How can the people control unelected quangoes
Ben GREEN
unacountable to the people who paid for them. Now they are good again. Why
the seachange? Quangoes have mushroomed under Labour. How many new ones
have been created in the health arena - the latest load of rubbish is The
Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health (CPPIH) - a laudable
concept, but do we REALLY need it - wouldn't the money be better spent on
doctors and nurses to actually deliver health care to real people rather
than just talk about delivering health care?
The CPPIH will be legally established at the beginning of January. The
regulations will be laid before Parliament in December - if you agree
quangoes are merely jobs for the boys (or girls) please speak out against
Government quangoes!
vonroach
Government Agencies and Boards are a part of any executive department. They can
easily become abusive if given too much power or if established by a legislative
branch to remove responsibility from the legislators on to an unaccountable
body. `Privitization' can also become abusive when used to shunt complaints and
abusive expenses onto an unaccountable 3rd party. Both techniques are frequently
resorted to by politicians who want both graft and public approval. The `private
agents' find ways to repay the politician who can then shunt all complaints on
to some private business, and pontificate at length on how bad or inefficient
they are. A master of both of these techniques was L. B. Johnson as a Senator
and as President - he prided himself with being on both sides of every issue.
Eventually, the private contractors and poorly organized troops in Vietnam got
so tangled that they did him in, and he never finally succeeded in shift the
blame to others than himself and his bungling.
john.white
answerable? Who elected you? How do we get rid of you? I don't know the
answers, our constitution needs looking at!
Ben GREEN <b...@priory.com> wrote in message
news:XXNI9.2904$9R.10...@newsr2.u-net.net...
vonroach
>Tony Benn,more or less said, "Who are you? what do you do? to whom are you
>answerable? Who elected you? How do we get rid of you? I don't know the
>answers, our constitution needs looking at!
>
You need a written Constitution first. I assume the `you' in the questions were
appointed by the legislature, by the executive, or hired under contracts by one
or the other. The way you get rid of them is by firing your government and
electing a more responsible government that doesn't delegate responsibility and
authority so anonymously.
Ben GREEN
supposedly independent Commissioner who has a financial 'relationship' with
a Commission who gives him Commissioner status who would look into this?
If we can only remove Commissions by changing Government (as an earlier
response implied), then does that not mean that Commissions have an in-built
allegiance to the Government 'or party' that set them up. Their independence
would be compromised from the very start.
If commissions can be set up, there perhaps has to be a mechanism
independent of Government to switch them off.
BG
vonroach
Well, if a Commissioner is not indicted and convicted of a crime or their
resignation is not requested by who ever appointed them, there is no other way.
In theory, Commissioners are appointed for their competence, fairness, and
ethics. In fact, they usually do have at least some allegiance to those who
appointed them, and share common views.
Wallace-Macpherson
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 13:43:04 -0000, "Ben GREEN" <b...@priory.com> wrote:
>
> >As an aside who polices Commissions? If, for instance, you come across a
> >supposedly independent Commissioner who has a financial 'relationship' with
> >a Commission who gives him Commissioner status who would look into this?
> >
> >If we can only remove Commissions by changing Government (as an earlier
> >response implied), then does that not mean that Commissions have an in-built
> >allegiance to the Government 'or party' that set them up. Their independence
> >would be compromised from the very start.
> >If commissions can be set up, there perhaps has to be a mechanism
> >independent of Government to switch them off.
>
> Well, if a Commissioner is not indicted and convicted of a crime or their
> resignation is not requested by who ever appointed them, there is no other way.
SNIP
Yes, there is another way. The people need procedures to control government on
particular issues, *other than with candidate elections*. For example, in 1998 the
people of Bavaria (a "free state" in the south of the german federal republic)
used their powers to abolish, not merely a quasi non-governmental organisation but
indeed a quasi-governmental organisation. After a citizens' initiative and
(binding) referendum-demand, the people voted to abolish the allegedly inactive
and corrupt second chamber of parliament, the Senat. And, by golly, they did it!
With initiative and referendum the electorate could pass a law or regulation to
abolish a publicly funded organisation such as a "quango". Why do we in Britain
not exercise this right?
Wallace-Macpherson
Ben GREEN
people - certainly the Internet could be adapted to produce regular
referenda on issues - and these could be used in a way to remove unlected
quangoes. However, this would, I suspect, be very unappealing to career
politicians who devote their lives to 'representing' us.
"Wallace-Macpherson" <m...@iniref.org> wrote in message
news:3DF76E9E...@iniref.org...
vonroach
>It would be interesting to propose an internet based parliament of all the
>people - certainly the Internet could be adapted to produce regular
>referenda on issues - and these could be used in a way to remove unlected
>quangoes. However, this would, I suspect, be very unappealing to career
>politicians who devote their lives to 'representing' us.
In an ideal world perhaps. Never in the real world.
Wallace-Macpherson
> It would be interesting to propose an internet based parliament of all the
> people - certainly the Internet could be adapted to produce regular
> referenda on issues - and these could be used in a way to remove unlected
> quangoes. However, this would, I suspect, be very unappealing to career
> politicians who devote their lives to 'representing' us.
What I suggested was to apply really-existing, well tried methods of democracy
in Britain. We do not need to re-invent the wheel. Just use citizen-initiated
law-making, as in Switzerland, Italy, Netherlands and about half of the states
of the USA.
Of course it's possible to have telematic voting in elections and referendums.
But first, at least in parallel, I argue, we should set up better procedures of
democracy. We should do this carefully, in ways which allow us to learn how to
better govern ourselves. See the proposals at http://www.iniref.org
Applications of ICT can assist democracy and governance - see my (much cited)
writing on this, published by the Council of Europe and others. But technology
should not determine how we govern - we should use it only where it can
improve.
Citizen participation in politics and the new communication media :: is
available via
http://home.snafu.de/mjm/CP/cp.html or http://home.snafu.de/mjm/cit-pol.zip
More papers, on-line videos etc. via http://home.snafu.de/mjm/init.html
Regards
Wallace-Macpherson