Do we get the politicians we deserve?

Please treat other members in a friendly and respectful manner: Our Community Guidelines.

  • The world has gone absolutely bonkers.

    Why bother reading and analysing something which is obviously bonkers?


    If you had to describe a single overriding factor that explained why we have a bonkers government presiding over a bonkers electorate engaged in bonkers initiatives, what would say is that factor?

  • I don't think the electorate are bonkers. Not as a whole anyway. The same probably applies to politicians, but somehow the PC worshippers and nutters seem to dominate.


    It's the constant divide between the electorate and the politicians that causes these problems.

    Mark Twain — 'Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.'

  • I don't think the electorate are bonkers. Not as a whole anyway. The same probably applies to politicians, but somehow the PC worshippers and nutters seem to dominate.


    It's the constant divide between the electorate and the politicians that causes these problems.


    You don't think the electorate are bonkers or at least not as a whole. I assume you realise that my description "bonkers" is just a broad brushstroke. If you want to be literal-minded then take note that after careful investigation, it is a fact that IQ has dropped significantly and that the cause is environmental/societal rather than genetical.


    It is surely obvious that I am not suggesting all voters are insane. It is about degree. When a product or service has a significantly above-average number of sub-standard attributes or a high failure rate the reason may be either low standards or lack of proper quality control. In a casual posted comment it can be generalised that the product or service is crap, while I'm sure you realise that my argument is about degree.


    I agree with you that the same "bonkerness" applies to politicians. Indeed, I've been making that point for a good while. Do you think this point that we agree upon is a real correlation or just a coincidence? Bearing in mind that voters assess and then choose politicians do you think the correlation might even contain a causal relationship? To me that's blindingly obvious but if it isn't to you, then stop reading now!


    The so-called divide between the electorate and politicians to which you refer is really disappointment or disillusionment. It's the same as low quality consumers buying low quality products or services.


    Of course, when I use descriptions such as bonkers or low quality I'm just using shorthand. I'm not saying voters don't know what they want - even a dumb animal knows (instinctively) what it wants. I'm saying that the mass of of voters don't know how to match what they want to the type of person who can fulfil that want. Much of the problem here lies in the difference between want and need. It takes an above-average intelligence or vision for the voter and the politician to recognise and reconcile that difference.


    After numerous attempts I still don't know whether you understand what it is I'm trying to say , or can't agree with it, or refuse to consider it's existence, or just can't be bothered to debate it. I can only guess that it undermines your idee fixe or unshakeable faith in Popular Democracy and the cliche of The Wisdom Of The Crowd.

  • It goes both ways. You don't understand or agree with my view that the majority of people are sensible and put the country before self.


    Look at it this way ... Labour promised tons of freebies in the 2017 GE, and the Conservatives promised more hardship. Why didn't Labour win? I like to think that people looked at the whole picture, and decided that the 'freebies' came at too high a cost (which wasn't disclosed).


    Do you agree the electorate were more sensible than the politicians who put those manifestos forward, or not? After all, the electorate can't actually choose who stands for election, or what the manifestos will be, can we?

    Mark Twain — 'Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.'

  • It goes both ways. You don't understand or agree with my view that the majority of people are sensible and put the country before self.


    Look at it this way ... Labour promised tons of freebies in the 2017 GE, and the Conservatives promised more hardship. Why didn't Labour win? I like to think that people looked at the whole picture, and decided that the 'freebies' came at too high a cost (which wasn't disclosed).


    Do you agree the electorate were more sensible than the politicians who put those manifestos forward, or not? After all, the electorate can't actually choose who stands for election, or what the manifestos will be, can we?

    I agree with you that the majority of voters are sensible or at least try to be sensible, or would like to think they are sensible. Other than mega-rich sybaritics and those in a mental home. I don't think there is anyone who would boast of or aspire to being insensible. So I don't think being or aspiring to be sensible is a measure of intelligence. A think a good measure of intelligence is one that measures intelligence.


    Also, when voting, I don't think the majority put country before self or, if they do, I don't think that is a sensible vote. Because it means voting for what you think the country's present and future citizens need rather than voting for what you need and believe you deserve without feeling selfish or anti-social. If everyone put country before self, one ends up with votes by proxy. The world is already over-preoccupied with feelings rather than facts. Once we vote for what we feel other people want or need, we enter la la land.


    Besides, Nazi-ism was fuelled by citizens putting country before self. Patriotism can be the last refuge of the scoundrel.


    I agree with you that the Conservatives won the last GE in spite of Labour promising tons of freebies and in spite of Conservatives saying some degree of austerity rather a bonanza still had to continue for a while. I agree that was voters being sensible but I don't agree that was putting country before self. Instead, I think it was a case of once bitten, twice shy. Enough people in Britain knew that when Labour moved out of number 10 they had practically bankrupted Britain and that austerity was needed to climb out of that financial black hole. It is a measure of the blockheadedness or mindless selfishness of so much of the electorate that the result was still close to 50-50.


    You think people decided the 'freebies' came at too high a cost. I think people didn't believe Labour's promises, or didn't think they could deliver or, worse than that, believed that even Labour knew they couldn't deliver (ie were lying). This has little to do with putting country before self. It's just voters disbelieving the promise.


    If you want to define sensibleness as disbelieving a financial proposition made by a group of people who have been proven to be fraudsters, I can only conclude that your definition of being sensible is to not be a complete and utter fool.


    In other words, the British electorate are not complete and utter fools. If you think that defines them as The Wisdom of the Crowd, well, good luck with that


    You say the electorate can't actually choose who stands for election. Yes they can. - but I agree it's a tortuous route when choice of candidate is confounded by choice of party. That's democracy for you! But I've done that one to death!


    I guess we must agree to differ. But thanks for giving it one more whirl

  • So you think 'intelligence' is more valuable than sense? I don't. I have personally known, and worked with, some very intelligent people who had no sense at all. It's a wonder some of them survived adulthood and/or managed to hold onto any assets at all. I also know some 'not very bright' people who have lots of common sense and have managed to do very well through hard work and sensible decisions.


    Genuine question: is there anyone you like and/or respect?

    Mark Twain — 'Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.'

  • I just want politicians that can be bothered to get of their arses and go out and canvass, knock on doors and ask voters, seek voters opinions make an effort, do somthing for the votes rather than just take it for granted that voters will vote.

    Young boys in the park jumpers for goalpost that's what footballs all about isn't it.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member to leave a comment.