Whatever you thought you knew about this government's economic policies, I suggest you forget. For the first time in way beyond living history the Treasury is under the direct control not of the First Lord of the Treasury (otherwise known as the Prime Minister) but of an unelected special adviser to whom it is now very clear that the Chancellor will report.
It has long been said that the biggest block to political progress in the UK has been 'the Treasury view'. This has been true under both Labour and Tory administrations, with all Chancellors subscribing to the opinion fed to them by their officials that prudence is paramount. Even Gordon Brown, for all his supposed recklessness, subjected himself to this view.
The result has been the fetish with balanced budgets.
And constraining expenditure.
Plus an aversion to borrowing.
Whilst always seeking to appease City interests.
But the fight that Cummings won with Javid changes all that. Whatever the reason Javid walked (and I strongly suspect that he could neither stomach Cumming's views on policy or face the cliff edge he knows is coming) the superficial reason of his refusal to work under Downing Street control without advisers of his own is important. He held out for the independence of the Treasury and lost. As a result the whole architecture of power in Whitehall has changed. The traditional twin bastions of power in No 10 and No 11 are no longer divided: there is only No 10.
That means that the fights that have for so long characterised, and constrained, governments will not take place.
Equally, the voice of constraint that Brown, for example, used to stop Blair taking us into the euro (which I have no doubt he would have done) no longer exists.
What is the consequence? I genuinely do not know. It is possible that nothing will change. But such fights do not happen with that outcome. So it seems extremely unlikely that this will be the case.
Instead we face a whole new politics. I have seen someone call it National Conservatism. I think that choice was deliberate. This is about using the power of the state, without limit, to suit the audience for the new populism.
Many aspects of this, from increased taxes, to substantial new borrowing, to significant spending on infrastructure, will look very like policies Labour might have pursued. Economics policy will appear to be liberal.
But that will be done to secure support for the most regressive and even oppressive of social policy agendas. This will be very far from the policy agenda of Labour.
The Treasury view would object to this use of its powers.
But the Treasury view is no more.
National Conservatism is in power.
And whilst I had no love for the Treasury view, because it was profoundly misplaced on a great many issues, this alternative is very much worse.
Today is a dark day for UK politics, I suggest.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Well, it didn’t take long for the Johnson Government to stumble into self-harming crisis. It is what they do. It it what they are; but it is always tinged with a with a jaw-dropping flourish of Boris Johnson-Dominic Cummings vain, comic ineptitude. At leat it is risible.
I trust this is being noted by the impatient in Scotland. I rest my case.
Noted!
I also noted the bizarre sight of Andrew Neil nodding along as Paul Krugman said that worrying about the deficit and debt is a zombie idea (he was promoting his new book called Arguing with Zombies). He also praised Japan and said that UK austerity was mad.
This was on BBC Politics Live today from about 29’30”, well worth catching up on iPlayer.
The panel were stunned, while Mr Neil carried on the conversation as if he had always known that Krugman is correct.
At least two “Richards”; ‘with a with a’, and ‘leat’ for ‘least’; you might believe I was being affected by Johnsonian Conservativism’s natural capacity for bungling.
Only a few hours ago the Conservative media was suggesting Cummiings was finished. Now the spin is, this is a demonstration of Johnson’s power; power over precisely whom?
John S Warren says:
“I trust this is being noted by the impatient in Scotland. I rest my case.”
I’m rather hoping it is being noted by the PATIENT in Scotland. Independence is looking increasingly like the default position for Scottish self-preservation. Socially, as well as politically, conservative voters must notice which way the wind is blowing soon, surely?
Before the EU referendum Sajib Javid made his views on the wisdom of Brexit, particularly a hard Brexit, very clear when he published this on his own website.
https://www.sajidjavid.com/news/sajid-javid-only-thing-leaving-eu-guarantees-lost-decade-british-business
I shared this here a few weeks ago
I suspect it was still resonating with him when he resigned
I was very shocked when I heard what had happened, that the Chancellor had resigned rather than take orders from Cummings. As you say, the Treasury has been a counterweight to Number 10, having a veto over spending in other Departments of State and being formally in charge of the Civil Service.
We don’t know the full story, but it does appear that Dominic Cummings has been able to assert his power via the PM to directly appoint (or at least veto) all Political Advisors throughout the Government. This is abuse of power and if it is sustained it represents a further step towards full blown “National Conservatism”. The “National” in “National Conservatism” being “English”, since the United Kingdom is not a nation in itself, because although Johnson as PM may think he speaks for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, he does not.
