What Trump and the Brexiters have shown is that our democracy, our common politics, our checks and balances all rest at a pretty fundamental level on the assumption that people will be honest. 1/

It's clear that our broadcasters and print media are ill-equipped to deal with the volume and intensity of lies we've experienced. Actually I think we're all ill-equipped to deal with it. It's hard not to normalise it, and slowly it feels less outrageous and more laughable. 2/

The BBC's problem with Brexit is that it's idle to say you can be impartial between sides but not impartial about the truth, when one side's position is pretty much entirely based on lies. 3/

It's the same with Trump. The Washington Post has counted around 14,000 false claims that Trump has made as President. But there are diminishing returns to this. Frankly if he's lied 14000 times, why not 15000? It makes no difference. We're used to it. 4/

When Michael Gove turns up to a studio demanding to join a Channel 4 debate that's for party leaders and then pretends that Channel 4 have done something outrageous in not letting him on, how do you react? How can you get out of the he-said she-said problem? 5/

The deeper problem of degrading the political process is that it's a political strategy. By lying so wantonly you ironically help the lies work, because people can't be bothered to distinguish any more, they disengage, making us more prey to the vague circulation of lies. 6/

The Impeachment hearings have revealed Trump's astonishing corruption. But they've also revealed how relatively weak Congress is as a bulwark against that corruption, how easy it is for a man of monstrous bad faith to bypass it. 7/

With Brexit, I veer between tiring, desperate hope (surely we will see sense) and a kind of catastrophism (fine, let's crash out and see how much you fucking like it then). Neither position gets me anywhere. 8/

Really I wonder if and how we can recover from the last three years. Will there come a moment where our political leaders just start being better people? I don't mean they need to be saints; just generally, basically fairly honest and honourable. 9/

Or do we somehow put in place more formal safeguards against the men of ill will? It feels necessary but I am concerned about that. (a) it reifies the idea of the political leader as a liar who needs to be constrained. Is not a general consensus about truthfulness preferable? 10/

(b) a set of statutory regulations are something to get round. They will have loopholes (because they will not imagine the person of even worse faith). It's less easy to get round the principle that you should be a decent person. 11/

But how deep has the corruption gone? Would we recognise and trust an honourable person if they appeared? How soured are we? Ah man, I've depressed myself just saying all this out loud, so I think I'll END. 12/