For Christ’s sake, if you’re going to be corrupt, at least have the decency to be corrupt on a grand, awe-inspiring scale. The people often forgive a flimflam man of breath-taking audacity, especially if he’s charismatic; they never forgive some petty little chiseler snaking a few cents from the church collection plate.
I know what you mean, the current crop of leaders don’t have to productive type of narcissism of the leaders of ages past. The type that despite being self-serving, would not just benefit them but people who they ruled over, such as enriching the realm to enrich ones self, making it more powerful and prestigious and thus gaining both of the stated previously, or gaining renown by being a good leader and thus wining honor thus authority in the process. Our current leaders are general ignorant about the world, they narrow educated and conformist to the point of being unimaginative, and general incurious about anything that dose not effect them. The most of all lack any character and nothing but self-centered time servers who don’t think much about there action effect thing long term.
” … man of breath-taking audacity, especially if he’s charismatic …” Castro comes to mind.
J Bryant
3 months ago
This was an excellent and insightful essay, imo. Politicians are selected, intentionally or not, to possess certain character traits, such as impulsiveness and self-regard bordering on narcissism. These traits really haven’t changed much over the ages, except perhaps social media has enhanced the selection pressures.
I’m not actually sure why decent, principled people go into politics anymore. Their lives will be researched back to the moment of conception, and every event interpreted in the most unfavorable light.
AC Harper
3 months ago
Perhaps the Parliamentary Expenses Scandal of 2009 is finally coming home to roost (in its duck house)?
It has been my observation that some peccadilloes are more memorable than others. Sexual shenanigans and the odd bet are often seen as trivial but the stink of widespread corruption lingers on.
Lancashire Lad
3 months ago
“A level of daring that might be inappropriate in more sheltered walks of life can be indispensable to successful political action, aided by the absence of any clearly defined or properly enforceable code of professional ethics in political life”
Unless i’m mistaken, and the author isn’t excoriating about Boris Johnson earlier in the article, this insight might in recent decades have only been applied to Johnson during the period July-December 2019.
Of course, we all know how that ended up, but his actions in getting Brexit across the line just can’t be dismissed in a one-liner about the choice between him and Corbyn. If i am mistaken, and that’s the point the author is making, it could have been made more clearly.
David Smy
3 months ago
But this just illustrates why we are in such a mess. Parliament is being populated by chancers who go into into politics as a means of stepping into something more lucrative. When you look at the leaders of the, currently, two main stream parties, whilst one could not say they lacked intellect, that intellect is very narrow. They are people of very limited experience of broader life, as are so many in politics. Too many SPADS, too many rent a mouth social justice keyboard warriors. Blair, with his surfeit of lawyers, has effectively codified our law, giving no scope for laws passed to be implemented. It seems that every law passed by Parliament faces legal challenge. Great for lawyer’s bank balances but not good for the rest of us. We have become a rights based society without the balance of responsibilities. We are about to elect a human rights lawyer as our PM. I fear the consequences.
True, while everyone wants to live in a law abiding society, it seems a bit off balance – lockdown, immigration, planning, net zero… all tangled in a web of laws.
Benedict Waterson
3 months ago
Thinking of the rabble of hysterical remainers & Corbynites whose best idea of a cutting insult against Boris Johnson was that he was a ‘liar’ —
it was as if they’d never observed any other politician, or example of political manoevering, in their entire lives
Christopher Barclay
3 months ago
This article does miss the point. Those politicians being investigated by the police did not gamble. They knew when the election was being held. Had the bookies known the same, they would not have taken the bets.
Some of the politicians did bet legitimately but then do does a large proportion of the population. Most decisions in life are bets.
Will K
3 months ago
Reading from overseas, I don’t understand the problem with anyone making a bet. Is betting now illegal in the UK? If I was up for election, I’d definitely place a bet against myself: then if I’m not elected, I’d have the consolation of winning some cash. I wonder if US politicians have considered this wheeze. Lose and win big.
Will K
3 months ago
Corrupt? Life surely does have some element of chance. Is it illegal to be aware of that, to make decisions based on that awareness, or to accept benefits arising from chance?
