Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Tamas]

I suppose ministers thinking they're there to achieve something could be dangerously habit forming.

Doing anything might rock the boat, better to just sit around in inertia forever, what could happen?

[The Larch]

Ministers should be both responsible but also competent in their area of government business. If you have to align everything with the Treasury it defeats the purpose of seperate ministries.

Yeah, having the Treasury have a de facto veto on anything the other departments do is a recipe for never getting anything done.

[Richard Hakluyt]

It is fair enough that the Treasury is resistant to the "spending" departments getting more cash in cabinet. Many is the (even tory) minister who once they have taken up their brief suddenly discovers that their department needs lots more cash. Once the cash has been agreed though I don't see why further interference is necessary or helpful.

[Syt]

Ministers should be both responsible but also competent in their area of government business. If you have to align everything with the Treasury it defeats the purpose of seperate ministries.

Yeah, having the Treasury have a de facto veto on anything the other departments do is a recipe for never getting anything done.

I would have thought that's what a budgeting process exists for.

[Sheilbh]

Doing anything might rock the boat, better to just sit around in inertia forever, what could happen?

I'm sure Sir Humphrey would say that's working as designed

Ministers should be both responsible but also competent in their area of government business. If you have to align everything with the Treasury it defeats the purpose of seperate ministries.

I agree. They don't have control over all spending but any move of spending that is "novel, contentious or could cause repercussions elsewhere in the public sector" needs to be looked at by the Treasury - who decide if it's "novel, contentious or could cause repercussions"

This is one of the issues with the Treasury - the other is that there's been a lot of people (including me) who think that we should follow the German model of separating out the finance ministry from an economic ministry.

Previous PMs have tried - Harold Wilson set up a Department of Economic Affairs, Brown tried to create a strong business department and May and Johnson have to an extent tried with different variation to create a separate, strong department with a largely economic mandate. It is at the minute DLUHC and as with all of those previous examples the Treasury wins and is very successful at hobbling any rival responsibilities for economic policy.

There are consistent criticisms of the Treasury which I think come from its ideological priors - so it is too focused on short-term costs, it doesn't really think the state has (or can play) a role in economic growth and it really doesn't like policies with uncertain outcommes because it can't do a simple cost/benefit. But I think one big impact is that there is a risk of shadow policymaking. That individual departments who should be subject area experts and know how to make that policy work don't have incentives to innovate and are possibly trying to create policies instead that align with what the Treasury thinks can/should be done in that area. I think it can really undermine other departments - Brown as Chancellor is probably the biggest example of this.

It is fair enough that the Treasury is resistant to the "spending" departments getting more cash in cabinet. Many is the (even tory) minister who once they have taken up their brief suddenly discovers that their department needs lots more cash. Once the cash has been agreed though I don't see why further interference is necessary or helpful.

Yeah - and it is a civil service thing too. I think to get to Cabinet Secretary you more or less have to have done a stint in the Treasury which means they are very good at permeating their view across the entire civil service. But almost every minister (especially the good ones who really tried to do something) complains about the degree of Treasury control once they leave office - obviously complaining about it while you're a minister in a spending department is a career-limiting move.

Lord Macpherson who was the Permanent Secretary at the Treasury from 2005 to 2016 defends them on this quite strongly - "the fact that we keep going on about how terrible the Treasury is suggests that at least it is effective, unlike most arms of government"

[Sheilbh]

All politics is local - Zelensky in Westminster and will address both houses later today. But first PMQs:

Tom Peck
@tompeck
Philip Hollobone MP kicks off PMQs: "Slava Ukraini! President Zelensky we salute you! Mr Speaker, this year will mark the completion of the renewal of Kettering General Hospital..."

[The Larch]

I agree. They don't have control over all spending but any move of spending that is "novel, contentious or could cause repercussions elsewhere in the public sector" needs to be looked at by the Treasury - who decide if it's "novel, contentious or could cause repercussions"

If you're fidgety enough that could be anything. 

This is one of the issues with the Treasury - the other is that there's been a lot of people (including me) who think that we should follow the German model of separating out the finance ministry from an economic ministry.

We have that in Spain as well, the Minister for Economic Affairs is the big shot one and the Minister for Finance is a relatively more obscure one that works in the background. I see that both France and Italy have Economy and Finance as a single ministry too, but you don't get the spending gridlock that you find in the UK, though.

[Sheilbh]

If you're fidgety enough that could be anything. 

Again - from a Sir Humphrey perspective, working as designed

We have that in Spain as well, the Minister for Economic Affairs is the big shot one and the Minister for Finance is a relatively more obscure one that works in the background. I see that both France and Italy have Economy and Finance as a single ministry too, but you don't get the spending gridlock that you find in the UK, though.

