To an extent, that is quite proper - they have been elected to run the country on the basis of certain proposals, and it is their job to implement those. That is true whatever the complexion.
However, if you look at, say, the Junior Doctor's dispute, you will see that the initial proposal was basically to address what everyone agreed was a problem, in the number of hours the doctors worked; this was felt to compromise patient safety. Slowly, the DH, NHSE and the BMA worked out a scheme that reduced the hours without damaging pay for the vast majority. Both sides were on the verge of accepting it, because it had been created through co-operation. Then the bigwigs of the BMA worked out that the "losers" would actually be the consultants who would be required to carry out their supervisory duties over altered hours. All of a sudden, the virtual agreement was thrown out, it was "compromising safety", making junior doctors work even longer, reducing pay for everyone, and generally a typical example of high-handedness from government. The campaign was more personalised, directed at Hunt (yes, it is part of the job of a minister to be a figurehead), linked to the unnecessary (because no one is getting rid of it) "Save our NHS" campaign. The result was that years of co-operative working were thrown out of the window. It is quite understandable that the DH decided to impose what had already been (almost) agreed. It is being presented, though, as the government imposing, demanding a rubber stamp. If only all parties would accept that the government has a right to govern, and that workers' representatives (and others) have the right to advise vigorously and negotiate but not at the end of the day stop the government governing, we might see light dawning.