Disclaimer
This article includes insights and analysis generated with the assistance of an experimental AI. While efforts have been made to ensure factual accuracy, readers are encouraged to cross-reference information from multiple reputable sources.
When we think of a “dictator,” our minds conjure images of brutal despots, secret police, and show trials. We rarely associate such a term with a modern, democratic government. Yet, a provocative work of political science, The Dictator’s Handbook, argues that the strategies for retaining power are remarkably consistent across all forms of governance, from the most ruthless autocracy to a parliamentary democracy. It posits that a leader’s survival depends not on serving the public, but on appeasing a small, loyal group of key supporters—the winning coalition.
This article argues that Westminster, through its highly centralized model of governance, has adopted a set of behaviors that uncannily mirrors the “rules for rulers” outlined in the handbook. By controlling the flow of resources, selectively investing in infrastructure, and hollowing out local institutions, the UK government—regardless of which party is in power—is effectively propagating a dictatorial approach rather than upholding the free democracy it claims to represent.
The Machiavellian Prince in Westminster 🤴
Long before Bueno de Mesquita and Smith penned their modern treatise on power, Niccolò Machiavelli laid the philosophical groundwork in The Prince. He argued that a ruler must be pragmatic, not virtuous. His most enduring and controversial insight is that a leader must be prepared to act immorally if it is necessary to secure and maintain power. Machiavelli’s advice—that it is better to be feared than loved, and that a ruler must master the appearance of virtue without necessarily possessing it—provides a historical and philosophical anchor for the modern playbook.
A key tenet of The Prince is that a ruler must appear to be virtuous—merciful, honest, and religious—while being prepared to act in the opposite way when necessary. This perfectly dissects the UK government’s public rhetoric. Policies like “levelling up” are presented as virtuous, selfless acts for the public good, but they mask the ruthless, self-serving tactics (like centralizing funding and neglecting the North) that lie beneath the surface. The famous Machiavellian phrase “the ends justify the means” frames the government’s actions. The “end” for Westminster is the maintenance of its power. The “means” include the centralization of wealth, the cancellation of infrastructure projects, and the hollowing out of regional authority. From a Machiavellian perspective, these are not failures of policy, but logical and effective tactics to secure power.
Finally, Machiavelli argued that it is better for a ruler to be feared than loved, as love is fragile while fear is a more reliable tool for control. The government has consciously or unconsciously adopted this approach in its relationship with the North. By consistently withholding resources, it creates a sense of dependency and, in a way, fear of further neglect. This is far more effective for maintaining control than trying to win genuine public affection through equitable distribution of wealth.
Westminster’s Winning Coalition
The first rule for any ruler is to identify and secure a loyal core of supporters. In the UK’s highly centralized system, this “winning coalition” is not the entire electorate, but a concentrated collection of powerful interests. This concentration of power is directly reflected in the economic landscape. The economic landscape of the UK is defined by a profound and persistent disparity in output and income (The Westminster Handbook: A Data-Driven Analysis of a Modern Regime, 2025). This imbalance is starkly quantified by data on Gross Disposable Household Income (GDHI) per head. As reported by the Office for National Statistics, London’s GDHI per head was £35,361 in 2023, while Yorkshire and The Humber’s was just £21,027. This provides a stark statistical basis for the argument about wealth concentration.
This financial disparity is not accidental but a symptom of a deeper structural imbalance. While the precise percentage of lobbyists in London is difficult to pin down due to the UK’s opaque system, a 2023 report by the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) found that “Westminster’s Lobbying Register to be the least transparent in the West,” highlighting a systemic lack of accountability. This concentration of power, as noted in a recent analysis, “directly correlates with a sustained and widening economic gap, effectively creating an economic archipelago where London is the core and other regions are isolated peripheries” (The Shifting Sands of Power, 2025). This disconnect is exacerbated by a digital information divide, where social media algorithms amplify existing biases, contributing to public disengagement and a decline in civic literacy (Navigating Apathy, 2025).
