New year predictionJanuary 1, 2016 Tim WorstallPolitics28 CommentsPoliticians will continue to be self aggrandising , ignorant, cunts in 2016. Prove me wrong! previousIf Paki is racist, is Pak?nextI don’t think I believe this myself 28 thoughts on “New year prediction” Roue le Jour January 1, 2016 at 12:43 pm One of the reasons politicians get away with so much is that ordinary people don’t understand them. A politician would sell his grandmother to get on the school dinners subcommittee because there is no limit to what they will do to get and hold any sort of power. Normal people just don’t think like that and find it hard to believe that others do. Ian B January 1, 2016 at 1:23 pm I agree with Roue le Jour. Bloke in Wales January 1, 2016 at 2:28 pm And not just politicians: looks like Forbes has started insisting I turn off the ad blocker to read the rest of Tim’s column. It’s just going to be the RSS feed from now on then… Bloke in North Dorset January 1, 2016 at 3:40 pm When asked why the went in to politics, 100% of po9liticians replied: It’s where the power is I want to help the needy. Ian B January 1, 2016 at 3:53 pm Except Simon Danczuk who said, “I want to reach out to the young unemployed. And give them the spanking they deserve.” John B January 1, 2016 at 4:02 pm You forgot: conceited; patronising; irresponsible; corrupt. Rob January 1, 2016 at 4:34 pm I’ve given up on the Forbes site, especially on a mobile device. Unreadable. mike January 1, 2016 at 5:40 pm I’m making a similar prediction for their media myrmidons, the so-called “journalists”, like this twat. Theophrastus January 1, 2016 at 6:55 pm Politicians are rather odd: their lust for power is often pathological. The results of democracy – like the results of free market capitalism – are rarely edifying. If you want to make democracy more edifying, and to get less ignorant representatives, you need to introduce some modest restrictions to the franchise. Ian B January 1, 2016 at 7:02 pm Voters have very little influence. I never understand why people think the franchise is the problem, when the actions of politicians are beyond democratic control other than one vote every five years. Theophrastus January 1, 2016 at 7:13 pm IanB The broader the franchise and the more direct the democracy, the greater the influence of demagogues and the less edifying the results. Mr Ecks January 1, 2016 at 7:17 pm Mike: Peter Enav?? As re-arranged to spell Nave? A wind-up surely. Ian B January 1, 2016 at 7:19 pm So reduce it to zero then. The problem I have with these arguments is that I can’t see any definable class of voter who can be trusted to (for want of a better term) “choose wisely”. Theophrastus January 1, 2016 at 7:38 pm “So reduce it to zero then.” But I’m not suggesting that democracy is not a good — just that one can have too much of a particular good. It’s a question of balance. So zero democracy would not be an improvement. And no franchise can guarantee the electorate will choose wisely. But that is a straw man. The aim is to achieve a franchise that will result in the electorate making wiser choices than it currently does. jgh January 1, 2016 at 7:43 pm IanB: I don’t know where you live and only have a vote once every five years, everywhere in the UK has a vote at least two votes every four/five years, and in large towns and cities outside London we have a vote *every* year. Ian B January 1, 2016 at 7:52 pm Theo- Wiser by what criteria? Who gets to vote, and who should we exclude? Matthew L January 1, 2016 at 8:57 pm Ian B: In the unlikely event you get a straight answer, it will be equivalent to “people who look, speak and think like me”. Purely by coincidence of course. mike January 1, 2016 at 9:04 pm @Mr Ecks Quite. However, commentators at that place must refrain from “abusive language and personal attacks”, even when that stipulation does not appear to apply to the authors of editorial pieces. Twats. Theophrastus January 1, 2016 at 11:35 pm IanB You introduced talk of wisdom/wisely, not me. Our host would like to see politicians who are less ignorant and self-aggrandising. I think our politicians in part behave as they do because the universal franchise encourages incoherent populism that involves them bribing us with our own money. I’d deprive anyone on non-contributory benefits of the vote. So Much For Subtlety January 2, 2016 at 12:15 am Well for some politicians, that would be an improvement: ISTANBUL — President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, who is pushing to imbue the largely ceremonial presidency with sweeping executive powers akin to the United States or France, gave a new example of an effective presidential system late Thursday: Hitler’s Germany. After returning from a trip to Saudi Arabia, Mr. Erdogan was asked by the Turkish news media whether a presidential system was possible given that the government is now organized under a prime minister. “There are already examples in the world,” Mr. Erdogan said. “You can see it when you look at Hitler’s Germany.” The Islamists really are a gift that keeps on giving. And Merkel has agreed to as many moving to London as want to. Bloke in Costa Rica January 2, 2016 at 1:33 am It’s really starting to look like Erdogan needs removing, and not in the “hope he loses an election” sort of way but more the Ceaușescu variant. So Much For Subtlety January 2, 2016 at 2:01 am Bloke in Costa Rica – “It’s really starting to look like Erdogan needs removing, and not in the “hope he loses an election” sort of way but more the Ceaușescu variant.” It is the Middle East. As the Turkish proverb goes, every government is the worst possible government. Apart from the next one. This is the Syrian dilemma. We can remove someone we do not like, but we cannot install someone we do. Who to support when they are all vile? Bloke in Costa Rica January 2, 2016 at 3:45 am Here’s an idea: ⁶LiD + n → ⁴He + T + D + 4.8 MeV → 2 ⁴He + n + 17.59 MeV. Ian B January 2, 2016 at 5:23 am Ian B: In the unlikely event you get a straight answer, it will be equivalent to “people who look, speak and think like me”. Purely by coincidence of course. Yes, that’s the usual answer in my experience as well. jgh January 2, 2016 at 5:45 am If Erdogan wanted to be executive head of government instead of symbolic head of state, he should have stood for Prime Minister and not President. Bloke in North Dorset January 2, 2016 at 7:17 am IanB/Theo, You miss the point. If we had a smaller State with much of what it did devolved to the lowest level: 1. It would be less attractive to 2self aggrandising , ignorant, cunts “. 2. Those that were attracted wouldn’t be able to do as much damage. 3. The consequences of the electorate making bad decisions would be much reduced. The consequence of our large, centralised, State is the principle-agent writ large. So Much For Subtlety January 2, 2016 at 8:28 am Bloke in Costa Rica – “Here’s an idea: ⁶LiD + n → ⁴He + T + D + 4.8 MeV → 2 ⁴He + n + 17.59 MeV.” Applied locally, it could work. On the other hand, why would anyone want to save any of the buildings? john77 January 3, 2016 at 8:16 pm @ Ian B & Matthew L “Ian B: In the unlikely event you get a straight answer, it will be equivalent to “people who look, speak and think like me”. Purely by coincidence of course.” Actually, I should just like itto be people who think at all. I don’t claim a monopoly on wisdom. Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.