just assume something will work forever until it actually fails and its easy to assume you won't be in office any more by the time that actually happens.
On “It’s Warhammer 40,000 Time”
Warhammer 40K's setting is a good setting for miniature wargames, because it gives a plausible reason why any army might fight any other army (even ones that are in-principle on the same side), which helps make tournament or pick-up games make more sense. It honestly doesn't need to do any more than that.
On “Twitter Moves From Moderation to Free Speech And Back Again”
I was going to say something similar, but I know a lot less about this than you, so thanks for providing all that detail.
On “About Last Night: Beige Trickle Election Results Edition”
This is one of the things that confuses me about US politics. In New Zealand, the National party has much stronger support in the country than in cities, but it still works to win votes in cities, because that's where all the voters are.
I assume this is a product of the US's primary system, The National party's MPs choose its leader, so they can pick someone who want sot win elections, while Republican politicians get appointed by the party's most extreme supporters.
On “Ten Second News Links and Open Thread for the week of 10/24/22”
Also, the pardons were always more of a symbolic gesture. The rescheduling of marijuana will be where the real action is.
On “Boris Johnson Drops Comeback Bid, Rishi Sunak Poised For UK PM”
While I very much prefer parliamentary system, recall strikes me as a good way to limit the harm a bad directly-elected leader can cause. And of course, recall can be beneficial even if its never used, because the threat of it can concentrate the mind wonderfully.
"
Yeah, imagine if bad leaders were gotten rid of instead of just being quietly tolerated. What a wacky and implausible world.
"
Voters will also get get of constant PM rotations, so it still works against them, and the last thing you want is to incentivise parties to stand by unsuitable PMs.
"
By way of example, the oldest MP in our Parliament is 70.
"
The voters can't force an election directly, but Parliament is incentivized to worry about what voters think of the PM. As voters do not vote for the PM directly, if the PM is performing badly that will be reflected in low votes for their party at the next election. That hurts the MPs of that party by jeopardising their careers. On top of that, because they are appointed by Parliament, the PM has no democratic legitimacy of their own. This means that Parliament can simply remove an under-performing PM with no real push-back by the voters.
"
Oh, and you think we've been getting that from the US lately? The fact that dangerous lunatics can be elected President and there is no meaningful way of removing them except for praying for them to keel over dead is supposed to reassure us?
"
Mid-50s is pretty standard for a world leader, so its really only Truss and Sunak that are young. I think its probably two factors - for one they've had high turnover so they've had to reach deeper down their bench. The second fact is Brexit. With Brexit, the people of the UK asked for a contradiction - they wanted a government to do do a foolish thing and have good things result from it. I can imagine this might make some of the more experienced Conservative politicians reluctant to have to wear the disaster that is unfolding.
"
In fairness, the last election the conservatives were up against Jeremy Corbin, so it's not like the bar was high.
On “Thursday Throughput: Big Whomping Space Explosion Edition”
Yeah, people want to assign single causes to a given event, but natural systems are simply too complicated for that to work. Strictly speaking, climate change doesn't make anything happen, but it contribute to almost everything.
On “Liz Truss Resigns After Only Weeks as UK Prime Minister”
Given how complete the Conservative failure has been, the party going the way of the Lib Dems would be more than fair.
"
Give it time, these comments are only the tip of the iceberg.
"
It's less to do with the election as the lack of caucus support.
Prime Ministers in a parliamentary democracy don't have legitimacy in and of themselves, it's Parliament that is elected and that is what has legitimacy. Prime Ministers are only legitimate to the extent that they have the backing of Parliament.
This is why I'm so against the trend in past decade to make party leaders elected by the membership rather than the party's caucus. To me it seems like something copied from presidential systems (the US in particular), which is a mistake as presidential democracy is the weaker model.
On “Ten Second News Links and Open Thread for the week of 10/17/22”
I agree, the Essentialist nature of the dialectic is also at play here.
"
Political faction != political party. Indeed, that misconception is exactly what I'm criticising. Any political party that isn't absolutely tiny will have many constituencies that support it. These constituencies may all agree that their party is better than the other party, but they will undoubtedly have policy preferences that conflict in some places. That idea is what I am taking issue with - that everyone who votes for the Democrats (or for that matter the Republicans) will all support the exact same policy goals, rather than party politics being about an ongoing political mediation between allied but distinct groups.
"
You misunderstand me, two factions is too few, not too many.
"
I blame the influence of Marx for this. If your model of political conflict is the Marxist Dialectic, naturally you will think of politics as being about conflict two, stable, mutually antagonistic factions.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.