ABSTRACT
In Chapter 1 we distinguished three usages of the term ‘responsible’ when applied to groups taking political decisions. It is used to signify that the decision-makers are responsive to public opinion; it is used to signify that their decisions are prudent and mutually consistent; and it is used to signify that they are accountable for their actions to another body, such as Parliament. And while critics commonly assert (or imply) that governments should be responsible in all these senses, it is clear that there is no necessary link between them. Responsiveness and consistency are desirable ends that are wholly compatible only in rare combinations of circumstance. Accountability is not an end in itself so much as a means whereby one or (to some extent) both of the other ends may be secured. The great virtue of ministerial accountability to Parliament, say admirers of the British constitution, is that it gives ministers enough independence to pursue consistent policies without giving them so much independence that they can safely ignore public opinion.
