If you look back over presidential report cards over the last 50 years you will notice one particular strong pattern: foreign intervention almost never ends well.
With the exception of George HW Bush, who after all did not make it to a second term, foreign intervention is almost always regarded as a mistake and, more importantly, against public opinion.
In the last decade the notorious wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq appear to have turned public opinion against foreign intervention. But there are always rule breakers, and intervention in libya appears to have been generally supported publicly. Instead, it's the way in which we intervene, and the degree of involvement the us has that the public are questioning.
Today President Obama will speak directly about Libya for the first time since intervention began. His grade is yet to be seen, but it is immediately apparent that opinion on Libya could swing either way.
Cut up
Cuts have the power to incite dramatic, even extreme, reactions in people. There is no concept more clearly associated with the "not in my back yard" phenomenon. This makes tough economic policy very hard to implement.
The government is currently effectively working through a list of departments and expenditure in order to assess where cuts should fall. Every area will be scrutinized, as shown by the already pretty comprehensive list of areas considered, including higher education, defense and localized healthcare. But with cuts comes protest, in pretty much every area.
The latest target (a pretty antagonistic phrase in itself) for cuts is the police force. Overtime pay allowance and antisocial hours pay will be cut. The police force object to this. Understandable, really, considering that anytime anyone is looking at losing resources, personally or professionally, they will inevitably find that objectionable.
What the police force are claiming is that these cuts have resulted from extreme cases of abuse of the system. However, even as they object to cuts on this basis they quote the figure of personal loss of £4000. This in itself is extreme as it is the very top end of what individuals could lose. Other bodies, such as the armed services, have faced far more comprehensive cuts.
It is clear that the police force approach cuts with the not in my back yard approach. However, if anyone doubts the legitimacy of the funding cuts they face casting your mind back to the fear and uncertainty of late 2008 will probably justify the majority of economic action for you. Furthermore if you were to cast your mind over the economic fluctuations of, say, the last century you will realize that cuts are the only way to ensure that inevitable economic lows and highs can be kept relatively constant.
Ultimately cuts are inevitable compensation for excessive expenditure. As such we should consider the horror headlines with a cynical eye, a reflection of our times, not of a nightmare future.
The government is currently effectively working through a list of departments and expenditure in order to assess where cuts should fall. Every area will be scrutinized, as shown by the already pretty comprehensive list of areas considered, including higher education, defense and localized healthcare. But with cuts comes protest, in pretty much every area.
The latest target (a pretty antagonistic phrase in itself) for cuts is the police force. Overtime pay allowance and antisocial hours pay will be cut. The police force object to this. Understandable, really, considering that anytime anyone is looking at losing resources, personally or professionally, they will inevitably find that objectionable.
What the police force are claiming is that these cuts have resulted from extreme cases of abuse of the system. However, even as they object to cuts on this basis they quote the figure of personal loss of £4000. This in itself is extreme as it is the very top end of what individuals could lose. Other bodies, such as the armed services, have faced far more comprehensive cuts.
It is clear that the police force approach cuts with the not in my back yard approach. However, if anyone doubts the legitimacy of the funding cuts they face casting your mind back to the fear and uncertainty of late 2008 will probably justify the majority of economic action for you. Furthermore if you were to cast your mind over the economic fluctuations of, say, the last century you will realize that cuts are the only way to ensure that inevitable economic lows and highs can be kept relatively constant.
Ultimately cuts are inevitable compensation for excessive expenditure. As such we should consider the horror headlines with a cynical eye, a reflection of our times, not of a nightmare future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)