Daisy Cooper’s call to break up the Treasury and create a new Department for Growth is the kind of proposal that deserves more than reflex applause or suspicion. It is not simply a change of ministerial job titles, but a complete restructuring of the British state, and it raises the question of whether such restructuring helps or hinders long-term prosperity outside Westminster and London.
What follows is a friendly, Jenkinsite-based debate between two Liberal Democrats who agree on the destination: a Britain where wealth, power and opportunity are less concentrated, and where institutions are accountable to the whole country. Where we differ is on the mechanism; Jack argues that breaking up the treasury would begin shifting economic decision-making closer to the places that live with its consequences, whereas Andy is more cautious and asks whether restructuring Whitehall risks repeating old patterns unless it is matched by deeper decentralisation.
We both offer views in the spirit of liberal pluralism: serious, practical, and aimed at better outcomes.
Jack Meredith:
A Jenkinsite case for Daisy Cooper’s Department for Growth is simple: Britain cannot devolve prosperity while Whitehall retains the economic steering wheel. “Treasury brain” is not just a habit; it is a structure. When one department controls fiscal policy, economic policy and spending approvals, it naturally prizes what can be booked this year over what pays off over a decade. That bias has helped trap the country in low investment, weak productivity and regional imbalance.
Breaking up the Treasury is therefore a decentralising reform in practice, not only in rhetoric. A Department for Growth with a clear, long-term mandate would change incentives across government; growth becomes an organising principle, not an afterthought. Pairing it with the Department for Public Expenditure also clarifies responsibility: one institution drives prosperity; the other disciplines spending. That separation matters because it reduces the temptation to raid future growth for today’s headlines.
Basing the Growth Department in Birmingham strengthens the message. Location is policy. Moving a major economic department out of London signals that the UK’s economic story cannot be written from one postcode. It forces ministers, officials, and stakeholders to view the national economy as a network of places rather than as a single city with a hinterland.
This reform fits liberalism’s core purpose: dispersing power so that citizens and communities can shape their own futures. A growth department can be the engine room for “Team UK”; a single front door for business, trade, and investment, aligned with national priorities and better living standards. It can also sharpen Britain’s external focus, as a serious growth mission requires fewer trade barriers, especially with our nearest markets.
If we want to get Britain growing again, we should start by rebuilding the state around long-term prosperity and start moving economic power closer to the country it serves.
Andy Chandler:
I should perhaps begin with a small confession. When I first proposed to Jack that we write on the Liberal Democrats’ announcement to “break up” the Treasury from a Jenkinsite perspective, I was initially ambivalent. It did not feel like the bread-and-butter reform I had hoped for, though I broadly welcomed the principle of loosening the grip of the Treasury “blob,” which so often seems to restrain rather than enable. Yet when I learned Jack was favourable, I decided, for the sake of debate, to re-evaluate my position to see if I could articulate an opposing view.
I found that my position had shifted more than I expected. I agree with the core premise: that a monolithic Treasury in Whitehall, which privileges short-term caution, is unhelpful, and that a more regionally conscious economic structure, in theory, reshapes national strategy. But sadly, I ended up unconvinced that this reform truly embodies the deeper ideals of devolution and localism for meaningful economic change.
Instead, it risks becoming little more than a rearranging of deckchairs. Two departments—even with one in Birmingham—still amount to a powerful central ministry in a different location, with a different coat of paint. Authority would remain with the Chancellor and within central government, rather than being genuinely transferred to mayors, councils, and regions. Is this the decentralisation that might renew deindustrialised towns, or merely a softer form of “trickle-down”?
History is also no stranger to these warnings. Roy Jenkins, that most liberal, pragmatic and reforming politician and Home Secretary, had similar experiences in 1967-70 with the Department of Economic Affairs when he was Chancellor. Conceived to broaden planning beyond orthodoxy, it instead produced conflict, duplication, and bureaucratic friction. He decided to transfer some of the department’s responsibilities back to the Treasury and ultimately dissolve it. This was because his Treasury department and the DEA clashed with Roy’s “tough” approach to economic management, which contrasted sharply with the DEA’s more expansionist policy.
A Birmingham-based department may symbolise change, but without genuine fiscal power in local hands, it risks echoing the disappointments of Levelling Up—ambitious in language, limited in effect. Roy would likely object that shuffling ministries around or splitting them into new silos does nothing if it preserves hierarchical power and resists bigger underlying change.
