You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
As is probably clear from my recent posts, I've become increasingly disenfranchised by the concept of democracy. This is not good in a year where a greater percentage of the globe's population are voting than ever before.
The rise and election success of populist politicians. Voting systems where parties and leaders are focussing their appealling to tiny proportions of the population in swing constituencies. A general race to the bottom. My general mood is that democracy seems to be about appealling to people too daft and poorly informed to justify a place in bringing governments to power. Reading Rory Stewart's 'Politics on the Edge' was a depressing insight into the running of government too.
Obviously the alterative is no alternative. I was going to flippantly suggest a democracy where to vote required an IQ and general knowledge test so governments were brought to power by people who had a clue and the standard of debate might go up, but obviously that doesn't stand much scrutiny either.
I think I might just keep out of political threads for the moment. I'm no good for them, and they are no good for me just now. Just thinking about it makes me increasingly disrespectful of my fellow humans.
‘Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’
Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947
Very good.
Obviously the alterative is no alternative. I was going to flippantly suggest a democracy where to vote required an IQ and general knowledge test so governments were brought to power by people who had a clue and the standard of debate might go up, but obviously that doesn’t stand much scrutiny either.
I do know what you mean. But believing a load of rubbish, that the evidence contradicts, because it fits your world view is really common. IQ does not protect you from this.
https://www.globalcognition.org/intelligence-and-cognitive-bias/
Democracy with current electoral practice mean that the other half of the electorate gets something they don't want like the current crop of corrupt knuckle daggers.
May be if we had an electoral system that was consensus based rather than adversarial, government might be more representative. Some form of transferable vote system?
I think I might just keep out of political threads for the moment. I’m no good for them, and they are no good for me just now. Just thinking about it makes me increasingly disrespectful of my fellow humans.
It's been covered before but many of us have reached a "can't be arsed" stage, not just with politics but with other important things too. Sometimes I think it's just better to concentrate my energy on things I can affect and not get bogged down with everyone else. It's selfish, and not good for society/the planet, but there you go.
Popularism is having it's moment in the sun but it won't last. Offering simple solutions to complex problems is fine whilst you're yelling them from the sidelines. When you're elected and fail to enact the changes you've long promised are easy to achieve, the wheels fall off and even the thickest voters see you for what you are. I hope...
Just finished reading Tom Holland’s Rubicorn describing Rome’s “democracy in the period leading up to Julius Ceaser becoming emperor.
It is apparent, then like now, that democratic politicians buy elections, promise things they don’t intend to do, populists will sway the masses, and a few good principled politicians will be subverted by those who just like money and power. But at some level the voters have an opportunity to boot out a political group if their direction or corruption becomes too awful.
It is also apparent from the history of Roman Emperors that the alternative system of an absolute leader is substantially worse.
Why is it unpopular to admit that the entire political system isn't fit for purpose?
You've missed out the routine political corruption, the tilting of the table toward corporate interests and the complete failure to deliver by the govt (supposed professionals) on promises they base their entire manifestos on. Again and again.
In my opinion, anyone who still thinks we live in a legitimate, functional democracy is a complete sap and you deserve everything we get. Shame we'll all get it.
Surely democracy is the least worse option? FPTP is pants as the minority get all the power but even with PR, there's a chunk of the electorate disenfranchised for the next parliamentary term. Culture wars and MSM / Social Media manipulation may render true democracy even more vulnerable to being bought and sold than ever before but who wants a coup, Junta or Politburo with a Kim or Vlad type ruling for life?
Obviously different if my benevolent self woz in charge....
A functioning democracy is the least worst option. Let's start from there. Politicians with financial interests in policy direction should be barred. Step 1.
Who was it who said, you can have your democracy providing I can choose the candidates?
Like many things in life, it's a spectrum. The real discussion is where do we actually sit between democracy and the illusion of democracy?
Policy is directed vie white papers by thinktanks who are funded by gigantic financial interests. That's about as undemocratic as it gets, when you include that politicians in key positions serve corporate interests. You know this is true by the reliable frequency with which they take positions in the privately sector once they have outlived their public usefulness.
*via
*privately sector. Yes.
Can we at least make it to 200 years of democracy in Britain before giving up on it? Just 8 more years.
Don't forget 'Democracy' is quite a large generic umbrella term that encompases various flavours. FPTP V's PR for example.
