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.

Comments

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

Yes, the hubris argument is definitely a strong one, coupled with short-sightedness. Am I right in thinking it was a labour government that first sent the troops into Northern Ireland, and which introduced internment?

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

The troops were sent in in 1969 by a Labour Government essentially because the RUC and its auxiliaries were acting in a blatantly sectarian way and it was hoped that the troops would be more acceptable to Catholics.

Internment was imposed in 1971 by the government of Northern Ireland, by that time Heath had won the 1970 election and there was a Tory government at Westminster.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

As you say - good intentions in 69', but that didn't stop a bloody mess for the next three decades. Thanks for clearing up my confusion on the internment introduction.

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

s you say - good intentions in 69', but that didn't stop a bloody mess for the next three decades.

Absolutely. Though I don't think that the blame can be laid at the door of the Wilson government. With hindsight, the only solution that stood a chance in 1969 was to impose direct rule immediately and that simply wasn't politically feasible.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

It stands as a good example of the unintended consequence - something the current Labour government really need to think about. I'm more willing than most to believe in their good intentions, but their good intentions and £2.20 will get me a triple shot latte...