The English constitution

What Hacker News says

1. cafardMay 2012
   Bagehots "The English Constitution" is freely available on-line at gutenberg.org (among other places). It makes the useful distinction between the efficient and ceremonial parts of government. At the time it was written, the House of Lords had a good deal more power than it has had since about 1910, but the book is still worth reading.
   thread
2. scrlkMar 2026
   As Walter Bagehot wrote in The English Constitution: "An ancient and ever-altering constitution is like an old man who still wears with attached fondness clothes in the fashion of his youth: what you see of him is the same; what you do not see is wholly altered."

   Absent ideological capture, it is perhaps one of the best forms of government ever created due to its pragmatic nature and its Lindyness is proof.

   thread
3. nindalfApr 2021
   I think it’s interesting that you’d blame this family for the horrors of colonialism. They haven’t had a say in British policy for around 2 centuries. Although the monarch meets the Prime Minister every week, they cannot tell the PM what to do, unless it affects the royal family personally. The PM listens to what they have to say but charts their own course.

   If you’re looking for someone to blame, Churchill deserves some. Many Prime Ministers before him as well.

   But I don’t think Philip deserves any. You call them a symbol, that’s all they are. They’re someone to point at and say “yeah that’s our country”, so no single politician can claim that mantle. As an Indian you must be aware how easy it is for a politician to claim they’re the personification of the nation (“India is Indira and Indira is India”). That cannot happen in the UK because the PM is merely a temporary caretaker appointed by the monarch. The symbolism matters.

   Source: The English Constitution by Walter Bagehot (1867)

   Show morethread
4. alangibsonJul 2020
   UBI reminds me of Bagehot's statement on the English Constitution being split into two parts: the dignified and the efficient.

   It's also useful to think about the economy as being divided in two halves: one that keeps people alive by making available basics like food and shelter (the efficient), and the other that is where we pursue our hopes and dreams (the dignified). UBI plays in the first half by making sure people can at least subsist. They may then choose to what degree they participate in the second half.

   If you just want a few extra creature comforts, then you can do gig work when you need it. If you dream big, then start prepping to interview at a FAANG while UBI pays the rent on a modest apartment.

   Show morethread
5. randomname2Feb 2017
   A fantastic read on the so called 'Deep state' is "National Security and Double Government" [1] by Michael J. Glennon in the Harvard Law School National Security Journal.

   Abstract:

   "National security policy in the United States has remained largely constant from the Bush Administration to the Obama Administration. This continuity can be explained by the “double government” theory of 19th-century scholar of the English Constitution Walter Bagehot. As applied to the United States, Bagehot’s theory suggests that U.S. national security policy is defined by the network of executive officials who manage the departments and agencies responsible for protecting U.S. national security and who, responding to structural incentives embedded in the U.S. political system, operate largely removed from public view and from constitutional constraints. The public believes that the constitutionally-established institutions control national security policy, but that view is mistaken.

   Judicial review is negligible; congressional oversight is dysfunctional; and presidential control is nominal. Absent a more informed and engaged electorate, little possibility exists for restoring accountability in the formulation and execution of national security policy."

   [1] http://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Glennon-Fin...

   Show morethread
6. ccostesOct 2016
   Link has an extra semicolon at the end. Here's a working version: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2376272

   EDIT: Just looking through the abstract I agree that it is a very scary assessment.

   Abstract:

   National security policy in the United States has remained largely constant from the Bush Administration to the Obama Administration. This continuity can be explained by the “double government” theory of the 19th-century scholar of the English Constitution, Walter Bagehot. As applied to the United States, Bagehot’s theory suggests that U.S. national security policy is defined by the network of executive officials who manage the departments and agencies responsible for protecting U.S. national security and who, responding to structural incentives embedded in the U.S. political system, operate largely removed from public view and from constitutional constraints. The public believes that the constitutionally-established institutions control national security policy, but that view is mistaken. Judicial review is negligible; congressional oversight is dysfunctional; and presidential control is nominal. Absent a more informed and engaged electorate, little possibility exists for restoring accountability in the formulation and execution of national security policy.

   Show morethread