|
You are conflating several distinct arguments:
1) measuring failed promises and pledges.
It is not unreasonable to evaluate a list of pledges and promises someone makes, rate their effectiveness at being achieved (or not) and of course highlighting the failures.
It is somewhat of a subjective opinion and relative to context as to what an overall success/failure is measured upon. For some situations or people, success may be a simple as delivering > 50% of what they aimed to achieve, while for others it's a failure if even one single target is missed.
2) false promises or naivety:
While it is fair to say that a failure is a failure regardless of the intentions of the individual or organisation, the reasons and scope of those failures has some impact upon guilt/responsibility and effects.
Is the failure a result of deliberate and wilful attempts to mislead the public or the result of the naive belief that the individual was capable of delivering something that in reality they were not ?
Did an individual or organisation deliberately intend to not do something they said they would ?
One could reasonably argue that neither case makes someone suitable for high office, but most certainly the deliberate attempts to mislead should result in greater condemnation and punishment.
3) Scope of powers and influence:
Does the particular role have sufficient scope to cover all aspects of the causes and solutions to a problem ?
If it doesn't, and significant aspects of the problem are outside of their control, then potentially it doesn't matter what they do or how well they do it, they are not going to be able to achieve a successful outcome soley as a result of their own abilities and actions.
If it is either unreasonable to assume someone else could have achieved a positive result by either the limitations of the specific powers they were given in the role, or as a result of the limitations and capacities of human beings, then it is unreasonable to apply or assert blame.
If the individual by misleading or naivity stopped someone else taking a role that was able to make a positive impact, because a) they had the skills and abilities AND b) the role gave them all the opertunities required to do what was needed, then I would argue it is perfectly reasonable to blame that individual.
However, at present the evidence available appears to suggest that in the role of Mayor of London, any individual would be severely restricted by the limitations of that role with regards to effecting the causes, occurances and results of knife crime.
That cohesive and far reaching Policy across many aspects of the law, society, health and politics would be required to make a significant difference to gang murders, knife crimes etc.
NB: I accept Sadiq Khan to be guilty of naivity in making pledges and promises that couldn't keep.
That however does not automatically equate to being responsible for the increase in knife crime. |
|