I'm always banging on about how our politicians should be held responsible for the decisions they make on our behalf.

Iceland has taken the first step towards this, in my view, by putting in the dock the Prime Minister who was in charge at the time their banking system went titsup.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/iceland/9124015/Icelands-former-PM-goes-on-trial-over-2008-financial-crisis.html

"Mr Haarde said: 'Nobody predicted that there would be a financial collapse in Iceland.' He added that the Government did not fully understand how much debt the banks had on their books. After three Icelandic banks were forced into bankruptcy and another nationalised, the country's external debt soared in late 2008 to more than 50bn euros (£42bn), almost six times it's annual GDP, leaving it financially crippled."

There is no doubt, in hindsight, that the activities of Iceland's Banks went far beyond what could be described as prudent. The decision the Icelandic court is being asked to make, though, is whether the government was negligent in allowing them to take those actions.

But it is the principle that interests me more. Should we start to make our government more directly responsible for the actions it takes? And if so, how should we go about it?

The guillotine worked well in the past!

Dear Pericles,

Geir Haarde was Prime Minister from 2006 up until early 2009.
The State did not take over the top banks until late 2008.
The top 3 banks collapsed in late 2008 after years of
debt-fuelled expansion. How can the PM be held responsible
for the failure of the country's banking system under those
circumstances? I suppose in hindsight - the system should
have been more closely regulated and not allowed to build
up such a huge debt - but can that be blamed entirely on the
ex PM? Not sure.

Iceland does have a special court of impeachment set up in
1905 - which has never been used - up until now. However, I
would be very surprised given the circumstances - if the
ex PM would be found guilty by the court and given a prison
sentence.

As for what should we do in this country to prevent things
like that happening here. I think that we already have
legal protections in place with our banking systems that
would prevent out banks from running up debts of this kind.

'But it is the principle that interests me more. Should we start to make our government more directly responsible for the actions it takes? And if so, how should we go about it?'

As one who also bangs on about transparency and open government I think this is a tricky one Pericles. But I can see the attraction.

One problem is a possible negative effect where governments become too cowardly to do anything in the way of reform or in making decisions because of fear of stuffing up so a form of inertia might set in. Would such a system of accountability impact adverseley on good decision making, even if the legal route was only taken in the most dire of circumstances. Who would decide those circumstances?

A more proactive appraoch might be one that would require government documents and approaches to government (through lobby groups and organisations) to be published as a matter of course. This would include Cabinet documents after the term of government (if not before) rather than the current 20 years (down from 30). That way all the documents around events like AWB, the Craig Thomson affair or intelligence used as the premise for war, would be out earlier rather than later. Nothing like a paper trail to keep the beggars honest.

This may not address the accountability issue totally in terms of legal recourse after the event, but may reduce the opportunities for mismanagement, corruption and deception.

Your idea in principle is nevertheless a tempting one that could be reworked into something relevant or possible given the risks above.

Iceland also told the Central Banks of Europe what to do with their bailout money.Iceland now creates it's own credit.

Prof William K Black was a regulator back in the 80's.He in the past has put them in gaol.Clinton got rid of Glass Steagal and the rorts went wild.Prof Black said that 95% of loans by Fannie and Freddie were "Liars Loans" ie they were fraudulant.Not a single person charged and our Super funds bought them as good investments.

Fannie and Fedddie were leveraged at 333:1 and Obama thought it a good idea to uncrease it.Private banks should not be allowed to create from nothing,money that is not theirs.This includes the US Fed and Central Banks of Europe.They are that powerful now that they own our Govts via finance + media and create wars of imperialism to steal energy resoures to shore up their New World Order.It is not only our pollies that need to be put on trial,it is also those who have corrupted them.

This is why they want to attack Syria and Iran.Large amounts of oil/gas have also been found off the coast of Syria,Lebanon and Greece.

Was the Iceland Government Labor ? Why else would Lexi defend it ?