This is another bitter fruit of Brexit. “Taking back control” seems to be in order to give it to Cummings in his role of working through Johnson to be the supreme executive authority in the UK. Typically voters voting for a populist “nasty piece of work”, think they are voting for one thing, and then get another, but those who question this outcome are soon persuaded that it is for their own good to keep quiet. If not they too will be sacked or forced to resign.
Cummings is a master of deceit and lies and his influence will probably lead to more of the same across government.
The question now is how the Civil Service will respond. Traditionally it has kept quiet when threatened. It has allowed retirees from the Service to speak in public their main concerns. Will it now be used ruthlessly by political advisors under Cummings’ thumbs to spread lies, more lies and disinformation?
This process looks like the beginning of a Trump-like technique of undermining Cabinet Ministers and career civil servants until they retire early or resign, rather than carry out orders so that Cummings via Johnson can appoint yes-men and yes-women to exert the authority of “Number 10”, which appears to have become the pseudonym for Dominic Cummings. The Civil Service has a proud tradition of independence from its political masters dating back to major reforms in the 19th century. Are these to be trashed by Johnson and Cummings? Are the civil servants to be ordered not to say “Brexit” or “No deal”, when these words exactly describe the situation as it exists or will exist? Truth is being replaced by meaningless nonsense if not lies.
It has come to a dangerous pass, when such questions have to be asked.
You are right Terry
Terry Barker says:
“Truth is being replaced by meaningless nonsense if not lies.”
This has been the norm for some time.
Terry Barker says:
“Truth is being replaced by meaningless nonsense if not lies.”
This has been the norm for some time.
‘Take back control’, ‘Reclaim sovereignty’ and ‘Get it done’, are all prime examples of very persuasive vacuous soundbites. đ
Propaganda at it’s ‘best’.
And its proved to be very, very effective so ignore it at our peril and I fear how the unleashed hounds will respond to any Scottish insurrection as they will see it. Who will then own Project Fear?
National Conservatism – the resonances are deeply troubling, for this is not Conservatism as we have known it through the 50’s, 60’s and early 70’s but something far to the right of even Thatcher whose legacy is one of the destruction of the UK’s industrial base, worker’s rights and social protections, while building up financialisation that rewards some but has cost most of us dearly. This destruction looks likely to increase.
A few months ago it almost seemed risible to make serious comparisons with the 30’s, but not any more after the No10 coup. And of course the great dictator himself had a programme of “significant spending on infrastructure” and, as Joan Robinson remarked, “found a cure against unemployment”. I hesitate to take the comparison any further. However, I fear we are in the hands of a very dangerous clique.
I agree with you
Graham, I had assumed the new ‘free trade only-Canada style’ deal , which would hit the exports of goods, was in the hope they could strike deals which mainly benefitted the financial sector and the industrial sector would be sacrificed if necessary.
The EU don’t likely to give us what Javid was demanding for the finance sector. I begin to wonder if there is any viable plan. Could it really be that the end is power for its own sake?
The Govt will now embark on expansionary fiscal policy. Thatâs what youâve been hoping for isnât it? Thought you would welcome this
Do you have any comprehension of politics?
Oh, and that is probably the ‘household budget’ dead in the water; and now we will probably discover that nobody actually cares, after all!
John S Warren says:
“Oh, and that is probably the âhousehold budgetâ dead in the water…”
George Osborne knew what his political objectives were, and so did Hammond.
The ‘household budget’ analogy will serve this current government as long as they need it. Public opinion is firmly rooted.
While Sajid Javid was resigning, Paul Krugman was telling Andrew Neil on BBC ‘Politics Live’ that Austerity had always been completely wrong. Andrew Neil, perhaps lacking the bravery pills he does not otherwise require when skewering hapless politicians about economics (even when wrong), very unusually said little in retort to Krugman.
If Johnson decides the ‘household budget’ is dead, in order to spend profligately on madcap schemes, or subsidise the privatisation and destruction of public services for reasons of political advantage, we may find out something nobody hitherto suspected: that the British public is not taking its lead from the supposed wisdom of the message, however errant; but solely from the subjective appeal of the messenger, as representing an alternative, more personal and certainly more naive form of the old, flawed habit of clinging to faith in long exploded myths.