It's fairly clear that FPTP pretty much results in a 2 party binary system, hence the UK flip flopping between Conservative and Labour every time the population gets too annoyed with party A or B, it's always either party A or B that gets elected.
PR is an enticing option, it will allow a few more MPs on the very fringes of sanity, which is not good but it should keep those more toward the middle ground more sensible but overall the vast majority of MPs elected should be more representative of the population in general.
The 3 line whip system in the UK for example is a travesty..it forces MP's to vote a certain way regardles of thier opinions, or the opinions of thier constituents, it's either that or lose your job, pretty much, that's not really democracy.
How can we reduce the influence wielded by the biased media?
Better education, especially in terms of critical thinking... there is a school of thought that if you keep the population dumb enough and fighting over smaller problems between smaller factions it can be used to great advantage by a rulling party. Therefore there is a lot to gain by underfunding the education system, health system, and local councils etc...
When you have a population that struggles to differentiate a simple thing like the difference between fact and opinion, you have a huge problem.
Democracy is to nations what rum is to enlisted seamen, it's a sedative to prevent anarchy/mutiny at the total lack of real choice in our governors and their ineptitude.
Democracy is to nations what rum is to enlisted seamen, it’s a sedative to prevent anarchy/mutiny at the total lack of real choice in our governors and their ineptitude.
I disagree, The UK version of democracy needs work, the USA system needs a lot of work!
But let's say for arguments sake, that I do agree... what would be your suggestion for a better system, what would success look like to you?
As is probably clear from my recent posts, I’ve become increasingly disenfranchised by the concept of democracy.
I don't reckon it's the concept of democracy you (or indeed most people) have a problem with. It's the implementation of said concept as a real life system of government.
Democracy isn't a bad concept, what seems to have muddied the water for us (IMO) is capitalism plus a dash of 'Neo-liberalism' meaning that democratic processes can easily be corrupted or subverted by those with money.
You'll find good old filthy money somewhere close to the root of modern democracy's failings IME.
My 2pence worth.
I wonder if there are times pure (majority) democracy isn't always the best vehicle for decision making. Such as if it went to a vote capital punishment would be reintroduced. And something like Brexit would arguably need a supermajority.
Armando Iannucci nailed it years ago
PR, wherever it’s used in other countries, always seems to end up as an almost endless series of compromises where a number of parties try to accommodate a bunch of different interests and demands in order to reach a working consensus by making compromises and concessions, and which almost always collapse into chaos in relatively short periods of time.
Italy seemed to have a different government every six months at one time, and there are a number of other countries at the moment whose governments have collapsed in chaos and bickering. At least we do have more than just a two-party system like America, although the Electoral College there basically guarantees a non-democratic result because it’s loaded towards the right-wing GOP and their wealthy donors.
PR, wherever it’s used in other countries, always seems to end up as an almost endless series of compromises
That is a good thing, no? without compromise and consensus... in other words, agreement, what else can we have?
At least we do have more than just a two-party system like America
I'm not so sure about that.
I mean, if you have a magical wand to wave, you're leaving it a bit too late to wave it!
Please tell us, you who are so wise, in the ways of politics, what is your grand ideal? what is your vision of utopia?
I wonder if there are times pure (majority) democracy isn’t always the best vehicle for decision making.
Democracy isn't about the best vehicle for decision making, it's about giving everyone the opportunity to participate in choosing the government. Even when you don't get the government you want, there's still legitimacy because you were allowed to vote for your preference and you will have the opportunity to vote against the government at the next election. When people don't accept that the government is legitimate and aren't given the opportunity to vote it out, they will take up arms to overthrow it, so you end up with a civil war. It's very easy to rant about governments that you dislike, but when you realize that the alternative to democracy is civil war, democracy starts to look a lot better. (And, for what it's worth, I think a proportional representation system with coalition governments who openly bargain and compromise is much better than FPTP.)
Very well put.
Maybe we need to split into regions that best suit how you think society should work so the votes and wants of one group of people do not affect others society.
Over simplifying it for UK we could have a left, centre and right and you live where suits you best.
As a tory hating person why should I have to put up with a tory government for ~70% of my life so far.
Would be an interesting experiment as I would imagine those people who are ignorantly voting for a party (a lot of people) would soon find themselves wanting to move region.