Controlling the “Treasure” and its Flow
A ruler’s second rule is to control the “treasure” and its flow. The most direct and shocking parallel to this strategy is the cancellation of HS2’s northern legs. As officially confirmed by HS2 Ltd., the project’s Phase Two, which would have connected Birmingham to Leeds and Manchester, was rescoped and ultimately canceled. This is direct, verifiable evidence for the government’s control over infrastructure.
This strategy extends beyond physical infrastructure. The much-touted “Levelling Up” policy, a key plank of the government’s agenda, is exposed as a smokescreen. Analysis has shown that “levelling up” funds are often distributed through competitive bidding processes that favor well-connected councils with the resources to write successful bids. As a University of Manchester study revealed, northern regions received significantly less funding from a precursor to the Levelling Up Fund than their expected share based on need. As our report An Analysis of the UK Global Talent Fund highlights, a similar pattern can be seen in research funding, with a “significant geographic concentration, predominantly favoring established research hubs in London and the South East.” The analysis notes that despite its billions in GVA contributions, Yorkshire was completely excluded from the £54 million fund, a stark example of central planning that fails to empower regions with proven potential. This process effectively bypasses a fair funding formula, turning essential investment into a reward for a select few. Ultimately, the Treasury’s deep-seated aversion to granting fiscal autonomy to local and regional governments serves as a textbook example of a central power refusing to allow others to build their own “winning coalitions” with independent funds.
The Infrastructure of Ideas and Control
Beyond physical infrastructure, the government also controls access to the “infrastructure of ideas”. A centralized government can subtly control the flow of information. The centralization of media in London, for example, ensures that regional stories and local political issues get little attention. This lack of coverage limits public discussion and keeps the population less informed about the very issues that affect them most. It also allows the central government to maintain control over the national narrative, a vital tool for any ruler. In fact I have seen first hand these machinations at work, in the early days of the Yorkshire Party we sought our slot of representation within regional media coverage as all parties running for parliamentary constituencies are purported to be allowed. Not only was our request denied, the threshold had just been raised to suspiciously just above 54 constituencies being challenged. To those who don’t know 54 is exactly the number of constituencies in Yorkshire, thereby removing access to all regional parties.
Furthermore, the hollowing out of local institutions is a deliberate act to weaken potential rivals to central authority. By making local governments dependent on central grants, Westminster ensures that they cannot form an effective opposition or even address the specific needs of their constituents without permission. This is a classic tactic to concentrate power, making regional authorities beholden to the whims of the central government rather than the needs of their local populations.
The Social Contract: Hobbes’ Leviathan vs. Locke’s Counterpoint 📜
The article’s examples—from the cancellation of HS2 to the neglect of public services—are a direct consequence of the government breaking its side of the social contract. It has adopted the Hobbesian attitude of absolute power while ignoring the Lockean duties of protecting its citizens’ rights and well-being.
In his theory from Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes argued that in the absence of a strong, centralized power, life would be a “war of all against all,” a chaotic and brutal existence where every person is against every other person. To escape this, people willingly enter a “social contract,” surrendering their freedoms to a powerful, absolute sovereign—the Leviathan—in exchange for security and order. Westminster’s worldview is fundamentally Hobbesian; the centralized government justifies its hoarding of power and resources by arguing it is the only institution capable of preventing chaos and collapse. From this perspective, any regional autonomy or popular dissent is seen as a direct threat to the stability of the entire system.
However, John Locke’s powerful counterpoint reveals the flaw in this contract. For Locke, the government’s power is not absolute. Its authority is granted by the people, and its primary purpose is to protect their natural rights, including life, liberty, and property. This is a two-way street: the people are bound to the government, but the government is also bound to the people.
By hoarding resources and acting in its own self-interest, Westminster has created a system that is no longer in a just relationship with the people it claims to serve. The systemic underfunding of the NHS and the resultant lengthening of waiting lists and decline in care in regions like Yorkshire represent a failure to protect the most basic of Locke’s rights—the right to life. The official NHS England “My Planned Care” portal consistently shows that waiting times in the North and Midlands are often longer than the national average, a moral failure that has real-world consequences for a population already struggling with lower life expectancy.