So I don't think the issue is spending gridlock necessarily - I think that's the US issue. Spending budgets are broadly set for five year periods and then reviewed annually as part of the budget process. The money gets allocated and goes to the departments for what they've budgeted for each year within a five year review.

In a way I think it's more policy gridlock. Re-allocating funding that's been assigned to x policy because priorities have changed or whatever needs sign off. The Treasury can be as involved as they want in other departments business (and bring the Treasury view with them) in ensuring that they - and the public - get "value for money" from spending departments. In a way it's a bit like the conditionality process with EU covid funding  - it's more that sort of issue rather than gridlock, shutdowns etc that you get in the US.

Meanwhile it seems seems to have been an entirely uncontentious PMQ with Starmer using all his questions asking veryy supportive questions about Ukraine - which seems appropriate as Zelensky's in the building and is a good show of the more or less total cross-party support for Ukraine.

Edit: Very warm reception from members of both houses for Zelensky in Westminster Hall. It looks like it's standing room only (apparently it was a short-notice visit so no time to put out the seats). And again in cross-party gestures it looks like all the party leaders in Westminster standing together in the front row:
https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1623307007078834178?s=20&t=C33LjBMlmdV7swoQDGshdg

[Sheilbh]

Zelensky really is remarkable at this - and always able to pitch his message in a way that gets a response from his audience.

UK announced it's expanding its training program with Ukraine to include pilots - and lots of references to planes by Zelensky in his speech. So it feels like that will be the next Ukrainian ask.

Edit: E.g. presenting a fighter helmet from and signed by one of Ukraine's most successful divisions (what's the word?) to parliament - written on it: "we have freedom. Give us wings":


Edit: And those requests for planes getting a warm reception - and that's an incredible skil. To go to Parliament, repeat a call for planes that the UK hasn't agreed to in a very up-front way - and get cheers and adulation from British ministers (who haven't agreed to send the planes) and MPs, Lords etc. And to do it all in a foreign language. He is an incredible communicator.

Edit: Even at the end when he's wrapping up, with a quick gag about the planes (again, warmly received):
https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1623315860751372289?s=20&t=KBslPfrZwN8jSU_ht74SYg

[Sheilbh]

Didn't take long. There had been reports that this was under consideration before today - and a lot of breifing from the Army that the RAF and Navy weren't pulling their weight/getting their stocks depleted in supporting Ukraine.

But, inevitably, government spokesman has confirmed the UK is now considering sending fighters to Ukraine

[mongers]

This new BBC head, Richard Sharp looks like a potential disaster, a useful political appointee?

[Sheilbh]

The finances with Johnson looks very dodgy (I keep on seeing in all of these scandals that Simon Case signed off - and I think there's a bit of a question there). It feels like he should step down.

But not sure the appointment itself is that unusual. Former Goldman Sachs guy who was an advisor to Johnson and Tory donor - but previously been chair of the Royal Academy of Arts and the BofE Financial Policy Committee.

Given previous BBC Chairs in recent years have included Lord Patten (former Tory party chairman), Baroness Fairhead (various senior finance and media roles, then BBC Trust, then Tory trade minister) - or in the Labour years Michael Lyons (former Labour councillor and council chief executive who did reports for Brown and Blair, plus great-and-good roles like governor of the Royal Shakespeare Company) and Gavyn Davies (former Goldman Sachs banker, Labour donor - and married to Brown's private secretary). It sounds par for the course to be honest.

[Sheilbh]

Obviously it won't be quite this one sided - but the latest state of pollling in the UK

Election Maps UK
@ElectionMapsUK
Westminster Voting Intention:

🌹 LAB: 49% (+16)
🌳 CON: 23% (-22)

MRP Seat Projection:

🌹 LAB: 509 (+306)
🎗� SNP: 50 (+2)
🌳 CON: 45 (-320)

Via @FindoutnowUK, 27 Jan - 5 Feb.
Changes w/ GE2019.

Starting to see more articles wondering if the Tories are going to go the way of Canada's.

[Richard Hakluyt]

It would be so wonderful if they did 

Though having a majority that large would probably be bad for Labour. I always remember my father remarking that in tory pocket boroughs all the bastards were in that party and vice versa in labour pocket boroughs. It also might explain the corruption that so often takes place in Liverpool, a place that might actually benefit from having a few conservatives on the city council 

So, if the tories do get obliterated I hope that someone else, presumably the lib-dems, gets enough seats to form an effective opposition.

[Josquius]

So the lib dems just aren't a thing?

Just have to hope that it happens and that labour use it to the full. Voting reform please.