As a tory hating person why should I have to put up with a tory government for ~70% of my life so far.
Labour have not put forward candidates and policies that persuade enough people to vote for them. If you want that to change, join the Labour party and work towards having your ideas adopted as policies. I think that the Tories have been a disaster for the U.K., but turning against democracy is not going to improve things.
Democracy isn’t the problem, education is.
Maybe we need to split into regions that best suit how you think society should work so the votes and wants of one group of people do not affect others society.
Over simplifying it for UK we could have a left, centre and right and you live where suits you best.
As a tory hating person why should I have to put up with a tory government for ~70% of my life so far.
Would be an interesting experiment as I would imagine those people who are ignorantly voting for a party (a lot of people) would soon find themselves wanting to move region.
Wasn't that one of MTG's more recent Brain farts?
Basically Let the 'Red states' secede so they could go fully fascist on their own terms and all the LGBTQ and Brown people could just flee while Q loving Militia take over.
It would be an "interesting experiment" in the same way as the Warsaw Ghetto was.
It would be an “interesting experiment” in the same way as the Warsaw Ghetto was.
Or you could visit Portland and see how the Blue States do business.
For balance, of course.
Said it many times but representative democracy doesn’t work. It provides the illusion that voters hold the power when in reality it ensures they have very little. If giving voters power to decide what’s in their best interest is the goal, then how does giving elected representatives carte blanche to do what they like serve that aim? The answer is more direct involvement of voters in policy decisions and less freedom for MPs and their parties to make their own decisions.
How can we reduce the influence wielded by the biased media?
How do we stop entities like Cambridge Analytica from interfering with the electoral process?
Comes back to my earlier point about money having undue influence.
My own brain farts on the topic:
The first thing that needs to happen is cutting the direct ties between politicians and the media. The point of interface is the appointed press officer, no writing 'editorials' or 'opinion pieces' or moonlighting on GBN. Media meddling comes under member's interests IMO. Any MP found to have directly contacted a media representative outside of an interview or press conference arranged through their parties press officer(s) carries a big kicking in front of a select committee, a fine, suspension and a second offence is a removal from post offence. No more texting chums!
And members interests (mostly financial) should attract a zero tolerance approach. They have a Job, they don't need a second so no consulting or executive directorships on the side while in office.
Shares owned should go into an independently audited trust to manage when they enter office (certainly if they become a minister) to ensure no undue influence and absolutely every contact, chum and association for both the MP and their spouse/partner needs to be reported.
Comms should not be conducted via WhatsApp or texts, and certainly shouldn't be deleted. And an FOI fast track should be setup (and staffed) specifically for government Comms requests so that scrutiny by press and public of the 'mundane' business of government is built in by default...
I also think any MP leaving office should be prevented by law from holding certain jobs i.e. no becoming a director or member of a company board for at least a year. Write your memoirs instead.
Flouting the rules should carry significant fines and potentially prison time.
Basically it needs to be made such an embuggerance and the risk/reward calculation skewed so hard towards risk, that you might actually coax honest people with a desire to do good for their community into the commons rather than grifting old boys with the right school ties and a wives and wall paper habit to fund.
Alongside all of that you'll never kill the propaganda mills but press regulation needs actual teeth, headline lies once fact-checked and proven false need proportionately bigger retractions and apologies, run an unverified bit of bullshit the apologies need to get double the font size, and double the air time, with proportionately big fines to match.
Websites and social media that serve up any sort of news need to have the facility for (independent) fact checking built in and that should come with a direct link to details and a 'traffic light' style marking (Green= factually correct, Amber= significant omissions or distortion of facts presented, Red= outright lies and bullshit).
That last one is probably the hardest in many ways because it means imposing national rules on the veracity of content on foreign (mostly US) companies who have no real love of truth over profit. Of course a larger organisation, say some sort of 'Union' at the continental level, might have the clout to make such things stick, if only we were in such a club eh?
Everything else is within the UK's locus of control, but you'd never implement it, the people you'd need to do it are the corrupt bastards it's targeting...
When you’re elected and fail to enact the changes you’ve long promised are easy to achieve, the wheels fall off
Or course… the smart populist changes the system to rig democracy in their favour (or in the extreme remove much of it completely), and make opposition and scrutiny more difficult… before the public get a chance to get wise.
