PH wrote:There's an independent pay review body, as there should be, the only thing wrong with it is the government is not bound by the findings.
I don't think that is "wrong". An elected government has to have the power to make decisions, otherwise democracy becomes a nonsense.
There are umpteen "independent" bodies who undertake various studies and research and make recommendations to the government. Pay review bodies, Royal Commissions, and so on. It would be a mockery of democracy if the elected government was obliged to implement every one of their recommendations. We really would have the "unelected bureaucrats making decisions" situation then.
mikeymo wrote:I don't think that is "wrong". An elected government has to have the power to make decisions, otherwise democracy becomes a nonsense.
There are umpteen "independent" bodies who undertake various studies and research and make recommendations to the government. Pay review bodies, Royal Commissions, and so on. It would be a mockery of democracy if the elected government was obliged to implement every one of their recommendations. We really would have the "unelected bureaucrats making decisions" situation then.
In general I think the opposite. There are too many other pressures on politicians. These operational decisions are better made by arms length bodies working with very high transparency to very clear briefs.
The work of those bodies but not the individual decisions should then be reviewed by Parliament informed by reports from the National Audit Office and others. With total transparency.
And then voters can take the performance of Parliament into account when they vote the next time. But, of course, not that of Ministers in any direct way in the UK system.
mikeymo wrote:I don't think that is "wrong". An elected government has to have the power to make decisions, otherwise democracy becomes a nonsense.
There are umpteen "independent" bodies who undertake various studies and research and make recommendations to the government. Pay review bodies, Royal Commissions, and so on. It would be a mockery of democracy if the elected government was obliged to implement every one of their recommendations. We really would have the "unelected bureaucrats making decisions" situation then.
In general I think the opposite. There are too many other pressures on politicians. These operational decisions are better made by arms length bodies working with very high transparency to very clear briefs.
The work of those bodies but not the individual decisions should then be reviewed by Parliament informed by reports from the National Audit Office and others. With total transparency.
And then voters can take the performance of Parliament into account when they vote the next time. But, of course, not that of Ministers in any direct way in the UK system.
Jonathan
"Reviewed by Parliament", "informed by reports" - what would that mean in practice? Parliament would vote on the decisions?
mikeymo wrote:I don't think that is "wrong". An elected government has to have the power to make decisions, otherwise democracy becomes a nonsense.
There are umpteen "independent" bodies who undertake various studies and research and make recommendations to the government. Pay review bodies, Royal Commissions, and so on. It would be a mockery of democracy if the elected government was obliged to implement every one of their recommendations. We really would have the "unelected bureaucrats making decisions" situation then.
In general I think the opposite. There are too many other pressures on politicians. These operational decisions are better made by arms length bodies working with very high transparency to very clear briefs.
The work of those bodies but not the individual decisions should then be reviewed by Parliament informed by reports from the National Audit Office and others. With total transparency.
And then voters can take the performance of Parliament into account when they vote the next time. But, of course, not that of Ministers in any direct way in the UK system.
Jonathan
I'm uncertain. Say hypothetically one such body recommended a massive pay rise for a sector and the cost of that pay increase means that services had to be dramatically cut. Politicians would be held accountable for the cuts in services yet they had no control over it as it was decided beyond their control. Of course they could increase funding for that sector but then the budget funding requirements has in effect been (to a degree) passed outside the control of the politicians being held accountable for it. So politicians are held accountable for tax increases (contrary to their electoral manifesto) necessary due to an independent pay body ...
(Not defending the current bunch of incompetents, just thinking about general principle).
Psamathe wrote:Of course they could increase funding for that sector but then the budget funding requirements has in effect been (to a degree) passed outside the control of the politicians being held accountable for it.
Being accountable for something doesn't mean that you have to make every individual decision. It's often better to delegate and increase the period over which you're held to account.
Psamathe wrote:Of course they could increase funding for that sector but then the budget funding requirements has in effect been (to a degree) passed outside the control of the politicians being held accountable for it.
Being accountable for something doesn't mean that you have to make every individual decision. It's often better to delegate and increase the period over which you're held to account.
Jonathan
You'd like a longer period over which to hold the government to account? A general election every five years is too short a period?
mikeymo wrote:I don't think that is "wrong". An elected government has to have the power to make decisions, otherwise democracy becomes a nonsense.
