Thank you for your response, I don't think there is a lot of difference between us on advocating what a good idea accountability and transparency and honesty is for our politics, but as you say on its own its effects little change. Perhaps the only real difference between us is that it has been my experience that the 'trade-off' is at the heart of the matter, i.e. "the great British compromise"... it is practiced at the very heart of our party political systems and becomes the norm elsewhere. The 'don't do as I do, do as I say' has always been there, but it is rampant now in our politics, as Boris is a 'shining' (well that's perhaps not the right word) example of a politician who appears to be 'Mr Teflon', nothing sticks to him!The "we" in this case is just UK citizens, which I'm one of. The way I see it, I share equal responsibility with any other voter for the challenges that we face. Advocating for the idea that we should expect accountability and transparency as standard is part of exercising that responsibility, but it effects little change on its own. I certainly wouldn't separate myself from other citizens on that basis: talk is cheap. Right now I exercise that responsibility very poorly because it depends on network effects, if most people don't want accountability, it doesn't matter if you do. So I'm part of that failing, regardless of my view.
I understand why you don't want to compare it to Norway, but the general principle remains regardless of which comparison you make. For example, Germany functions differently to the UK in lots of key ways.
Whether that's better or worse depends on your political perspectives etc. but the obvious truth is the way the UK functions now is not the only way it can function, and there's no basis for the claim that any new changes will just introduce trade-offs that end up 1 step forward, 1 step back. That's an ideological default but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It depends on what choices are made and how they're implemented. If you're inclined to assume the wrong choices will be made, unintended consequences will follow, things will be poorly implemented, and that's just reality, then that's fair enough as an ideological view but it's logically flawed and results in a pointless discussion.
There's loads of ways we could change things. To me, that's an endless discussion which bores others and often goes down tunnels. Maybe another time I'll be up for going down those endless tunnels
More pertinently, I'm not advocating for myself as the person to determine those changes, I'm advocating for a democratic society to expect much more ownership of those decisions, and to feel like if some fundamental principles are violated that we are not just entitled but required to demand accountability and transparency. If we made that one shift I think a lot of downstream problems would be resolved in a better way than you or I can speculate on our own, I firmly believe in the power of the wisdom of crowds. I agree it would come with trade-offs but I can't agree at all that those trade-offs are worse than the current situation where accountability is considered this kind of amusing, mythical idea. It has a corrosive effect on political engagement which I would see as a central part of our current issues.
I would genuinely like to think there are 'loads of ways' (as you put it), to change things, but I have yet to have heard of, let alone see tested, any way which achieves this, in terms of enhancing accountability, transparency and honesty in our politics, and as you say you believe in the power of the wisdom of crowds, that actually works. Perhaps as another poster on here @Pexbo, describe me, as a masochist and certainly in political terms I accept the charge. I don't agree in the power of wisdom of crowds, I have always found that in any crowd espousing political change there are; the true believers, (the shock troops); also the well 'lets give it a chance (rs)'; and the 'whats in it for me/only here for the beer contingent' and of course the 'hangers on' who just want to fit in' and/or be part of a crowd'. These groups, sometimes indiscriminately, strike bargains or if you prefer trade-offs between themselves and the compromise is reached (if not always acknowledged) even before the 'offer is made' (so to speak) to the public.
Without wishing to restart our discussion on nuance, the example above is situation is where I believe nuance can act just as much against real understanding, it is a cover for individuals or the collective conscience to be eased, just as in other ways it can enhance understanding. Politicians wishing to avoid accountability (of course only when things go wrong) and/or who are not looking in particular for transparency and of course those knowing they are being dishonest, love to find nuance in the way their comments and indeed in some of their actions are taken.
I suppose in the end we are all formed by the experiences we have in life, I am now in my 70's and tbh despair of ever seeing the kind of political system that does value accountability, transparency and honesty in the way it operates.
I hope and trust you are young enough to see some improvement in your lifetime, and looking at things like Climate Change issues it is going to be very important indeed that these are the hallmarks of our future politics.