-
Sacking the permanent secretary of the Treasury though, I don't see that as being unreasonable if a government wants to move away from their typical 'treasury-brained' ways. Reporting on it as an argument for Truss' personal failings is just another bit of Westminster psychodrama, so I'd be inclined to ignore it.
For all that the right wing press like to attack 'mandarins', the truth is they are widely respected by all the people that matter, and unlike literally any politician they have had to apply for their jobs and get to the top of the ladder by proving their skills and experience.
They also take the idea of serving the government of the day - whatever it's political flavour - very seriously, and know which side their bread is buttered.
So the only reason Truss and Kwarteng would have had problems with Tom Scholar is if they wanted to do something absolutely insane. He would have had zero problem with them just wanting a change of direction. Alongside the OBR business, it just screams - I don't even want to listen to what the grown-ups have to say -
You can be sure that if John McDonnell, for example, had got in, he would have wanted to change things up dramatically, but known the importance of not spooking people by acting like a madman. Truss was (is) lacking even the tiniest speck of self awareness
lemonade-
I get that civil servants are meant to be impartial, but I also get that it may not be the case in reality in such a central institution. It’s well understood that the actions of the treasury cause problems, mostly in preferring short term cost-benefit analysis rather than prioritising long-run growth projects and that its actions have political consequences outside of its remit. It’s very difficult to know where that behaviour comes from given its relative lack of transparency too.
It’s obviously been politically convenient for the Tories to blame the civil service since the alternative is to take responsibility themselves, something which is very much not in their nature. Since Labour have taken charge though there’s much the same description of institutional failure and calls for reform: https://archive.ph/v9jxb
I know very little about the man, and it’s difficult to find any information on him frankly, but I think it’s quite a jump to using it as an argument for madness. Recklessness, sure, why not. Careful reform would be better.
Like I say, it’s mostly just drama and I’d be tempted to ignore it. He’ll be fine after his £335k final payout, and there are plenty of other reasons to consider Truss full of hubris and lacking self-awareness.
You can be sure that if John McDonnell, for example, had got in, he would have wanted to change things up dramatically, but known the importance of not spooking people
Absolutely. As far as I know, McDonnell’s team were actively courting various financial institutions in preparation for office to make sure their reforms were well regarded.
slippers
They certainly went about it with reckless abandon, I agree. I'm not a huge fan of the OBR, but refusing their forecast was obviously going to spook some traders.
Sacking the permanent secretary of the Treasury though, I don't see that as being unreasonable if a government wants to move away from their typical 'treasury-brained' ways. Reporting on it as an argument for Truss' personal failings is just another bit of Westminster psychodrama, so I'd be inclined to ignore it.
I think that's debatable, and regardless of their potential reaction to heterodox policies, the press has already learned to react to any change negatively. That's limited current and future governments' ability to change the rules, even when done carefully.
(Edit: not that Labour are interested in doing so anyway)