Hubris

[chickenfeet]

I guess there was another thread I missed out of my critique of Charles Clarke and the New Authoritarianism and that's just how hubristic it is. Not only are we expected to believe that our leaders (now and forever) are well intentioned but also that they are virtually infallible. They could never, for instance, harass (in Blair's chilling phrase) a suspected person to despair who was actually innocent. This is really asking a hell of a lot. Even if one believes that the current British government is, in a technocratic sense, fairly competent, it and its agencies have certainly shown themselves capable of enormous errors. After all, the most charitable explanation of the Iraq fiasco puts it down to incompetence and as rhythmaning has pointed out, Clarke's comments about "travelling safely on the tube" are particularly ironic. It should not be necessary to point out that even with the full resources of the courts involved mistakes get made, especially when the political heat is on. How much more likely is error when decisions are not subject to open and effective review? Add to that the near impossibility of a government or government agency ever admitting it has made a mistake and the opportunity for injustice is immense.

Far more human disasters have been brought about by overconfidence and inertia than by malice.

ETA: Ironically, this was written just before I saw the latest Home Office cock up story.