@John S Warren
“British public is not taking its lead from the supposed wisdom of the message, however errant; but solely from the subjective appeal of the messenger,…”
Oh yes. The cult of the strong or charismatic leader is alive and well in the British psyche. ‘We’ liked Blair. ‘We’ liked Thatcher. There’s much admiration for the Trump style. ‘We’ didn’t like the consensual style of Corbyn one little bit. A lot of eyebrows were raised at the Trump-Johnson telephonegate tiff. Who knows what to make of that? Handbags at dawn as the bromance palls ? Is Scotland to expect an invasion of Red Wallers marching on Scotland to dig up Trump’s golf courses ? I’m being a bit OTT, but there is a hint of febrile recklessness in the air.
Re Andrew Neil, and his reception of Krugman. Neil is a traditional Conservative by nature (I’d say) he’s not comfortable with this arrogant vacuous Johnsonian bullshit. And he’s not going to forgive Johnson for his snub to his pre-election interview series in a hurry. I credit Neil with that being more significant than just pique. His recent critique of the Johnson projects-that-never-were was scathing.
I should have acknowledged that Mr Gordon actually drew attention to the Krugman remarks two days ago!
“National Conservatism”?
Do I hear you correctly? Have I picked up the implied nuance, and we are faced with a National Conservative English Workers’ Party (Johnson has already claimed the Tories are now the workers’ Party)?
In other words, are we being governed by a new breed of Nazis?
This has all the feeling of being a coup….
I agree with Terry Barker, this “taking back control” has less to do with sovereignty over Brussels than with an authoritarian power grab by Johnson-Cummings. I felt like writing Cummings, leaving Johnson out. After all, he’s hardly in the picture, only there for the occasional buffoonery in front of carefully selected cameras and spectators.
Cummings has secured most of the media, and the data to target the public through them.
There’s potentially even worse than the Treasury take over.
There’s this positioning to control the judiciary with the appointment of a new Attorney General who is a member of the ERG, a favourite guest of the Bruges group, a socially regressive conservative, a yes-woman so ambitious and malleable that she will do her best to ease Cummings’s power grab.
I was expecting this a while back. It has not surprised me. It’s logical.
This is proper Trumpian stuff.
If the relevant institutions (are there any left who are independent enough from No10?) do not act to guard against abuse of power, then this is indeed introducing dark days.
And calling it National Conservatism is fitting.
I think it’s time to invoke Godwin’s Law. National Conservatism morphing into National Socialism? Come on. We’re just seeing the elective dictatorship that Quintin Hogg (Hailsham) highlighted all those years ago when a government commands a thumping majority in the Commons. The PM and his top advisers are trying to hold three fissaparous constituencies together. Rather than class, educational achievement is becoming the major divider in Britain. Johnson knows that to retain power he needs to hold on to his huge majority among voters with lower educational qualifications – both those who have leaned Tory in the south since Blair and those who have just come on board in the north. But he has to reconcile this with the demands of typically better-off traditional Tory supporters who, for want of better terms, divide into “reasonably comfortable with biggish government in a mixed economy” former Remainers (One Nation Tories?) and small government, low tax, free market Brexiteers.
This is the three-ring circus he’s trying to command. And he, and Cummings, appear to believe that the only way he can command this circus is by centralising power in No. 10. He may be able to achieve this for a time – he’s now at the point of peak hubris. But nemesis always follows hubris as sure as night follows day. Just give it time.
This attempted performance also highlights something else. Given the almost unbridled power conferred by a secure Commons majority and the persistent non-Tory majority among voters, the ineptitude, stupidity and sectarianism of both Labour and the Lib Dems that inevitably results in their failure, together, to marshall this majority to elect liberal, progressive governments borders on the criminal.
It is widely agreed that this country now conforms to at least 13 of the 14 criteria of a failed state
And the policy now planned – including the suppression of the judiciary and blatantly ignoring the rule of law, as well as isolated and jingoistic nationalism, look very much like fascism to me
I am far from alone
You should stop blaming all who aren’t Blairite Paul and open your eyes
It is sad and unfortunate that advocating movement towards securing a broad liberal, progressive, social democratic consensus that would resonate with the non-Tory voters who form a majority of the electorate (and would attract quite a few current Tory voters) immediately attracts the perjorative label of Blairite. If those who are in politics because they want to provide much better governance than the Tories and fail to combine and co-operate to establish such a broad liberal, progressive social democratic consensus that will secure sufficient popular support, then they are part of the problem.