Will K
3 months ago
Last time I was in Vegas, it seemed possible to bet on lots of sports games, or even play cards for money. Is that evil stuff illegal in the UK? In the US, the Govt takes its cut, and then stamps it “ok”.
Main Edition
US
FR
For Christ’s sake, if you’re going to be corrupt, at least have the decency to be corrupt on a grand, awe-inspiring scale. The people often forgive a flimflam man of breath-taking audacity, especially if he’s charismatic; they never forgive some petty little chiseler snaking a few cents from the church collection plate.
Indeed, that is why Nicola Sturgeon only elicited derision.
I know what you mean, the current crop of leaders don’t have to productive type of narcissism of the leaders of ages past. The type that despite being self-serving, would not just benefit them but people who they ruled over, such as enriching the realm to enrich ones self, making it more powerful and prestigious and thus gaining both of the stated previously, or gaining renown by being a good leader and thus wining honor thus authority in the process. Our current leaders are general ignorant about the world, they narrow educated and conformist to the point of being unimaginative, and general incurious about anything that dose not effect them. The most of all lack any character and nothing but self-centered time servers who don’t think much about there action effect thing long term.
” … man of breath-taking audacity, especially if he’s charismatic …” Castro comes to mind.
This was an excellent and insightful essay, imo. Politicians are selected, intentionally or not, to possess certain character traits, such as impulsiveness and self-regard bordering on narcissism. These traits really haven’t changed much over the ages, except perhaps social media has enhanced the selection pressures.
I’m not actually sure why decent, principled people go into politics anymore. Their lives will be researched back to the moment of conception, and every event interpreted in the most unfavorable light.
Perhaps the Parliamentary Expenses Scandal of 2009 is finally coming home to roost (in its duck house)?
It has been my observation that some peccadilloes are more memorable than others. Sexual shenanigans and the odd bet are often seen as trivial but the stink of widespread corruption lingers on.
Unless i’m mistaken, and the author isn’t excoriating about Boris Johnson earlier in the article, this insight might in recent decades have only been applied to Johnson during the period July-December 2019.
Of course, we all know how that ended up, but his actions in getting Brexit across the line just can’t be dismissed in a one-liner about the choice between him and Corbyn. If i am mistaken, and that’s the point the author is making, it could have been made more clearly.
But this just illustrates why we are in such a mess. Parliament is being populated by chancers who go into into politics as a means of stepping into something more lucrative. When you look at the leaders of the, currently, two main stream parties, whilst one could not say they lacked intellect, that intellect is very narrow. They are people of very limited experience of broader life, as are so many in politics. Too many SPADS, too many rent a mouth social justice keyboard warriors. Blair, with his surfeit of lawyers, has effectively codified our law, giving no scope for laws passed to be implemented. It seems that every law passed by Parliament faces legal challenge. Great for lawyer’s bank balances but not good for the rest of us. We have become a rights based society without the balance of responsibilities. We are about to elect a human rights lawyer as our PM. I fear the consequences.
True, while everyone wants to live in a law abiding society, it seems a bit off balance – lockdown, immigration, planning, net zero… all tangled in a web of laws.
Thinking of the rabble of hysterical remainers & Corbynites whose best idea of a cutting insult against Boris Johnson was that he was a ‘liar’ —
it was as if they’d never observed any other politician, or example of political manoevering, in their entire lives
This article does miss the point. Those politicians being investigated by the police did not gamble. They knew when the election was being held. Had the bookies known the same, they would not have taken the bets.
Some of the politicians did bet legitimately but then do does a large proportion of the population. Most decisions in life are bets.
Reading from overseas, I don’t understand the problem with anyone making a bet. Is betting now illegal in the UK? If I was up for election, I’d definitely place a bet against myself: then if I’m not elected, I’d have the consolation of winning some cash. I wonder if US politicians have considered this wheeze. Lose and win big.
Corrupt? Life surely does have some element of chance. Is it illegal to be aware of that, to make decisions based on that awareness, or to accept benefits arising from chance?
Last time I was in Vegas, it seemed possible to bet on lots of sports games, or even play cards for money. Is that evil stuff illegal in the UK? In the US, the Govt takes its cut, and then stamps it “ok”.