As far as I can tell, there's a specific problem with David Blunkett. It doesn't help that Home Secretary's probably the trickiest post in government, but I don't really think that he's up to it, to be honest. He made a quite incredible mess of education, too, most of which is being slowly secretly undone. He seems like a nice enough guy in himself, which I think is part of the problem too, for home secretaries. I think he sees himself as the home secretary in a way without any historical perspective, I think the same's true of the government in general, too. He's only the present encumbant of the post of Home Secretary, and there will be people after him who are not so nice, and accumulating power to an individual, even a well-intentioned individual, is dangerous because not only of their own flaws, but because eventually they will pass that power on to someone who may well not be so nice, or as competent (shudder!). But when I see things like your link, I wonder if he's even his hand on the tiller.
I think that economicism has been getting to them, and really polluting their thinking, too, turning them into mad Utilitarians and assigning too much liquidity to ethics. They should read more Kant. I think they see the country as a human resource.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cjwatson![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-03-15 05:30 am (UTC)I think that economicism has been getting to them, and really polluting their thinking, too, turning them into mad Utilitarians and assigning too much liquidity to ethics. They should read more Kant. I think they see the country as a human resource.