Huzzah! Someone is at last making a case which is long overdue, as far as I'm concerned, that perhaps there are better things to base political decisions on than whether it's cost effective. So much has been said recently about how we need to cut spending on this and cut spending on that but no one seems to have thought very much about what that actually means to people who will be loosing jobs or seeing services disappear.
I know that we can't just spend money indefinately, that a government running up debts is no better than an individual running up debts, but sometimes it's too easy to get caught up in what is good financial policy and what is good for people. Sometimes we have to do things which aren't financially sensible if we're to help the worst off.
At least, that's my point of view. Perhaps it has to be different when you're thinking about the finances of a nation rather than just your own personal ones. The real question is one of what we base our decisions on. Do we want our politicians to be making decisions for purely financial reasons, or do we want them to take other factors into account?
The current debate over Libya illustrates this. It is alleged that the convicted Lockerbie bomber was released to allow for better business relations with the Libyan government. Yet the relatives of the victims are now saying that their distress should have been considered. But the Scottish government says it made the decision on compassionate grounds, because of his state of health. Despite the suffering many of the relatives feel, I am not sorry that the Scottish minister made the decision he did. But it shows that something other than business or money is seen to be important here. When it comes to the story of how relatives of the victims of IRA bombings are trying to claim compensation from the country where the explosives originated, however, it's easy to suspect that motives are becoming mixed.
I don't know what the answer is, or what is the right thing to do. Our motives are almost always mixed up, our wish to do the right thing can at the same time have a selfish edge. But I think we need to remind ourselves, and our political leaders, that money isn't the most important thing in the world.
What makes good financial sense is also what puts people first. If I'm a director of a small company, I may not want to sack any of my 10 workers but if I can't afford to employ them all I need to sack one, as to 'put people first' and keep them all on will result in the company going bust and everyone losing their jobs.
ReplyDeleteAs for Libya, as much as I feel that Megrahi should rot in jail or else justice hasn't been satisfied, the argument I've heard is that if we're seen to be mean to Megrahi, some fellow soldier of Islam will probably take offence and mount another terrorist offensive against us, which is really not what we need. Best sense says we were right to release him, and RealPolitik wins another round.
Yes, I daresay that's true about the small company. I'm not saying that decisions made on a financial basis is always wrong. I'm just saying that making decisions on the basis of what is good financially without taking into account the affect on peopleis wrong. Sometimes, as in your example, it may give the a good result. Sometimes (for example, ideas of axing 10% of NHS staff including doctors and nurses) it probably doesn't. That's an extreme, but you see my point.
ReplyDelete