Three stories caught my ear this morning as I listened to the radio while at the same time attempting to rouse Master Parrot from his deep slumber to ensure that our neighbours would get their papers delivered on time.
The first was the Beagle 2 Mars probe that failed so dramatically and publicly last Christmas Day. Apparently, this wasn’t the fault of the “amateurish” scientists who designed it. The House of Commons science and technology select committee says it flopped because the government didn’t put in enough money.
Second was the news that there aren’t enough allergy specialists to deal with the growing number of people with that condition. Setting aside the question why some 15 million people in the UK are allergic to something, the message was “more investment.”
Spot the theme yet? Okay, here comes the clincher.
Children’s charities are complaining that the Home Office is not investing enough money to catch and prosecute online paedophiles. They claim the police can’t keep up with new technologies, like 3G phones.
All three of the above are laudable objectives, but why, of why, is the answer to everything “more government money” when what that actually means is more of OUR money?
I have no problem with the idea of taxation which to me is simply a communal moneybox to pay for services for our mutual benefit. Where I do have a problem is with the notion that any problem can be solved by taking a bigger share of that pot.
By all means fund space probes, cure illness and prevent despicable crime — just tell me what we’re going to have to do without to pay for it.