As the FT has reported:
The Liberal Democrats have set out plans to replace the UK Treasury with a “Department for Growth” in Birmingham, in a bid to close the “yawning gap” between London and the rest of the country and boost economic fortunes.
Daisy Cooper, deputy leader of the centrist opposition party, said redesigning the Treasury — which is responsible for public spending, the tax system and financial services policy — would help “end the cost of living crisis” and “get Britain growing again”.
Let me be clear that I support breaking up the Treasury and curtailing its power. There are several good reasons for doing so.
Firstly, it is over-powerful, making the absurdly titled Chancellor of the Exchequer overly powerful as a result. This has harmed good government in this country for decades.
Second, the 'Treasury view', which has always embraced the household analogy, balanced budgets, and a belief in small government, has also been profoundly harmful to national well-being and might only be broken by breaking it up.
Third, the disconnect between the Treasury and the country has been deeply alarming. Rarely has such an insular view been so detrimental to well-being.
So, you might expect me to welcome this move.
I do not. It is deeply inappropriate. It reveals a fundamental lack of judgment on the LibDems part. It puts growth at the centre of its plans, and GDP growth, which is undoubtedly what is being referred to, has been and will continue to be a dangerous goal for the government in this country. I provided many of my reasons for saying so here recently. Let me summarise them, briefly, again, though. They are that GDP growth:
- Harms the planet.
- Is indifferent to who enjoys the gains of growth.
- Has not benefited the vast majority of the UK population for decades, as wealth from growth has not trickled down.
- Has distracted attention from the real crisis in our economy, which is the rise of the serious, sustained, and inescapable poverty of many in the country.
GDP growth is, in fact, a pure neoliberal goal. It can even be said to be indifferent to:
- The fate of the planet.
- The fate of the poor.
- Inequality.
- Lives wasted in pursuit of meaningless activity that contributes nothing to human well-being
It is the goal that the LibDems are adopting. In the process, they have confirmed something I have long suspected, which is that they really are NeoLiberalDems, and that form of the politics of destruction - which is what neoliberalism really is - delivers just as much harm as do all the rest.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Let me be clear that the Liberal Democrat proposal which I read yesterday does not support breaking up the Treasury and curtailing its power. They are going to hive off Departmental Spending, bring in Trade and Business to the Treasury and send the expanded department to a site in the Midlands. One of the many suggested advantages is that exporting firms will be able to deal with one department when previously they went through three. That’s the reasoning in any event, but the re-named Treasury would be expanded and not curtailed.
So, it makes things worse.
It also shows you didn’t read the detail in the announcement just the headline. This is very common as to how you seem to operate.
I read it.
It is all as bad as I thought .
The justifications are pure neoliberalism and Washington Consensus. I was generous in only highlighting them headlines.
“Lives wasted in pursuit of meaningless activity that contributes nothing to human well-being”
So much truth in this comment, though I would also include non-human and planetary well-being.
Agreed
Having watched ‘The Spider’s Web’ (the film made by John Christensen and others, mentioned in the recent talk you released) I have a better understanding of the grip the City of London has on government in this country. Where to start reforming the Treasury? It clearly isn’t there to serve me and thee.
How well I remember the Liberal Democrats the last time they got near government.
Especially their current and rather ineffectual leader, Ed Davey. He had a fine salary for a while from 2010.
The basic liberal position (for the past 100 & something years) is conservative economics with well-intentioned motives or, at least, a friendly face. They may occasionally propose some sensible improvements to the system but they’ll never break out of it
Yes, absolutely agreed that the Lib Dems proposals are inadequate, and not soundly-based. I just thought that one of the established Parties calling for break up of the Treasury ( for the reasons you state from para 2) was a useful start.
Of the options the LDs are not the worst, I voted for them last time to get rid of a Tory. I will next time to keep Reform out. I wish I could vote for who I want.
Report card: B-
The candidate shows an appreciation for the problems associated with a too-powerful Treasury, but fails to offer a credible alternative. The focus on “Growth” shows a serious unwillingness to address the real problems facing the UK and the wider world in this century.
It is also hard to understand her reluctance to embrace the term “Ministry of Finance” used by most other democracies.
🙂
More pointless rebranding and tinkering to no purpose. What are LibDems for, apart from betraying students, and Ed Davies making an infantile fool of himself? Meanwhile, Starmer visibly collapses, but still won’t do what is required to fulfil his manifesto promises. At this point, I simply want to know why he lied to win an election that was his for the taking anyway without ex “genius” McSweeney, and why he refuses to change course and drag the Labour Party out of electoral wipeout. Is he compromised in some way? It’s a fair question. Meanwhile, in Somerset, we are still in a dental desert with no plan for NHS dentists, my local hospital functions with permanent corridor “care”, and the local river is full of sewage. We vote LibDem here simply to keep the Tories out, not because we support them. I’m sick and tired of politicians vying for position and tinkering at the edges. Do what we pay you for and stop lying to us. Richard, what is your view on who could lead the Labour Party? Clare H.
I will be honest and say that the Labour Party, like the Tories, has so denuded itself of talent that it is very hard to work out wjho, if anyone, is left in its ranks who could be an effective leader, so weak are they all. I include Andy Burnham in that number, although he and Clive Lewis might be a little better than the rest, but let’s not pretend that the likes of Angela Rayner have anything much to offer, whilst Lucy Powell only won the deputy leadership because she was not Starmers candidate and those who are outside the current leadership team are so different in opinion from mowst of those who control most of the Parliamentary party, that I cannot see how the likes of Clive Lewis could get any traction. To put in another way, the Labour Party is beyond hope.
Thanks for responding, Richard. It really depresses me to acknowledge that you’re right. I’m longing for women in leadership, but Angela Rayner- I’ll be polite- is brusque and insistent, and before anyone jumps on me, I’m from very poor 2nd gen, dirt poor Irish stock brought up in Leeds. My 86 year old staunch ex Labour councillor friend calls her “charmless”. Enough said! I’m aware we are locked in ludicrous political beauty contests and that’s part of the problem we face. Burnham and Lewis are the only possible candidates, and neither is inspiring. But the bright side today is the High Court ruling on Palestine Action. If Cooper does appeal, she will further consign this dog’s mess of a Government to to the boondocks, and will beg the question, Why is she defending the indefensible, ie, the right to protest, and whose agenda is she serving? But a great day in court. On that positive note, I wish everyone here a good weekend! Onwards- Clare H.
Thanks.
Have a good one.
GDP growth is indeed highly toxic, for all the reasons you mention.
However, I don’t regard it as (exclusively) neoliberal. It is inherent to capitalism in general (Marx:”Accumulate, accumulate! That is Moses and the prophets!…Therefore save, save, i.e. reconvert the greatest possible portion of surplus-value or surplus product into capital! Accumulation for the sake of accumulation, production for the sake of production…”)
GDP growth is central to liberalism, social democracy, and integral to Keynesian thinking too.
The problem isn’t (just) neoliberalism, it is capitalism.