The hollowing out of local institutions is a direct attack on the liberty of communities to govern themselves. The research on Yorkshire identity, for example, shows that a “significant percentage of people in Yorkshire identify more strongly with their regional identity than with ‘Englishness’,” underscoring a deep desire for self-determination that is being stifled by central control (Beyond the St. George’s Cross: A Case for a Yorkshire Identity, 2025). The consistent economic neglect and underinvestment in the North, and the subsequent stifling of economic growth and opportunity, is a failure to protect the people’s right to their own property. By hindering the ability of communities to generate wealth and secure their own financial future, the government denies them the means to enjoy the full benefits of a prosperous society.
Ultimately, for Locke, if a government becomes tyrannical and consistently fails to uphold its end of the contract, the people have the ultimate right to dissolve that government and establish a new one. The cancellation of HS2’s eastern leg to Leeds and the “Levelling Up” farce are not just policy blunders; they are a fundamental breach of the social contract, a dereliction of the government’s Lockean duties. This provides the philosophical justification for the modern-day need for radical, systemic reform, linking the historical rebels like Robin Hood and Guy Fawkes to the present. This is not a simple political preference, but a moral and historical duty.
A Call for True Reform
The problems outlined in this article are not an accident; they are the logical result of a highly centralized system. The lesson from both history and political theory is clear: when a government acts like a dictatorship—controlling who gets what and where—it undermines the very principles it claims to uphold. It erodes trust, stokes discontent, and creates a system where the needs of the many are sacrificed for the interests of the few.
While we should celebrate successes, such as the strategic upgrades to the TransPennine rail route, we must also call out those who are not doing enough. The persistent disparity in funding, the cancellation of HS2, and the failure to provide meaningful fiscal devolution are a clear dereliction of duty on the part of successive governments. The public is not a passive recipient of policy; it is the ultimate source of power.
True democracy isn’t just about voting; it’s about genuine power subsidiarity and accountability. The only true path forward is to push for the kind of reform that empowers regions like Yorkshire—fiscal devolution, electoral reform, and a new political system that forces those in power to serve the entire population, not just a select few. The ultimate lesson from our shared history, from the Magna Carta to the pirate’s code, is this: when governments do unjust things and fail to meet the needs of the people, people will find a way to right those wrongs. We can, and must, do better than we have right now.
References
- An Analysis of the UK Global Talent Fund: Implications for Regional Inequality with a Deep Dive into Yorkshire’s Academic Contributions. (2025). Provided as a core document for research.
- Beyond the St. George’s Cross: A Case for a Yorkshire Identity. (2025). Provided as a core document for research.
- Chartered Institute of Public Relations. (2023). New research reveals Westminster’s Lobbying Register to be the least transparent in the West.
- Critical Analysis of the “Northern Powerhouse” in Yorkshire. (2025). Provided as a core document for research.
- Data Request for “The Westminster Handbook: A Data-Driven Analysis of a Modern Regime.” (2025). Provided as a core document for research.
- The Dictator’s Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics. (2011). Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith.
- HS2 Ltd. (2025). Project rescoping: Phase Two cancellation.
- Navigating Apathy: A Data-Backed Analysis of Public Disengagement in Political and Economic Spheres. (2025). Provided as a core document for research.
- NHS England. (n.d.). My Planned Care.
- Office for National Statistics. (2023). Regional gross disposable household income, UK: 1997 to 2023.
- The Pirate’s Code: A Metaphor for Modern Discontent. (2025). Provided as a core document for research.
- The Prince. (c. 1532). Niccolò Machiavelli.
- The Shifting Sands of Power: A Data-Driven Analysis of UK Political Dynamics. (2025). Provided as a core document for research.
- University of Manchester. (2023). Northern regions received £21m less from flagship ‘levelling up’ fund.
- The Westminster Model: A Case Study in Centralised Governance. (2025). Provided as a core document for research.
- Yorkshire Decentralization and Electoral Reform. (2025). Provided as a core document for research.
- Yorkshire’s Health Crisis: A Data-Driven Report. (2025). Provided as a core document for research.