Or… push through your changes fast without too many further votes getting in the way… ideally in a way that’ll take decades to reverse… after which you’ll be long gone and have taken advantage for yourself, and perhaps your family.
Said it many times but representative democracy doesn’t work. It provides the illusion that voters hold the power when in reality it ensures they have very little. If giving voters power to decide what’s in their best interest is the goal, then how does giving elected representatives carte blanche to do what they like serve that aim? The answer is more direct involvement of voters in policy decisions and less freedom for MPs and their parties to make their own decisions.
An interesting point and perhaps now is the time to start thinking about more 'direct democracy' as you say we get one, in-person vote every five years sends a representative off to enact their interpretation of the people will, but we do kind of have the tools now for MPs to know their constituents opinions better. Why not have a few bits of legislation put up for a phone in vote?
The plebs won't even need to get off the couch, Ant and/or Dec can relay the facts of the topic under consideration (no opinions), Holly whatsername interviews one politician 'for' the proposal, the other one (Vernon's missus) asks questions of an 'against' MP.
Then there's a free phone number to call or text to register your like or dislike of a proposal to.
At the end of the night close the lines and see what the national and regional picture is.
It's not binding and the following week MPs can go through whichever lobby they choose, but they do so knowing in advance how their constituency potentially feels about it...
Works well enough for the X-factor, which is really just a glitzy opinion poll too...
Labour have not put forward candidates and policies that persuade enough people to vote for them. If you want that to change, join the Labour party and work towards having your ideas adopted as policies.
Yeah, very funny.
I don't know if a democracy with poor people, crime, inequality and rubbish services is that much to shout about.
I think you need to link them both to be a great nation.
I don’t know if a democracy with poor people, crime, inequality and rubbish services is that much to shout about.
You can have all of those things with a good democracy, and also none of them with a bad democracy. Or all or none of them with any other form of government. It's just one factor that influences them surely.
You could have one of the best democracies on the planet but if enough people want to vote for politicians that are intent on destroying public services then the result is all the above.
Interesting discussion.
For for me my issue with democracy is deeper than fptp vs pr or even corruption of power and corporate influence. .
I guess the main thrust of what I was trying to articulate is that I've lost faith that the population taken as a whole having the capacity to choose good governance in a democratic system where we all get a vote and are encouraged to use it. Too many are too poorly informed or form their opinion from such narrow view points. Populist politicians are not the cause but the effect.
Put it into a different context; if a family is making life changing decisions do all members of the family get an equal say? Mum has to decide if she'll take the promotion that means she'll be away from home a lot more - does the 5 year old get the casting vote? No, because the 5 year old's reference points are so limited and ability to contextualise is so poor that they their input would be negative. If the 5 year old was promised pizza every Friday night if mummy took the job, the casting vote is done and dusted. It's not that the 5 year old is not loved and cherished, it's just that the family acknowledge they are not yet armed with the capacity to help with the decision making.
I used to be more utopian and believe that the choice of the governance of the nation should be in the hands of all of us - it's that view that's has come unstuck for me. I don't mind people having different views to me. Someone above said they struggled to live in a nation that was 70% Tory in their lifetime when they loathed everything they stood for. For me, I can sort of live with that if I believed the people who voted differently to me did it just by interpreting the same details I had, with as much deliberation, but came to a different conclusion have just much right to an opinion as I do and if there of them than me I have to live with that. What I'm struggling with is the prospect of being walked into oblivion by idiot, poorly informed susceptible voters and an electoral system mainly 'marketing' at a pretty low base of understanding because it has to to be successful.
Democracy, what is it good for?
Most systems are fine regardless whether they Democracy, Dictatorship, Communism, Monarchy, Religious based etc.
The problem is really Not the systems but the people who are in power or put in charged of the system.
Power is a very strong temptation and most cannot resist power if they are given that responsibility.
You can have the best system in the world but if the people who are in power abuse it, then regardless of the system in place it will just be another rotten system.
Therefore, horses for courses.
A similar pattern can be seen for countries further West as well though, just earlier. Is this a good time to mention the EU and its precursors?
people who are in power abuse it
Or in other words, "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"
That thing that democracy should give is some checks and balances on the exercise of power by those elected or the executive/government of the day.
Someone said above that the people we vote for are experts. That's not true, they are just good at persuading people to vote for them.
