The appointment became a proxy for whether lived experience can count as governance expertise: voters here answered No by 700 votes to 258. “Our amateurism is embarrassing” captured the prevailing mood, with the result also carrying a suspicion that this was political payback to organised labour.
The winning case, and the floor’s most-respected case, was bluntly technical. One No voter demanded an end to “wide range of perspectives rubbish” and appointments to people “who know what they are doing”; another said union activism “should actually disqualify a person from positions of power like that.”
Yes did not argue that Nowak was a banker. Its strongest voices argued that a non-executive director need not be one, pointing to precedent and representation: “It has happened before where the former General Secretary Of the TGWU,Bill Morris,served with distinction.” Another said union representatives help ensure “the Bank takes the interests of workers, of ordinary families, into account”.
That left the two sides answering slightly different questions. Yes voters stressed that “Bank Governance isn't about just pure financial expertise” and distinguished oversight from monetary policy, while No voters treated the wording — whether union activism was sufficient — as the point, conceding only that Nowak was “not the Governor of the Bank, just a non-executive director.”
The result settled the question, but not the argument beneath it: technical competence carried the vote, while representation supplied the Yes side’s clearest defence.
33 Opinions
Union activism is not sufficient experience for any credible job. Unions presence on boards & decision making bodies is not representative but regressive. Why allow Sovialist & Communists to influence policy when they want to destroy the UK? Madness.
Can we stop with wide range of perspectives rubbish and start appointing people who know what they are doing. Our amateurism is embarrassing
Union Activism should actually disqualify a person from positions of power like that.
Every government has appointed a trade union representative. It isn't some random trade unionist, but one of the economists the unions employ. They are there to ensure the Bank takes the interests of workers, of ordinary families, into account in their decision making. Probably not a great idea to get rid of that role and let bankers and head in the clouds academic economists divorced from real life to make the decisions without that input?
Working or leading a trade union where you are accountable to members,workers in this country,is a n experience that brings skills to a post such as this.It has happened before where the former General Secretary Of the TGWU,Bill Morris,served with distinction.
Labour's position of being massive in hock with the unions along with their donations (bribes) require a deep scrutiny.
The bond markets are currently looking for evidence that the Govt knows what it is doing on tax and borrowing. This clearly unqualified individual's appointment shows clearly how out of its dept the Govt is, and how much trouble we're really in
He knows nothing about economics or money. Completely unsuitable for the role.
Interested to see how many people will say no to this but haven't applied the same logic to other important positions in Westminster... and abroad. Just a mild curiosity.
The Bank of England to be run by those with substantial, all round banking experience. It's obvious to most why this is important, without spelling it out.