Responsible Politicians

Responsible Politicians

Considering how much politicians argue with each other, it is comforting to find at least one thing that most of them can assert in common: responsibility for what will happen.

One consequence of this assertion of responsibility is that they need power. It can take obvious forms, such as powers of surveillance, but also more subtle ones, such as a complicated tax system with lots of levers to influence things.

Before we give an example of a witty defence of the assertion of responsibility, under forceful and targeted attack from an interviewer, three caveats should be added to the general principle. Firstly, it may not apply to all politicians; we should allow for exceptions. Secondly, the responsibility often doesn't extend into the past (what has already happened): for example, if a country or region has been hit by unforeseeable adverse external forces, its local politicians can hardly be blamed. Thirdly, speaking of external forces, politicians may also acknowledge their existence in order to blame them for the necessity of unpopular measures they are taking.

None of these caveats, however, apply to the following interview. Phil Hope of the Labour Party, UK Minister of State for Care Services (at the time), talks to Evan Davis. The background is that funds provided by central government to fund respite breaks for voluntary carers have been diverted to other uses by the receiving primary care trusts. Here is the second half of the interview, transcribed from the BBC Radio 4 Today Programme, March 8th 2010:

PH [...] And as the minister for care services, I'm going to be reviewing the progress that they're making, at the end of this financial year on their performances supporting carers and on their plans for next year, and if those plans aren't satisfactory they won't be approved.

ED (takes over impatiently) Understood. Isn't maybe the lesson here that central goverment cannot make promises about money being spent and cannot make big declarations and fanfare and announcements about "this money is going to be spent on carers" if it doesn't control the budget. And you don't control the budget because we have a system in this country — rightly or wrongly — in which we delegate that power to local primary care trusts.

PH Well, I'm extraordinarily proud of the progress this government has made in providing support for carers. There is of course always ...

ED (interrupts impatiently) But the general problem is ... sorry ... I know ... the general problem is though that you can't ... it's the mismatch between a promise that is made centrally when it is not up to central government what is delivered at local level because we have delegated that locally. It's ... in a way you should just ... shut your mouths rather than make declarations about what is being spent on carers, because it's not your ... not your money that's being spent, it's the local ... PCT.

PH I'm grateful for your advice, Sir, Evan, that I should shut my mouth, but as care services minister I have no intention of doing so. As the minister for care services I'm proud of the fact that we have a ten-year strategy to improve and give support to the carers, that we've announced 255 million pounds in 2008, that's on top of the carers grant of seven-hundred-and-fif...

ED (interrupts impatiently) But if you announce money that isn't yours to spend because it's given to someone else to make a decision as to what to do with it then you shouldn't announce it as money that's for carers. You should just say: "We're doing our best for carers. We hope your PCTs will spend the money the way we would like them to. But it's their choice not our choice".

PH I don't mind you interrupting me in the middle of a sentence, Evan, because I appreciate the passion that lies behind this. I want to see more support for carers. We've announced extra money that we've given to primary care trusts for them to do just that, as well as extra money for local authorities and for others to deliver this. And it is up to local primary care trusts to decide what they deliver in Norfolk, Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool — all around the country will be different. It's up to them to decide local needs and to meet those needs locally. But I'm proud of the fact that we as a government have put more money into the system for them to do so and with that freedom of flexibility they have to determine how it's done locally comes responsibility and accountability, and I shall be reviewing progress on their performance this year, and next year, and if it's not good enough then we shall ask to do them ... do it again.

ED (now jovially) Phil Hope, thank you very much indeed.

PH Thank you.

Full interview (audio) on the BBC website