One of the frightening things in recent years is the attacks on democratic checks (house of lords, judiciary, pretty much all of Americas institutions) on the basis that they are thwarting the "will of the people". Again not true, it's just the people in government don't seem to realise they have do not have absolute power.
Parliament might be sovereign, governments and minsters are not.
@thols2 that graph belongs on the spurious correlations site. Same thing has happened all over the world under all forms of government.
Same thing has happened all over the world under all forms of government.
Not at the same time. Those Eastern/Central European countries were held back for a large chunk of the last century, and then caught up from the fall of the Berlin Wall onwards. The graph for France, Germany, USA, UK etc is a much straighter line starting much earlier.
under all forms of government
Oh, sorry, I missed your more general point… health and life expectancy can and has improved under non-democratic regimes. True. But moving to democracy, and away from the control of Russia, has helped in the countries listed.
That is more about the conditions under the people running country before it split up and not really democracy as those same people could have been voted in, who knows.
Dictatorship is clearly a better option as long as you can find a good dictator. I genuinely believe I could have done a better job as dictator of the UK than the current tory government have. I wouldn't had to have done much would I as what have they actually done that has made anything better for the general public?
It is also apparent from the history of Roman Emperors that the alternative system of an absolute leader is substantially worse.
I don't know. I think Russell Crowe could have made a go of it. Just wasn't to be.
I really don't like FPTP and you can see the nasty effects on the US and UK governments/parties as your main mission is to get selected as a party candidate, and the the most likely person to do this is an extremist , and usually a noisy extremist. You drift away from the centre, and what the majority wants isn't especially important for a few years at least. Social media has just exaggerated this ..
But getting countries away from FPTP isn't easy, or likely to happen as long as it suites those in power.
Obviously direct referenda on a lot of things are a really bad idea and totally open to manipulation.
But the alternatives are worse. I also am not fond of disenfranchising people just because I think they're stupid or ill informed..
I've said this before but I think that voting on your local MP (for whatever reason, even their personality or some other local debate/reason) shouldn't automatically come with a government and a Prime Minister.
I think should be able to vote for your local MP and Prime Minister as two separate votes.
Also, the Prime Minister should staff their cabinet with the best person for the job, from any of the elected MPs, not just their party.
And lastly, MPs should not have another job. You'd think that being an MP would be enough job for anyone.
So essentially we need electoral reform but turkeys don't vote for Christmas.
Do we expect too much from our MPs?
My Polish pal thinks I'm naive to think that politicians should be honest and trust worthy. But maybe that's more a reflection of Polish politics.
Also ban them from Social Media. ****ing sick of 'news' basically being a thread from X. IT's lazy and some people think it's work.
Meh, democracy has its problems, but it all comes down to people rather than the principles, the tories aren't great, but democracy means we have processes in place to stop them doing what they want without thought, that's why we've still got an NHS, why social care is still a big thing and so on, it's why when the likes of Liz Truss tried to go full tory she was out the door in record time. It's why we always here governments like the tories talking about 'cutting back the red tape', they want to remove processes stopping them doing what they want without balances and checks and selling it as the reason why the country has failings, rather than why the country isn't falling faster!
As for FPTP vs PR, they both have flaws, we've seen it throughout the world, it's one thing i don't have too much care about, either does the job, but again, both tend to have flaws, which come to the fore when being used.
I think should be able to vote for your local MP and Prime Minister as two separate votes.
Also, the Prime Minister should staff their cabinet with the best person for the job, from any of the elected MPs, not just their party.
That is simple with a proportional representation system - you allocate half the seats based on local electorates, then use the other half to ensure that the parties get the same proportion of seats in parliament as they got in the nationwide vote. Each voter casts two votes - one for a local MP, the other for a party (which is voting for the party leader to be PM). The party publishes a list of their candidates in rank order and the people on that list are then awarded seats in parliament until their party has filled its quota.
A PM who was directly elected by the popular vote without needing majority support in parliament would be a president, not a prime minister. The parliament would not be able to sack them unless they were convicted of wrongdoing.
Except in wartime, appointing cabinet ministers from outside the ruling party will never be accepted. If you're a member of the winning party, you expect your guys to be running things. Coalition governments obviously require awarding cabinet posts to the junior partners, but that's a different thing to giving them to the opposition. The opposition has members with committee positions, legislation has to work its way through committees so the opposition does have input. On non-controversial matters, there will be bipartisan agreement even if there is public posturing from the opposition against the government.