There are umpteen "independent" bodies who undertake various studies and research and make recommendations to the government. Pay review bodies, Royal Commissions, and so on. It would be a mockery of democracy if the elected government was obliged to implement every one of their recommendations. We really would have the "unelected bureaucrats making decisions" situation then.
In general I think the opposite. There are too many other pressures on politicians. These operational decisions are better made by arms length bodies working with very high transparency to very clear briefs.
The work of those bodies but not the individual decisions should then be reviewed by Parliament informed by reports from the National Audit Office and others. With total transparency.
And then voters can take the performance of Parliament into account when they vote the next time. But, of course, not that of Ministers in any direct way in the UK system.
Jonathan
I'm uncertain. Say hypothetically one such body recommended a massive pay rise for a sector and the cost of that pay increase means that services had to be dramatically cut. Politicians would be held accountable for the cuts in services yet they had no control over it as it was decided beyond their control. Of course they could increase funding for that sector but then the budget funding requirements has in effect been (to a degree) passed outside the control of the politicians being held accountable for it. So politicians are held accountable for tax increases (contrary to their electoral manifesto) necessary due to an independent pay body
Yes. A set of unelected, allegedly "wise experts" could quite easily bankrupt a government, or force them to make massive tax rises.
We elected the government to make decisions on our behalf. If they make decisions I don't like, I want to be able to make representations to my MP. A response of "I'm sorry mikeymo, but these people you've never heard of made this decision, there's nothing we MPs can do about it" sounds like the very opposite of democracy to me.
mikeymo wrote:You'd like a longer period over which to hold the government to account? A general election every five years is too short a period?
No.
I'd like whoever makes decisions about eg nurses' pay to be held to account over longer terms. Today's headlines are a bit too short. And party politics too trivial.
But perhaps you could remind me how Ministers who currently make these decisions are held to account for them?
Psamathe wrote:Of course they could increase funding for that sector but then the budget funding requirements has in effect been (to a degree) passed outside the control of the politicians being held accountable for it.
Being accountable for something doesn't mean that you have to make every individual decision. It's often better to delegate and increase the period over which you're held to account.
Jonathan
Do politicians (e.g. Ministers) have any control over the period which they are held to account? If public opinion/press take issue with cutting certain types of treatment to make up for an independently set pay increase can the Minister decide to stay on for a few extra years to extend the "accountability term" or demand the PM not sack him/her in a "reshuffle"?
mikeymo wrote:We elected the government to make decisions on our behalf. If they make decisions I don't like, I want to be able to make representations to my MP. A response of "I'm sorry mikeymo, but these people you've never heard of made this decision, there's nothing we MPs can do about it" sounds like the very opposite of democracy to me.
Have you found making representations to your MP to be an effective way of holding Ministers accountable?
Jdsk wrote:No, as in "not the individual decisions".
Of course Parliament could comment on anything it wants.
Jonathan
It's not clear what you are proposing would change, in practice. If the government wouldn't be obliged to carry out the recommendations of the various bodies, as is now the situation, what is different? Please explain.
Psamathe wrote:Of course they could increase funding for that sector but then the budget funding requirements has in effect been (to a degree) passed outside the control of the politicians being held accountable for it.
Being accountable for something doesn't mean that you have to make every individual decision. It's often better to delegate and increase the period over which you're held to account.
Do politicians (e.g. Ministers) have any control over the period which they are held to account? If public opinion/press take issue with cutting certain types of treatment to make up for an independently set pay increase can the Minister decide to stay on for a few extra years to extend the "accountability term" or demand the PM not sack him/her in a "reshuffle"?
If you can move decisions away from today's headlines it makes it easier to get some genuine accountability and transparency.
mikeymo wrote:We elected the government to make decisions on our behalf. If they make decisions I don't like, I want to be able to make representations to my MP. A response of "I'm sorry mikeymo, but these people you've never heard of made this decision, there's nothing we MPs can do about it" sounds like the very opposite of democracy to me.
Have you found making representations to your MP to be an effective way of holding Ministers accountable?
Jonathan
My MP has voted differently in the house. On one occasion I expect because of representations he received (the Iraq war). And after that I stopped voting for him. I am only one voter of course, as we all are.
But tell me, what exactly are you proposing, that will result in a clear difference in how things work?