{"id":20807,"date":"2026-02-11T11:28:24","date_gmt":"2026-02-11T11:28:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/microvibenews.com\/?p=20807"},"modified":"2026-02-11T11:28:24","modified_gmt":"2026-02-11T11:28:24","slug":"lib-dems-call-for-anti-growth-treasury-to-be-split-up-uk-politics-live-politics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/microvibenews.com\/?p=20807","title":{"rendered":"Lib Dems call for \u2018anti-growth\u2019 Treasury to be split up \u2013 UK politics live | Politics"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n

Lib Dem plan to break up Treasury – snap verdict<\/h2>\n<\/header>\n

The Liberal Democrats<\/a> have announced a new idea; it\u2019s a rehash of one that has been kicking around for at least 60 years.<\/p>\n

As Daisy Cooper<\/strong>, the Lib Dem deputy leader, acknowledged in her speech this morning (see 9.37am<\/a>), people in British politics have been complaining for years about the Treasury having too much power. One prime minister who actually did something about this was Harold Wilson, who created the Department of Economic Affairs in the 1960s as a counterweight to the Treasury. It was supposed to deal with long-term economic planning, leaving the Treasury as more of a simple tax-raising department. It did not last. But prime ministers \u2013 particulary those with difficult relationships with their chancellors \u2013 have been toying with the same idea ever since.<\/p>\n

In an article <\/a>about this four years ago, George Dibb<\/strong>, at the time a researcher at the IPPR thinktank, now on secondment to the civil service, said:<\/p>\n

\n

<\/svg>Ultimately, Harold Wilson, Gordon Brown and Theresa May are not all wrong. A short-termist Treasury with absolute control in Whitehall will always skew policy in a damaging way. Tony Danker, director general of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), made a similar point this month on the role of the Treasury in economic growth: \u201cNo CEO would put the finance department in charge of sales.\u201d The Treasury has to be broken up, with long-term economic strategy the responsibility of a new ministry. That way it would be matched by an equal and opposite force with long-term vision and powers to direct the economy towards socially important goals. Whether that goal is decarbonisation or addressing regional inequality, the Treasury\u2019s instinct to pull tight the purse strings will always be a barrier.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Today, as well as adopting these arguments, Cooper was making an argument about growth, claiming that a stand-alone growth department would do better than the Treasury at boosting GDP. Perhaps. But Rachel Reeves claimed she was turning the Treasury into a growth department when she became chancellor. Since then growth has been disappointing, but in large part that is not because of Whitehall machinery; it\u2019s because there are political objections to the pulling the most effective growth levers (joining the customs union or the single market, increasing immigration) that would apply regardless of which department was in charge.<\/p>\n

Still, Cooper is likely to find a lot of people agreeing with her central argument. Those who have suggested breaking up the Treasury in the past have included figures as diverse as Will Hutton, Maurice Glasman and Dominic Cummings. If a left-leaning coalition is in power after the next election, the Lib Dems could have considerable clout when this debate is being thrashed out again.<\/p>\n

Still, dismantling the Treasuy won\u2019t be easy. In a good New Stateman article<\/a> on this topic last year, George Eaton quoted Harold Macmillan,<\/strong> the former Tory PM. Macmillan summed it up like this:<\/p>\n

\n

<\/svg>To reform the Treasury is like trying to reform the Kremlin or the Vatican. These institutions are apt to have the last laugh.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

<\/p>\n

Key events<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/gu-island><\/p>\n