Originally posted by snapper
View Post
Previous advisor has to be escorted out by an armed guard means there must have been a scuffle.
As to the policy issues of this No 10/No 11 'spad spat' that has lead to the resignation of the Chancellor the basics of this the need for more money to fulfill Boris Johnson's expansive promises to "unchain the full potential of the UK" (which apparently the Tories have not yet managed to do despite having been in power for the last 10yrs) by hiring 20,000 new Police, 50,000 new nurses (which previous Conservative Governments had cut), 'build 40 new hospitals' (which it appears may not mean entirely new but rather additions of bits to existing hospitals), new buses (low carbon British built), High Speed 2 train line (which they signed off last week expected to cost £106bn) and sorting out the East/West train lines across the Pennines (Manchester to Leeds) etc... The latest 'Johnson plan' is a road bridge linking the British mainland with Northern Ireland as a sort of symbolic "We're not leaving you behind" although they have of course left N. Ireland in the EU Customs Union. In short 'unleashing the full potential of the UK' actually means the Government spending billions more for political effect. The problem is the money is not there and of course it the Chancellor who has the unfortunate responsibility of trying to balance the budget while faced with the political agenda of the PM. The impossibility of balancing the budget (a Treasury job) while funding these political promises of the PM are the basis of the issue at the heart of this 'spads spat' that has prompted what some of the British political press call a 'power grab' by No 10 on the Chancellorship. Some now refer to the Treasury as No 10a Downing Street.
Needless to say the left wing press is having a field day; "Johnson’s choice of pipsqueaks and placemen, yes-women and yellow bellies is the most under-brained, third-rate cabinet in living memory." I do not altogether to with Polly Tonybee but it is sad and economically dangerous to see the independence of the Treasury undermined.
Needless to say the left wing press is having a field day; "Johnson’s choice of pipsqueaks and placemen, yes-women and yellow bellies is the most under-brained, third-rate cabinet in living memory." I do not altogether to with Polly Tonybee but it is sad and economically dangerous to see the independence of the Treasury undermined.
In the Indian context the tension is usually between the finance minister and central bank. Govt for reasons of political expediency wants monetary policy tweaked or interest rates lowered to spur spending and growth and the bank wants to keep inflation in check so wants the rates as is or even raised. This frequently leads to spats in the media and at times the bank chairman resigning in favour of some one more compliant. This is where the question of independence for exactly the reasons you said comes up as well.
The same term "power grab" gets said as well.
Here it seems more serious. Do advisors only advise and ministers decide or has that flipped. In which case you have unelected 3rd parties coming in with a good chance of getting whatever their sponsors want made into policy.
A strong network of advisors can effectively run the govt !!
Comment