"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong."
Linking to my previous post yesterday about the accountability of those we elect, coupled with those appointed by those we elect, comes yet further instances which demonstrate the truth of the quotion above.
Archbishop Cranmer posts on the day David Cameron became a statesman, who His Grace lauds for being the first to call for a no-fly zone over Libya. It has just been announced that Libya will suspend all military action within the country following the United Nations resolution. Presumably the no-fly zone idea is now not required, but the point is that had it been implemented British lives may well have been lost during the operation and any subsequent peace-keeping operation. In any event, had it all gone pear-shaped, exactly what price would David Cameron have paid?
Mark Wadsworth posts on the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, yet I don't recall the people of this country being asked whether they agreed with 'signing-up' to this. Ironically, one commenter to Mark's posts raises the question of what health or law exemption was used to allow the "lawmakers" to carry on smoking in the Houses of Parliament? When it is finally realised that all the information like the effects of second-hand smoke - which is one of the health scares du jour on which this war on tobacco is based - is no more than utter rubbish, just who will pay the price of inflicting unnecessary misery on untold numbers of people?
In the Daily Telegraph letters column today Grant Shapps, Housing Minister, is a co-signatory to a letter bemoaning the fact that thousands of vulnerable people - including pensioners and the disabled, could be forced to fend for themselves because of cuts being made by local authorites to a government funded programme called Supporting People. Yet it is the government, Shapps admits, that will be reducing the grant it gives to councils to fund these services by 12 per cent over 4 years. He then puts both of his feet in his mouth by ending his letter stating that this shouldn't mean targetting disproportionate spending reductions on programmes that support the most vulnerable. Just who is implementing the cut 'at source'? What price will Shapps pay when this causes untold misery and unnecessary death to yet more thousands of people?
Exactly what price will Lansley pay when his health reforms prove not to have the desired effect? What price will Gove pay when his ideas for education reform prove likewise? Or Duncan-Smith with his welfare reforms? What price has Brown paid for breaking our country, financially? What price did Blunkett pay for misusing his position of Home Secretary? Need I continue?
The Coalition document talks about the need to make changes to our political system in order that politicians can become more accountable. The only 'accountability' that will satisfy the majority of people is when politicians, having shown themselves to be incompetent, untrustworthy and liars, is that they should be barred from ever again having the opportunity of committing similar mistakes in the future.