As the FT notes this morning:
Labour has quadrupled its use of consultants as it prepares for a general election, despite shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves vowing to cut their deployment in the civil service if her party takes power.
The opposition party received £287,000 in donations of staff time from consultancy firms in the year to September 2023, up from £72,000 in the prior 12 months, according to Electoral Commission data.
As the FT then note me saying:
Richard Murphy, a left-wing campaigner and professor of accounting practice at Sheffield university, said Labour's use of consultants was “fairly naive” as it undermined their message about limiting the outsourcing of expertise to corporate advisers.
Murphy said the practice of offering staff time for free gave consultancies an opportunity to gain “influence, access, phone numbers and a competitive advantage”.
He added that Labour could find it harder to wean government off hiring external expertise if it built a dependence on consultants in opposition.
My point is a simple one: it is that if you use the consultancies arms of forms dedicated to maintaining the economic status quo to help you create your policies when in opposition you will deliver what they want of you when in government. And that, I suggest, is precisely what Labour will do.
As importantly, and the comment did not make the paper, the use of consultants when there is a wealth of talent able to assist policy creation within Labour shows a rejection of all that Labour really stands for - and a desire to embrace 'the market' instead.
This is all deeply worrying.
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:
Consultants will simply tell you what you want to hear.
And charge you for doing so.
… which you then pass on to the troops disclaiming all responsibility.
Hmmm…………………..fuming.
What is so ‘left wing’ about explaining the dynamics of the modern ‘advisor-criat’?
Are we supposed to not acknowledge the possible self serving nature of unelected people advising elected people?
You can add the FT to the long list of naïve characters in my view. I actually have a lot of respect for the FT – it can surprise you, but upon reading this I am dismayed. Again.
I meant to add this above:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/dec/30/keir-starmer-detached-labour-party-jon-cruddas
Obviously ‘Blairism’ (leadership through being a Labour party sceptic) is now the way to get Tory continuity through HM opposition?
They must think we are stupid. And to be honest, some of us are.
If you choose your consultants wisely, you can always blame them for any poor outcomes, rather than the party.
My head keeps spinning on that one, Ian. If you choose your consultants wisely, there should not be any poor outcomes. If you cannot choose them wisely ‘don’t choose nothing at all’ (with apologies to Thumper).
By choosing your consultants wisely, you get them to support what you want, and then blame them if it goes wrong.
……………except that although you might have to sack your advisors, they may still turn up on the honours list so it’s a win/win for inculcated stupidity.
This may be frivolous, but may raise a smile.
This post reminds me of the man who owned a tomcat which only arrived home for food then disappeared again. He thought, what’s the point of owning a cat that never stays at home, so took his pet to the vet for advice. The vet saw the problem and said castration should solve it, as he will have no reason to spend time with the females. The happy cat owner took the cat home, but to his surprise, it made no difference. The cat still never stayed home.
One day the man decided to follow the cat to see what he was getting up to. Over the garden walls he went, until, peering over a wall he saw a circle of cats with his cat sitting in the middle.
The moral of the story is – When you can’t do the job yourself, you become a consultant.
Sorry for that.
The art of the successful consultant is to figure out what your clients actually want to do and then to advise them to do it.
One can hardly blame the con-sultants for wanting to change horses – given the Tories are sinking fast, after all, one has to keep the fees flowing thus the con-sultants are just positioning themselves and Reeves comments (less con-sultants) is just some public relations nonsense.
Equally interesting is this Guardian headline: “Reform UK leader rules out helping Tories at general election and says party will stand in every seat in Britain – UK politics live”
The political vacuum (two identikit parties) is being filled & Reform could well pick up all sorts of now-tory seats. I understand that my right to vote will be restored hopefully in time for the next election. Hmm, I wonder who to vote for?
I can’t see Refiorm winning
I can see them being seriously disruptive whilst adding to the clamour for PR.
Then some good may come of Reform’s miserable existence.
You’re left wing Richard? I always had you for a MOR pragmatic social liberal. You’ve been Overton-ed.
I agree
I recognise that category!
Puts us well to the ‘left’ these days.
Left wing commentators and think tanks etc are (it seems to me ) always flagged as left wing in media reports. Right wing bodies very rarely if ever are so labelled.
Is my perception correct or am I just paranoid?
I think you are correct
I suffer it
… and occasionally labelled as Marxist, Socialist or Communist, but rarely fascist, or far right.
The only exception I can think of in the last ten years is the Financial Times which described Liz Truss’s government as “The Tories are now the most economically right-wing major party in the developed world” https://www.ft.com/content/d5f1d564-8c08-4711-b11d-9c6c7759f2b8
Liz “(((Left Wing Bankers))) took me down” Truss. Just right wing, of course…