Happier days for Joan Ryan
The Association of Chief Police Officers confirmed that the Home Office rejected its plea last autumn for more cash to help it deal with a backlog of 27,500 cases which had not been entered on the Police National Computer. And it revealed that Ms Ryan - who has responsibility for criminal records - replied to its letter detailing the work of the three-strong unit processing the cases and voicing concerns about the sharing of criminal records across Europe.
This blog is not going to give this matter the Dalesque or Kitchenesque treatment. Go to the sidebar, click and any number of sites will deal with this. It’s simply going to ask a question and hopefully the question is not too stupid:
Why is it the case that the higher one rises in power, the more corrupt one becomes?
Why, for example, doesn’t a government minister tend more naturally to altruism, patriotism and citizen concern, the higher he or she rises? There are countless examples of young MPs going into parliament with high ideals, before they meet the whips, that is. Look at Tony Blair in his early days and look at him now.
Surely, the higher one rises, the less need for cash and the less pressure to be corrupt? And surely, in Britain, Wikipedia’s criteria for non-corruption have already largely been met and yet it goes on. Like with the non-necessity of Richard Nixon to do what he did, Britain’s pollies just do it.
Plato said take power out of the oligarch’s hands and give it to the philosophers. One blog says the way to cure corruption in high places is to take away the high places. A lovely but naïve idea. Stumbling and Mumbling would say put an end to managerialism.
Being of the Christian persuasion in this matter, it seems clear to me that, just as a baby is not born corrupt in real terms [leaving aside the argument over original sin], so the dirt trickles down from the top, not the other way round. But where exactly is the top? The PM or President? Higher? This quote gives one answer. But if that is so, then, in Fraser’s words from Dad’s Army: “We’re doomed, I tell ye.”
Everything seems to indicate that when men and women enter the sphere of power, they come up against, not the power itself but the minions and agencies of it, who are powerful enough adversaries anyway. I often quote Woodrow Wilson’s “since I entered politics …” and it's hard to refute. Given that, then the next question is what can be done about it.
James,
ReplyDeleteThe answer to what can be done is straightforward.
1.Term limits for all MP's. Three Parliaments and you're out.
Nobody stays near power long enough to get corrupted.
2. In the absence of term limits for MP's, take ministerial appointments out of leadership patronage and put them to backbench ballot for fixed two year terms - all the way up the tree, the only office excluded being Prime Minister.
3. A limit of two terms on any individual holding the office of Prime Minister. Nobody is as effective after ten years in that post as they are even after eight.
I like the idea of limiting a PM's terms. Even Supermac couldn't save the 3rd term Tories 1959-64.
ReplyDeleteAll this is fine, good people but who's to implement it and to enforce it if there's an active push to maintain it?
ReplyDelete