What would you do if you have a really important set of decisions to make? Decisions that will have a direct impact on the lives of millions of people, on the future of the country and – although of course you are too saintly to think of this – on your own future career prospects.
Locking yourself away in secret and deciding all the key decisions on your own before presenting them to the rest of the world as a fait accompli is not the route you will find any management textbook advising you to take. And with good reason, because it is a dreadful approach.
Dreadful, but also the traditional British way of drawing up the annual Budget, especially when Gordon Brown was still prowling Whitehall. He was even unwilling to involve the Prime Minister in Budget planning when he was chancellor – a view that he quickly revised when he replaced Tony Blair as PM, of course.
The love of secrecy and solo decision-making did not start with Brown; it has a much longer heritage. Hugh Dalton famously had to resign as chancellor for revealing a few details of his Budget in 1947 which as a result appeared in a newspaper – shock horror – before he had finished speaking in the House of Commons.
By comparison with losing your job for some details getting out a few minutes early, the coalition government’s approach to having highly publicised Budget discussions starting weeks in advance is from a very different world.
A different world, but also a better world. More widespread discussion and debate almost always makes for better decision making than one isolated person, or even small team, trying to save the world solo.
Of course, the motivation for the public pre-Budget debate between the coalition partners is in part political: both the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives are looking to carve out a distinct political message whereby they can claim credit for the measures their supporters will like.
In this case politicians being politicians is good for the rest of us – as it also means not only is the public better informed (crucial to making a meaningful choice in the ballot box) but also that far more people have a chance to stick their oar in, knowing what topics and what arguments are most relevant.
There is still a strong Treasury grip on the process, with two of the four ministers in the ‘Quad’ meetings that are making the key final decisions being from the Treasury itself - George Osborne and Danny Alexander, who along with Nick Clegg and David Cameron comprise the quartet.
But it is a weaker and more public grip. In other words, it is better.
Mark Pack is Head of Digital at MHP Communications and co-editor of Lib Dem Voice









Comments
Adam / March 16 2012 4:19pm
I'd be interested, Mark, to hear whether you think this process could and should be opened up even further. I'm thinking of the recent Liberal Insight report which said,
"we strongly recommend that governments attempt to bring the Budget (& the subsequent Finance Bills) broadly into line with other legislative processes. This could be done by producing Green &/or White Papers, & by allowing formal pre-legislative scrutiny either by Commons Select Committees or even by the publication of a draft bill to be scrutinised by a separate Parliamentary Committee. Further, we recommend that once the proposed reform of the House of Lords is complete, governments should consider legislating to allow the House of Lords to scrutinise & amend Finance Bills."
Tom King / March 16 2012 6:32pm
Thanks for pointing Mark to our paper, Adam.
We've responded briefly to this article on our website: http://www.liberalinsight.com/2012/03/16/a-public-budget/
Mark Pack / March 19 2012 2:35pm
Hi Adam: the idea of more detailed scrutiny of the details is certainly a good one, especially as tax changes are a classic case of where not only the Devil but most of his cohorts are in the details.
That scrutiny however can be after the event - Budget sets out overall plan, Parliament looks through details before they proceed. That would be very similar to the pre-legislative scrutiny of draft Bills the government publishes in that it only happens once the government has announced its broad plans for a policy area.
For prior scrutiny (ie ahead of the Budget) I think the main factor is a change in political culture, which we're starting to see. Give it another couple of years and it will (I hope) be the unremarked norm.