In the Uk we have the unenviable position of one of the worst forms of democracy and an electorate who largely don’t understand how it works
To the first point before we even get onto the rights and wrongs of electoral systems we still have a monarch who decided to let a government exist and govern. The monarch still has absolute power to shut down parliament at any time and take back direct rule. Will it ever happen, almost certainly not, but that doesn’t mean it cant and in my view shouldn’t. The fact that no law can land on the statue book without the monarchs signature is absurd, especially as they have no obligation to actually sign them if they’d don’t want to.
As for first past the post, it has to be the worst way of electing a parliament because you. Always end up with minority government that really get to 40% of the vote let alone even close to a majority.
To the second point the number of people who think they vote for a party and prime minister is quite frankly shocking. I understand why because all parties like to give that impression and so does the media becuase it suits them all. It is of course not true and all we get to elect is an individual to act as out consituency mp. The party they sit which is upto them, and they can change thier ones without any recourse to the electorate unless they choose to, who become PM after an election is down to what ever process the majority party makes up and decides. There is no guarantee at the time of voting the party leaders will even. Get elected to be eligible to become PM although I accept it is unlikely to happen.
The monarch still has all the power. Will they use it? Almost certainly not, but they still have it hence the way they are exempt from some laws and have others changed to suit themselves. The last time it was overtly used was by Victoria who exited that same sex female relationships weren’t a think hence being gay was only an offence for men and not women.
the key phrase being convention rather than statue
Democracy is a great way of making sure your toast is never butttered the way you like it.
We need a change away from the adversarial politics where two parties whose differences are more apparent than real score "points" by personal attacks on one another or some carefully scripted witicism.
We need more examination of policies and decisions so some form of pr and much more power at the most local level possible
We need more examination of policies and decisions
That's the reason for having an adversarial system. The opposition's job is to question the government and make them justify their policies. In many cases, the opposition will probably agree with the policies but they still need to publicly challenge them.
I feel there has been some loss of understanding between direct democracy and elective democracy.
Too many loud mouthed little englander gammons yelling "We didnt vote for this" "Its not democratic" (See cycle lanes, 20mph speed limits, LTNs)
Correct, you didnt, you elected (in a round about way) someone who appointed someone who actually knows what they are talking about, and with experience and qualification, to make the decisions on your behalf.
just because YOU dont like THIS decision, doesnt make it undemocratic.
I wonder if, when their ruddy faces have frothed into a heart attack, and they end up on an operating table, whether they would like their heart bypass carried out by the popular vote, or by a suitably qualified surgeon.
The problem is that more people can say "I didn't vote for this" than can say they did though as in last election, as always, less than 50% voted for the winning party.
Doesn't sound right that more than 50% don't want whoever is in government does it.
thols2
Full Member
We need more examination of policies and dThat’s the reason for having an adversarial system.
That is the reason for it but the examination of policies and decisions is not happening in the HoC nor in the the debating chamber nor in public debate. We need to get away form personalised politics and culture wars.. We need a new systemy
The debate happens (in select committees and on the floor of both houses), but with a majority of MPs and a certain attitude, it can all be ignored by the executive chosen by a minority of voters. It's also mostly ignored by most of the public.
in the UK we rely on our politicians to police themselves - something they seem incapable of doing anymore. Its what Peter Hennessey calls the "Good Chaps" theory of government.
A key characteristic of the British constitution is the degree to which the good governance of the United Kingdom (UK) has relied on the self restraint of those who carry it out.
Unlike nearly every other democracy in the world, we lack a ‘written’ or ‘codified’ constitution. The UK has, therefore, no single text setting out the core principles, institutions and procedures of the system, protected from casual alteration by amendment procedures, and enforceable by the judiciary.
Instead, in the UK, we have trusted politicians to behave themselves. We have long assumed that those who rise to high office will be ‘good chaps’, knowing what the unwritten rules are and wanting to adhere to them.
Recent events suggest it is worth considering the implications of a decline in the viability of the ‘good chap’ system in this country
All taken from here:
Most people are greedy bastards.
Democracy enables greedy bastards.
Dictatorships enable greedy bastards.
Go back to the first line.