Blair did unforgiveable things that no PM, but especially not a Labour PM, should do. Undermining the UN so as to pursue the invasion of Iraq and succumbing too readily to neoliberal dogma are two of the most egregious. But they do not obliterate the many good things that the 1997 to 2010 Labour governments did. Nor do they require rejection of every policy stance of these governments. The world changes and policy stances can be, and have to be, adapted.
The current PM’s megalomaniac tendencies can be curbed most effectively by concerted and co-ordinated opposition in Parliament and in the councils of local authorities that presents itself as a government-in-waiting. However, both Labour and the Lib Dems are effectively leaderless and we’ll have to wait and see if competent leaders emerge who are up to the challenge.
If you want to build a broad consensus you need to stop attacking many of your natural allies
Those who are into “fermenting (sic!) the overthrow of capitalism”, who advocate and apply “democratic centralism”, who support a “Two Camp” view of the world and who totally reject and dismiss the achievements of the 1997 to 2010 Labour governments are certainly not natural allies in this endeavour. Without the mantle of traditional Labour party support afforded by the positions they have secured in the party, on their own they would probably attract the support of 1% of the electorate – if even that, and repel most of the other 99%. Believing there are no enemies to the left is a recipe for disaster.
Richard, could you link something on those 14 criteria? Google wadn’t very helpful.
Thanks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism
@Paul Hunt.
You seem to see Blairism as a recent golden age, while I, and I suspect some others, see it as a period of continuity from Thatcher to where we are now.
In other words part of the disintegration of the UK that a lot of social conservatives thought they were supporting Brexit to wrest back from the EU. I think they were deluded.
You admit to “Undermining the UN so as to pursue the invasion of Iraq and succumbing too readily to neoliberal dogma are two of the most egregious.”, and I would suggest these are not trivial issues to be overlooked as whimsical mistakes. On the domestic front I would add sweeping away the principle of entitlement, thus returning to a watered down Victorian notion of welfare as state charity through the return to means testing. We’ve changed it’s description slightly but we have very much re-espoused the notion of deserving and undeserving poor.
I don’t know how you define your ‘Two Camps’ which seems to be your phrase of the week, but I’d say they divide as: the 1% with their enabler class of highly paid legal, financial and political henchpersons; and the 90% of the rest of us. The modern equivalent of bread and circuses will keep the voter support intact through the agency of media propaganda.
You’ll gather I’m not keen on seeing my vision realised. If the upper chamber behaves itself nicely it will be slated for radical ‘reform’ in the second term. If it proves recalcitrant that may have to be fast-tracked. Then the coup will be complete.
“The PM and his top advisers are trying to hold three fissaparous constituencies together”.
Nice try, Mr Hunt, at attempting to make mere farce seem to be worth serious analysis. It seems to me that the problem is much, much simpler to explain. It is just another risible demonstration that so hapless is this Government, that Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings together cannot even succesfully deliver their own puppet show; even from the safety of the Bunker in 10, Downing Street.
I trust the Scottish people have bought in their stock of popcorn for the show we have in store over the next ten months before we even reach the Big Puppet Show Spectacular – the Boris Johnson deal with the EU that is going both to give us our cake free, while allowing us to eat it.
Coup, as in âpalace coupâ, OK. But this is not like Germany in the 1930s. The NSDAP rounded up thousands of trade unionists and SD party members in 1933 already. Of course, the press here today does a great job of repression.
In the 30’s you actually had to physically beat people into submission and everybody could see it happening. We are much cleverer now ….and we have the technology….
P.S. There’s an excellent article on Fascism as a methodology by Sean Danaher over on Progressive Pulse. Worth a read.
It’s just another step in building DomBo’s Political Ponzi Scheme. What’s surprising is that we didn’t see it coming.
@Chris Barrington – Plenty of us saw it coming (apologies if you were being sarcastic..)
Sadly many voters throughout history have welcomed the perceived security of the “strong man” leader. Faced with confused politics they have plumped for the one who offers decisive rule even when those decisions are to their detriment. Someone like Cummings knows this and will use it to his and Johnson’s benefit.
Yes, indeed. But surely Cummings has support from….? I can’t help but see him also as a front man, and I’m certain he’s not just Johnson’s ‘ĂŠminence grise’.
I may be succumbing to paranoia though, easily done in these murky times.
Cummings is himself the puppet of Elliott, of TPA fame, it’s suggested here https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1228279980884463619.html
Who knows, eh?
