Efficiency in Government Policy and the Limits of Debate

The UK appears to be moving toward legalizing assisted dying, following a successful vote in the Commons. However, rather than adopting a policy modeled on the experience of other countries, we are likely to spend years locked in debate.

This hesitation reflects a broader tendency among politicians to avoid policy changes that could have negative outcomes, even when the current status quo causes more harm. It mirrors the psychological dilemma of the trolley problem, where people are reluctant to pull the lever to divert a train—even if doing so would save more lives—because the act of intervention feels morally fraught.

Debate, while essential, has its limits. Prolonged discussion can often lead to circular arguments and indecision. It is easy to imagine potential positive or negative consequences of a policy change, but these projections rarely align perfectly with real-world outcomes. Instead of endless deliberation, governments could adopt trial policies or implement sunset clauses to periodically reassess their effectiveness. This approach would allow for adjustment and improvement based on actual results.

The cost of prolonged debate extends beyond the immediate issue. Time spent deliberating one policy comes at the expense of addressing other pressing matters, and delays in decision-making postpone any potential benefits of change. In this sense, government decision-making could learn from competitive industries, like car manufacturing. A car company that lags behind its competitors in adopting new designs and technologies risks falling behind entirely. In policymaking, as in business, perfection can become the enemy of progress.

Government standard insurance

Having a more informed public means the can make better decisions to improve their lives, on most things governments wants to make that information easily accessible to the consumer  

An informed consumer can make better purchasing decisions, when the product is difficult to understand consumers will make worse decisions overall.
Often consumers will accept the terms and conditions not understanding what is actually covered and what loopholes are written into the documents for the insurance company to get out of paying out.
In it was an informed market we would assume insurance companies giving more comprehensive cover but if individuals with no legal training  are the main consumer this may not likely happen.

An ill informed consumer may not understand the legal documentation, the implications aspects of the document have, may not understand the legal jargon, may not even know what questions to ask to understand if this insurance even good.

In the UK it's easier to know what cover you can get on the NHS as it will be the same for everyone, most people will know what type of treatments are not covered under the NHS, they don't have unknown loop holes.
With medical health insurance you have to trust a broker/yourself/etc that they have asked the right questions are you are covered when you need it. 

Government back insurance standards would build a base line that insurance companies could say this policy applies to, so as a consumer you could more easily find information what does it cover and as it has been tested with a large number of examples you could see potential pitfalls that government could decide to amend the law at a later date if they wish.



force majeure
furlow 
NSH and health insurance 
A similar example exists ATOL

Productivity
A way at creating a more productive public and private sector is by analyzing other countries successful political frame work for different sectors.
More money to the OFT to investigate why different sectors in other countries are more productive than us (plugging a skills gap, allowing more competition) while understanding our unique circumstances (Drop in public spending, historical differences) Can give politicians a better understanding of what to combat to increase productivity. 
This is also true for the public sector looking at why countries maybe spending less and getting better results (tax heaven, live in more highly dense cities, public have healthier lives) and can either give us direct policies to copy and see their success or try our own policies to combat these issues. 

Devolution
Devolution can lead to independence, with more powers going to regions. A way to try and prevent this is to split a region that wants to have greater say over it's future and add in regions that have a different cultural history and less support for independence.  

Rather than giving Scotland more powers you could split off the highlands to make their own decisions and split the south of Scotland and put them in two different regional governments with parts of north England.

It's harder to build a nationalist party that way and have less nationalism  

Defence of ideology
Trying to pick the best policies can result in not seeing the bigger picture and sometimes worse policies can help over all.
An example of this is redecorating a room all at once or gradually by buying new stuff. When having an image of what you want your room to be like individual elements may not seem good on their own but work over all, buying items one by one can result you spending more for the best items and they may not work together.

Imagine creating the most beautiful face one group A just picks the best looking person and group B picks the best parts of other peoples faces, best nose, best mouth, best eyes. Without seeing it in context it can be difficult to see will it work over all, the eyes maybe the best over all but do they suit the mouth?

If you were going to make a defence against pragmatism one point could be that its it wastes time deciding each individual aspect were you will likely make mistakes, not see the bigger picture and waste time not working on other things. 

The big society
The big society is fuzzy concept that appeals to many people but is difficult to create by politicians alone.  

Could greater integration from interactive social media and local communities help?  
Could having your Facebook wall updated about local issues by news outlets and local people help naturally integrate more people into local issues?

  

Zero hours contracts

Zero hours contracts can suit some employees lives, they can also lead some people to unstable lives with unstable incomes.
I might not even be possible to add clauses to prevent all the negative aspects of zero hours contracts without harming a few people who were very happily employed, just as the minimum wage wiped out certain jobs.

One way we can make the lives better for people on zero hours contracts is by any hours they work above their contracted hours would have to be paid at the living wage. 
If you are contracted for one hour a week and are asked to 24 hours everything above the first hour would be paid at the living wage.