This is the trouble with politics

The problem, we fear, is not which politician but politics itself:

Starmer is putting his political survival ahead of the national interest

Leave aside who is saying this or even why. Leave, even, aside who it is being said of. Take the statement as it is.

Fighting for his personal survival, he cares not one jot about the long-term consequences.

Hmm.

The question is, will … be allowed to repeat the trick of enhancing his own career at the expense of his country’s interests?

It is a standard observation that a politician’s time horizon is the next election. This is why long term thinking is not a great feature of political decision making. This does not change - sadly - when the politician changes. We do not think we are being unduly cynical when we say that - we prefer realist anyway as a description.

Of course politics is necessary because some amount of state is itself necessary - we are not anarcho-capitalists around here. Politics and elections are how we change which politicians without riots and bloodshed. But if those politicians are always motivated by their own interests - public choice theory certainly insists they are - then we need the best compromise we can get.

That compromise is that politics - and therefore government itself - does as little as possible. We thus gain that needful minimum of governance but also the minimum possible of decisions taken in the interests of politicians rather than the populace.

It is a painful pair of truths - we need some politics, politicians are always self-interested. The answer is therefore minarchy.

We, just like everyone else, have some preferences about which politicians should be in power. But we’re absolutely insistent upon the truth that all and any politicians should have less power.

Tim Worstall