Damn the electorate(全体选民). They’re so impatient. No sooner do they get a new leader than they want another one.(他们刚迎来一位新领导人，就想要换一个。) Those ingrates(忘恩负义的人) are already starting to grumble about Andy Burnham. Maybe the country is becoming ungovernable(无法治理的). Perhaps it’s social media. Or a consumerist culture, always picking the next shiny thing. Perhaps we’re addicted to(沉迷于) drama. As we’re on our sixth prime minister in 10 years, and as similar levels of discontent surface in many other countries, these claims are recited across the media. What’s wrong with us?
去他妈的选民。他们太没耐心了。刚迎来一位新领导人，就想要换一个。这些忘恩负义的家伙已经开始对安迪·伯纳姆发牢骚了。也许这个国家正变得无法治理。也许是社交媒体的问题。或者是一种消费主义文化，总是追逐下一个光鲜亮丽的东西。也许我们沉迷于戏剧性。由于我们在10年内换了六位首相，而且许多其他国家也出现了类似程度的不满，这些说法在媒体上被反复念叨。我们到底怎么了？
Yet our disgruntlement(不满，不悦) is entirely rational. We give up so quickly on our prime ministers because they give up so quickly on us. Though it may involve different issues, it is always the same betrayal(背叛): the public interest is sacrificed for the sake of(为了……的缘故) a tiny number of immensely(极其，非常) wealthy people. And it tends to happen almost immediately.
然而，我们的不满完全是理性的。我们这么快就对首相失去信心，是因为他们这么快就抛弃了我们。尽管涉及的问题可能不同，但背叛总是如出一辙：为了极少数巨富的利益而牺牲公共利益。而且这种背叛几乎总是立即发生。
The latest example, which has triggered(引发，触发) both fury and grim resignation(无奈的认命), is Burnham’s backtracking(出尔反尔，倒退) on his intention to cap(限制，上限) political donations. It was hardly a radical policy: he proposed that no person would be able to give more than £500,000 to a political party in one year. That would still have granted the very wealthy disproportionate influence over our politics.(即便如此，这仍会让巨富对我们的政治产生不成比例的影响。) I have long believed that the only fair system is one in which there should be no private donations at all beyond a standard, fixed membership fee. Otherwise voters will always take second place to(屈居于……之下) money. But at the moment there is no cap, which ensures that billionaires can buy political parties and their platforms.(但目前没有任何上限，这确保了亿万富翁可以收买政党及其纲领。) So a £500,000 maximum, pathetic as it is, is at least a start.(因此，50万英镑的上限，尽管可悲，但至少是一个开始。) In a subsequent(随后的) pledge(承诺，保证), Burnham suggested that it could gradually be lowered.
最近的例子是伯纳姆在限制政治捐款的意图上出尔反尔，这既引发了愤怒，也带来了无奈的认命。这几乎算不上什么激进的政策：他提议任何人一年内给政党的捐款不得超过50万英镑。即便如此，这仍会让巨富对我们的政治产生不成比例的影响。我一直认为，唯一公平的制度是，除了标准、固定的会员费之外，根本不应有私人捐款。否则，选民永远会屈居于金钱之下。但目前没有任何上限，这确保了亿万富翁可以收买政党及其纲领。因此，50万英镑的上限，尽管可悲，但至少是一个开始。在随后的承诺中，伯纳姆表示可以逐步降低这一上限。