Why F1's 'democracy' is doomed to failure

It's a cliche but no less true for being oft-repeated: you can't please all the people all of the time.

So as the business of shaping a new Formula 1 for 2021 and beyond stalls in the mire of inertia, disagreement and vested interests, I have to ask - quite apart from anything else, is this the end of Liberty Media's chums-with-everyone project?

In theory it should all have been settled by now.

Gone are the days when new regulations were cooked up behind closed doors by the likes of Max Mosley and Bernie Ecclestone (or both - perhaps we need to express this in a Venn diagram) and then presented to a weak bunch of divided-and-ruled teams as a fait accompli.

There's also an element hitherto unseen in any new Formula 1 rules package: technical rigour. Both F1 and the FIA have tooled up with experienced personnel - for engineers looking to boost their pensions it's become the equivalent of ageing footballers seeing out their final seasons in China. Where sundry Overtaking Working Groups and Strategy Groups have failed to swerve the unintended consequences of change, surely this army of experts must succeed?

What's placed the process on a sticky wicket from the off is that the new rules package is bound in with the beginning of a new commercial settlement - the dreaded Concorde Agreement. This double-whammy has handed the teams - or, to be more accurate, the big manufacturers F1 is relying on to stick around - unprecedented negotiating power, and strained the illusion of unity and chumminess F1 has cultivated since booting Bernie upstairs.

Not only are the teams more powerful than ever, their fragmented agendas militate against them forming a coherent bloc, except on those rare occasions when self-interest temporarily aligns them.

Witness the hoo-haa over when to publish the 2021 regulations - you know, the ones that haven't been decided yet.

The FIA's own Sporting Code dictates these have to be finalised in June - ie now - but the small teams feared such an early start would hand the larger and better-resourced teams an advantage.

The only consensus reached so far, after exhaustive debate, is when to publish the rules that haven't been decided yet: not June, not December, but October, this being the peak point of mutual disadvantage. And there's still a disturbing absence of clarity over the philosophy of the 2021 regulations beyond empty sloganeering.

What do we want? Better racing! When do we want it? Now! The ratio of noise to science is worryingly unbalanced.

Imagine how dumb it would be to lurch onwards to this imaginary nirvana with no clear idea of how it could be achieved, how it will work, what it will look like, or even what the tangible benefits will actually be. The parallels with the wretched Brexit process - interminable negotiations between impotent stakeholders, endless delays, undeliverable promises - are disturbingly vivid. It's like something out of the pages of Kafka, or perhaps Nigel Roebuck's beloved (nay sublime) Grand Prix of Gibraltar.

Without a clear consensus on the desired outcome - beyond the aforementioned posturing - there cannot be any consensus on the means of achieving it. The more parties involved in the process, the less chance there is of them finding common ground, which is why F1's policy of trying to please everyone is doomed to fail.

After all, giving people what they want is no guarantee of success.

The much-maligned halo eventuated from a widely expressed desire for improved cockpit safety. The present generation of wide, downforce-laden cars answered pressing calls for more visual drama. Those massively complicated, expensive, whisper-quiet hybrid power units everyone purports to hate? Brought in because not only was there a fear manufacturers might desert F1 if its relevance to road car technology continued to decline, one of them (Renault) explicitly said it probably would.

These same manufacturers now imperil the 2021 process through their intransigence over matters such as the budget cap and future power units.

Understandably they don't want to give up competitive advantage. They'd rather not have to cut jobs (as would happen under a budget cap) since that is PR poison. The more successful ones are relatively happy with their share of the commercial revenues - for although they'd certainly want a bigger share, they have a vested interest in it not being shared more equitably since that would mean a smaller slice of the pie.

In any case, can you imagine a scenario in which any of the team bosses who represent those manufacturers - racers all, as well as self-styled masters of the universe - willingly putting themselves in a position where they have to go back to their respective boards and explain how they've willingly given up a competitive advantage... as well as a boatload of money? They would sooner eat crow.

Neither do they want anyone else to join the party. The ladders have long since been pulled up in Formula 1. The commercial rights holder might hold a candle for other manufacturers getting involved, but the ones in it presently are enjoying such power and influence as they have - a position of strength that grows with inequality as smaller teams have to 'buddy up' to larger ones. Even at profoundly independent Williams the default response when Toto Wolff says "Jump" is "How high?"

There are some who readily opine the answer is to "bring back Bernie". Obligingly, Bernie Ecclestone has been showing his face at recent grands prix and practically charging towards anyone accompanied by a camera and a live microphone... Just watch as the joy of the interviewer - I've got Bernie! - evaporates into sheer dismay as they realise they might as well have canvassed the opinions of the mad woman in the attic from a Victorian novel.

'The Bolt' has precious little of use to say about anything these days. And indeed, if there is anybody on this earth whose vision for post-2020 Formula 1 resonates with F1's principals not one iota, it is Bernard Charles Ecclestone.

But there's a grain of plausibility to this yearning for a 'benevolent dictator' figure to ride in and crack some heads. F1's policy of trying to please everyone has resulted in deadlock. It's time to start under-promising and over-delivering - rather than the other way round - and if that means putting a few corporate noses out of joint, so be it.

Even some of the teams are beginning to come around to this way of thinking. In Monaco Claire Williams, who notionally represents an independent outfit but is closely aligned with Mercedes, was unequivocal.

"When we first started these negotiations, it was a long time ago and we're now at that point where we need to have that full set of regulations so that we can plan and prepare our businesses for that season," she said.

"I have a problem in our sport anyway in the fact that I feel it's far too democratic. I've been quite open about that. I feel that F1 and the FIA should take more ownership of the regulations. We run it too much in a collegiate way, which is detrimental when we all have our own agendas.

"We need to be looking at this sport and its sustainability into the future and protecting it and protecting the true DNA of that. By doing that by committee I think can be very difficult."

Sadly for F1, 'taking ownership' will involve busting some heads or at least bruising some egos. The era of chumocracy has run its course.