As Edward Lear would have said, “I’m afraid it is just as I feared…. “. Now that Mr Cummings has decided to keep Mr Johnson as his Prime Minister, we should refer to the latter in future as “Mr Cummings little helper”.
At least that would avoid the inevitable confusion when “Mr Cummings little helper” keeps doing things, which that Johnson fellow swore he’d never do. I hope that clears things up.
I think some folks here are getting a tad overwrought. Though there may be some overlap, the 14 characteristics of a fascist state that have been advanced are fundamentally different in definition and application from the criteria applied to define a failed state as most practitioners would recognise them. We are not living in a failed or failing state. What we are seeing is politics as usual applied in the current circumstances and combined with an obsession with securing and retaining power just for the sake of it.
Even with a large majority (and irrespective of the political complexion of the government) all PMs have a surprisingly shallow talent-pool from which to select cabinet ministers – and the current PM has shrunk this pool to a puddle. Most of the vanishingly few with any demonstable intellect and competence have been banished, exiled or sacked. Therefore the centralisation of power and decision-making is seen as vital. The current imbroglio has reminded some commentators of the Lawson/Thatcher spat, but few seem to have considered the titanic, lengthy struggle between Brown and Blair and the debilitating impact that had on governance.
And as for centralisation of power and decision-making the dominance and pre-eminence of the office of Labour’s Leader of the Opposition (LOTO) makes the PM’s efforts look puny.
But this excessive centralisation of power will prove totally unsustainable. It’s only a matter of time. And it usually doesn’t take very long.
I beg to differ on over wroughtness
Paul Hunt says:
” What we are seeing is politics as usual applied in the current circumstances ….”
You speak as if you think we just drifted here, into these ‘current circumstances’. I don’t think so. I think we’re here because of discreet but application of a series of hands on the tiller. And you acknowledge as much when you complete the sentence: “…. combined with an obsession with securing and retaining power just for the sake of it.”
Then you make some excuses. Then you say:
“But this excessive centralisation of power will prove totally unsustainable. Itâs only a matter of time. And it usually doesnât take very long.”
Really ? And how do you see this centralisation of power being dissolved? It is well beyond the control of our own government which is isolating itself from the economic and political bloc of our allies alongside of whom we might have been able to offer resistance.
You accuse ‘overwrought’ and offer ‘complacent’.
Surely the difference is that the disagreements in the Labour years were between two elected politicians [Blair and Brown] who tolerated each others differing approaches and still managed to have many positive impacts. Even Thatcher tended to be advised by other elected politicians such as Keith Joseph. Now unelected special advisers, such as Dominic Cummings, appear to be calling the shots, sacking on a whim, muffling the press and stifling dissent, with the elected politicians becoming no more than a mouthpiece.
@Andrew (Andy) Crow,
We may have to agree to disagree. So long as all voters have the opportunity to cast their judgement via the ballot box I have no real worries. But they do need the option of a credible alternative government when casting their judgement.
Paul Hunt says:
“We may have to agree to disagree. ” I expect we will. And trust we can continue to do so with civility.
“So long as all voters have the opportunity to cast their judgement via the ballot box I have no real worries.”
Well I do. Given the extent to which we have seen consent manufactured for empty ideas with such apparent ease, I have considerable worries.
As to having an opposition proposition….well yes, it would be a comfort, but the comprehensive destruction of the Corbyn pitch and divisive in-fighting we’ve witnessed being so easily stoked between the supposedly progressive alternative makes a forceful opposition look unlikely in the short to medium term. I’m watching the progress of Sinn Fein in Ireland with interest. I would like to think I’m not the only one doing so.
In Labour there’s now a movement to promote the team of Starmer, Cooper, Reeves and Benn. This to my mind renders ‘democracy’ a complete farce as no matter whether one votes Tory, LibDem or Labour one will end up with an overtly Tory government. I suspect this concern to remain academic anyway for quite some time as I doubt Boris will have any interest in being removed from No 10 and will no doubt do his best to amend the constitution accordingly. So much is known and practiced now about voter manipulation that if we ever do have elections again they’re likely to be only cosmetic, the outcome simply having been purchased outright by whoever has the most money and can afford to most manipulate the voters. No viable future for the masses seems likely to be achieved through politics then, raising the question, whither now? I am comforted by the recollection that there was a time centuries ago when people simply could not comprehend anything other than being ruled by monarchs. Such was the social conditioning of the time, and it eventually passed, as no doubt will our reliance for leadership on politicians.
Shall we see what happens Bill?