A politics based on empathy is the only way to avoid the abyss

You could be describing lead poisoning...

Very interesting point. In my view, it’s not so much that people are getting stupider, but political discourse has become more polarised, reactionary, and less empathetic due to structural, economic and technological shifts. Crucially, I think there is lesser willingness, or empathy, to see standpoints from the other side. You saw this with Brexit, with immigration, but equally with the Corbyn supporters and Plaid. Both left and right wing use outrage to mobilise support, cherry pick stats etc. In days gone by people engaged in politics through unions, in pubs, and even town halls—spaces that encouraged discussion and compromise. Often people didn't engage at all, but had much stronger trust in public institutions . Today, much of political engagement happens online, where there’s much more hostility and less accountability. In my view, he way we engage with politics has changed. Empathy requires effort - to understand the oppositions viewpoints, engage with it and win arguments - and current political structures and public opinions simply don’t incentivise it.

With exception to the treasury, home and foreign offices, just every department in Whitehall has been established after 1978, and probably the majority in the last 20 years!

Psychopaths ? - Thatcher might have been, some of her squad definitely were. Major - not really although some of his squad were heading that way. Blair - weird god complex and huge compulsion to interfere where he shouldn't, willing to make it up as he went along. Brown - prioritised survival of banks over people and paved the way for austerity. Cameron - polished face of psychopathy ably supported by Osborne, real nasty pair. Mrs May - a ditherer who let the psychos out to play. Boris - say no more, ultimate bull in a china shop, Rishi - another enabler of the hooligan psycho tendency. Starmer - a devout believer in his own superior judgement and understanding of what if "right". What we've experienced over last 45 years is a steadily escalating pattern of delusional behaviour posing as "leadership". Breaking that upward curve is a huge challenge and I'm left puzzled by how it can be done given political parties' choice of leaders and the electorate's indifference.

I get your point and the thought of a system of government based solely around empathy is quite a scary idea. Empathy for sure can be used as a weakness by malintentioned individuals. That's not new information is it? Remember when most people in the world had an instinctive understanding of this? 'Don't act soft'. People seemed to be divided into those that hide their empathy and those that hide their lack of empathy and it was up to an individual's intellect to figure out which of these people you were dealing with. Which people seem to be terrible at nowadays. I mean there have always been bumbling, clueless idiots around but, now, just awful readers of people and situations even when people don't even try to hide who they are anymore and go around saying whatever is in their head like extremist cartoon characters, and even when they are representing nations. I personally don't expect politicians to be empathetic. I think that's a big ask to be honest. However, I do expect them to make sense and do their job which is to act in the best interests of its people. Which politicians stopped even pretending to do a long time ago. Observing the events in the house of commons this week I wasn't distracted by the fairytale notion of these leaders demonstrating empathy (although there was a surprising amount of fair and rational backlash from the benches which I respected actually). Rather I was more interested in genuine confidence in peoples convictions, logical arguments and an attempt to do one's job as an elected offical. I didn't find any evidence for any of these things. Liz Kendall looked like she wanted to run out of that room straight to the nearest parliamentary bar and neck a triple shot of the world's best booze. There was no confidence in what she was saying at all. Only pig-headedness. There is a big difference. She didn't believe what she was saying, she couldn't confront challenges over without lying or evading and her demeanour became progressively weak over the course. Yet she was steadfast despite EVER-REE-THING. Despite massive pushback from both sides, public backlash from both sides, experts raging at the notion, charities up in arms, no one with any sense agreeing with this plan. Not people on benefits, not employers. The opposition vs support is clear. Yet, she was steadfast in her opinion that she knows best. That behaviour is suggestive of somebody with a serious personality disorder. Was I surprised to find it in the house of commons?... Of course not. Like I said, I don't expect empathy from them and it's really not in their job description. I personally don't mind a cold fish as long as they're not harmful or destructive to others or society at large and can back up what they're doing with reason and logic. You don't need empathy to not want harm to come to others. Very unfeeling people are more that capable of holding this philosophy. The difference is, that politicians now are ACTIVELY, and intentionally harming others, despite massive and reasonable disapproval from... seemingly anyone with any knowledge and clout on the subject. That's not an empathy issue. That's actual malice towards their own citizens, and it's a corruption issue, because I also don't believe they are delusional about what they are doing. They know. A calculated disregard for the wants and needs of the people who elected them to represent them, for their own self-serving interests. Again, unfortunate but not overly surprising considering the setting... but so BLATANT. So proveably wrong! It is 100% a bleep u, to everyone in this country. Its outrageous. Whats next? Whose next?

Immigrants typically pay tax and don't consume public services. The only reason we have a huge hotel bill is because 52% voted to leave the Dublin deterrent which we could rejoin tomorrow.