Boris Johnson apparently described the Treasury as a ‘pro-death squad' during the course of the Covid period according to notes made by Sir Patrick Vallance, then chief scientific adviser to the government. There is, apparently, no reason to doubt the credibility of his record.
There is good evidence that the austerity measures that this country has suffered since 2010, largely to appease successive Chancellors of the Exchequer and their Treasury mandarins, has delivered an enormous toll in terms of premature deaths. Whether it has been denial of healthcare, or social care, or the failure to provide appropriate housing, or inadequate benefits meaning that the elderly, in particular, have been unable to keep themselves warm, or the opposition to lockdowns during Covid, the untoward impact of the Treasury on the people of this country has been quite staggering. My old friend, Prem (Lord) Sikka has suggested that the toll runs to many hundreds of thousands in a tweet yesterday, and I have little reason to disagree with him.
In that case, is Boris Johnson's description of the Treasury appropriate?
Was Boris Johnson right to describe the Treasury as a ‘pro-death squad’?
- Yes (81%, 209 Votes)
- I don’t know (10%, 26 Votes)
- The suggestion is offensive (6%, 15 Votes)
- No (3%, 9 Votes)
Total Voters: 259
Loading ...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:
Any organisation that runs itself by ‘rules’ – in this case fiscal ones – is not a fit one to run a country.
‘Rules’ suggest rigidity ,the unwillingness to attenuate, adjust and accommodate feedback. This does nothing but allow in and maintain dogma as policy.
There is only one rule in this scenario – cause and effect – plan, do, review.
We’ve seen the feedback loops changed as well – will we see another census, or stock condition survey of the country’s housing stock?
The rules we live under currently only seem to offer a nice flat no surprises playing field for capital, a steady state but one of huge inequality more like the 1800’s than 2023.
This is what rampant capital looks like.
They would be horrified to be described as such. Most of them are probably Ok people (this based on the fact that most people are.. OK people). The problem is that they/their lives will be divorced from the lived reality experienced by the Uk population. In his book “After Europe” Ivan Krastev notes that the meritocratic elite (with ref to the EU & Brussels) is rootless & has no loyalty to the system within which it works. Although these comments were directed at Brussels and the EU/EC, they could equally apply to people at the treasury or the BoE. I doubt that the treasury is a “pro-death squad” in its atittudes – but the consequences of its actions/the outcomes & impacts could suggest that they are, whilst at the same time their positions insulate/divorce them from as noted, the lived reality. Which begs the question – how to change?
All leading to the conclusion that the teaching of economics in most universities in the UK isn’t fit for morality!
There is never any kind of impact statement provided for spending decisions -why?
Does the teaching of economics involve itself much in emphasising the need to always do impact statements on people as opposed to balance sheets and usually the governments? Clearly the record shows that it doesn’t with the economists in the treasury!
Economics has almost no concern for stakeholders, only owners
I couldn’t vote as I’m loth to appear to agree with anything that Johnson might say, particularly as we know that it’s likely to be the opinion of the last person who spoke to him.
But, with regard to the Treasury, my question would be, does the Treasury control the Chancellor or the Chancellor control the Treasury?
The context of this Johnson quote was the covid ‘crisis’ and a Chancellor very unwilling to spend any money unless it was going to tory friends and donors… I’m reading through some of the covid Inquiry evidence and while I’m seeing references to the Treasury being obstructive, I’m not seeing any references to the Chancellor opposing that obstruction.
In theory the Chancellor controls the Treasury but in practice it is all too often the other way round. I don’t think the Treasury is unique in this regard and the same could be said for other government departments. My father started work for the Ministery of Works after WW2 and later worked for Customs and Excise until he retired in 1982. He hated having to work for a minister who, as he put it, had no ideas of his own. On the other hand he was well aware that senior civil servants could put quite a lot of pressure on ministers and said he knew two ministers who could consistently stand up to that pressure. I have no idea who they were but he did say they were from different parties.
Does the tail wag the dog in some regards? We don’t know.. I don’t, anyway.
A quote for a House of Lords report:
“A recent study argued there have been over 300,000 excess deaths during this period, when comparing trends in life expectancy with those from before 2011. The authors of the study argue this is a result of austerity policies pursued by the government.”
In “Mortality rates among men and women: impact of austerity”, In Focus, Friday, 6 Jan 2023
The only rule of economics is that the government should help as many people as possible by enabling an efficient functioning economy. The opposite is austerity.
I hope that a prime minister would never have to make such a remark. It is right that he made it. The statement reveals a lot about the treasury. It also says a lot about Boris Johnson. It tells me that he wasn’t capable of leading the country during the pandemic. That his party and parliament were powerless to remove him. It reveals a lot about our institution crises.
Listening to the covid inquiry at the moment, and as always what comes across is that all decisions were delayed until the last moment, which impacted on the number of deaths. Whether that was Sunak’s or Johnson’s fault, it was as if they were both fighting with each other for control of the pandemic.
It’s the covid taskforce head at the moment about how they wanted to get prepared, in Autumn 2020, much too late.
The man in charge of the covid task force has just said that, even though he was supposed to guide the government and treasury as far as covid was concerned, he did not know about ‘eat out to help out’.
‘in other words, you were blindsided?’
‘Yes.’
Let’s not forget that, throughout the enquiry, we have seen WhatsApp messages from Boris Johnson making clear his belief that the old should be sacrificed for the benefit of the economy and the young. Pot..kettle.