A The new government, worried about economic policy and worried about poll results, is calling on business leaders to whip Whitehall into shape. It was Rachel Reeves, Ministerial Officer a few days ago to submit their spending plans to company leaders. Among those wielding an “iron fist against waste” will be former bankers from Lloyds and Barclays. But it was also David Cameron, in the summer of 2010, who brought in Sir Philip Green, his efficiency guru.
From day one, Sir Philip’s appointment raised eyebrows. Just weeks before the general election, the “king of the streets” had backed the Conservatives to form the next government; now he too was part of it. Besides, what right did a billionaire have to control public spending with so many questions about his own tax affairs? Certainly, the assessment carried out by the businessman, taking into account all of two months and 33 pageswill not take up much space in his biographies nor will it be among Lord Cameron’s strong points. It was all a set-up, a headline-grabbing headline with a disastrous choice of leader, given Sir Philip’s role in the collapse of BHS, the collapse of its pension scheme and the vote of deputies to strip it of its chivalry.
When faced with successful businessmen, ministers too often approach with one hand, preemptively tugging on a forelock. Think Rishi Sunak “interviews” Elon Musk and turning Number 10 Downing Street into an X. Remember Gordon Brown praising bankers on the eve of the credit crunch for inventing “the most modern financial instruments“. Remember Tony Blair, who knighted Philip Green, praising him as “the person who imagined the dream and I made the dream come true.” Sir Philip returned the favor by saying he had Mr Blair on speed dial. Such insecurity does not favor any business relationship and undermines both politics and the public sector. “The government is us”as Teddy Roosevelt said: Our Democratic representatives derive their legitimacy from the fact that they are publicly elected and publicly accountable, which is a different order of authority than someone serving their shareholders.
All jurisdictions should spend taxpayers’ money as effectively and efficiently as possible. It is also right that the Chancellor encourages businesses to pay their taxes and salaries and behave responsibly. But Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden’s suggestion that Whitehall should “acting more like a startup” seems wrong. Hospitals and schools are not supposed to, as Facebook“move fast and break things”: they are intended to serve millions of people, to reliable and high standards. The irony of the minister’s remarks is that it is the private sector which urgently needs more competition, to avoid price gouging, for example, on food and energy, And benefit from social protection for children.
The Greens’ review briefly served as a useful alibi for the Tories’ decade of spending cuts. The Conservative refrain was that utilities should do more with less, just as they claimed businesses were doing. The result has been to push many public services to the breaking point – and show how different they are from private companies. When a the brewer can’t make enough beercustomers can sip on something else, but when prisons are full, criminals are released early. When a council goes bankrupt, an entire community risks losing its basic services and democratic voice. When schools fail to hire enough teachers, future generations of Britons suffer. Our public services can never be run entirely like businesses, because the role they play is much more universal and profound.
-
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of no more than 300 words by email for publication in our mail section, please Click here.