Conclusion
Where we agree is simple: Britain needs more dispersed power, more durable growth, and less policy written for one postcode. Where we differ is in sequence: restructure first or devolve first, and in how to stop Whitehall reform becoming Whitehall theatre. We will carry on that argument in future posts; if you would like to follow along, we publish our ongoing Jenkinsite debates in The Jenkinsite Group
* The Jenkinsite Group is an online network for Liberal Democrats who identify with the political tradition associated with Roy Jenkins: institutional reform, liberal social democracy, internationalism, and serious government.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
Hywel
paul barker
Peter Chambers
Mark Valladares
Mark Smulian
21 Comments
@ Jack Meredith “A Jenkinsite case for Daisy Cooper’s Department for Growth is simple: Britain cannot devolve prosperity while Whitehall retains the economic steering wheel.”
Does geographical location to Birmingham (or anywhere else) improve or affect the quality of decision making ? I doubt it.
As a Liberal candidate in the 1983 election (Richmond, Yorks), I respected Mr Jenkins’ record in Government, but recall he was defenestrated for lack of performance as Alliance Leader by David Steel during the campaign.
Why do we need a Jenkinsite Society and what does it stand for that is different when we already have the Social Liberal Forum ?
I was an active Liberal PPC when Roy Jenkins was Chancellor (1967-70) – and reading for a first degree in history at UCL. I clearly recall Jenkins opposing any breaking up of the Treasury.
As Chancellor he wanted to assert its central authority by dissolving a competing department, (the Department of Economic Affairs set up by Deputy PM, George Brown). After the 1967 devaluation, Jenkins found the DEA, (established to steer economic planning), caused “conflict, duplication, and bureaucratic friction” with the Treasury.
Jenkins transferred the DEA’s remaining responsibilities back to the Treasury, effectively centralizing economic control. He wished to strengthen Treasury control over economic policy, allowing for a “tough” approach to economic management contrasting with the DEA.
Jenkins strengthened the Treasury by eliminating its rival, not by breaking up the Treasury institution itself (or moving it to Birmingham). Brown kicked off , but was consoled by Harold Wilson to become Foreign Secretary.
would have been interesting to have had such a debate when others around to at least listen to the different views. Maybe even before the announcement was made, it might have been tweaked a bit or presented a bit differently with different emphasis.
Wondering how that might have happened?
Hang on, didn’t we used to have a conference when a lot of people there to listen? and make policy?
@Suzanne Fletcher
Oh I very much hard agree on this. I expressed this opinion on Tara’s opinion piece. This was for the purpose of debate of the proposals. But you can clearly see that even me and Jack had different opinions so I agree, this should have gone to conference or at least to appropriate federal policy boards. We are in opposition so it could have had the time to debate this. Even i know people who don’t oppose the policy but wish it was consulted by the Party.
As far as I can tell, it is the “department for public expenditure” that would be a renamed Treasury. The “department for growth” would be the replacement for the departments for business and trade. Having the department in Birmingham would not bring it any closer to the real world but would move it further from the politicians in London that it needs to advise.
Andy has a better solution. Move the power to regional politicians and they can organise their civil servants as they please.
Short-termism is not caused by civil service structures. It is caused by the desire of politicians to deliver results within the electoral cycle.
@David Raw
That’s a fair question! I see the SLF as the home of social liberal values and policy; Jenkinsism is a method focused on institutions and democratic reform, so liberal goals can actually endure. More overlap than difference; it’s additive, not competitive. It’s also a community for people to discuss party history, debate different ideas and get to know new people ☺️
@David Raw
Thanks David. You made excellent points, but of course, I would probably say that since it was close to my views aha. But I agree. And thanks for adding the extra history between the tension between him, Brown and Wilson.
I agree in regards to short termism, its not civil servants but the political wind so I think anything to try and decentralise power is good, its a welcome first time but as you also concluded while Birmingham is better its no closer to other parts of the UK, or handing power to councils, and I think we should attempt to hand these to the most localism as possible.
And, also concur what Jack said about Jenkinism. And the group is a place where I think it has more overlaps and wants to see institutional to help promote liberalism. I the tradition of Roy Jenkins of cooperation and pluristic politics, as well as a community where we debate ideas, discussion, acknowledge the history of Roy Jenkins, and a appreciation society of his life and legacy, in helping inform liberal & social democracy history.
@ Jack Meredith, ” It’s also a community for people to discuss party history”….. But, Jack, we already have, ‘The Journal of Liberal History https://liberalhistory.org.uk‘. Liberal History offers a collection of books, concise booklets, and individual issues and the Liberal Democrat History Group promotes discussion and research’. LDHG already contains many of the best and most distinguished historians active and sympathetic to this area.
As to ‘Jenkinism’ I’m not sure what that means or whether it even exists.
@ Andy Chandler, “you also concluded while Birmingham is better”…….
Sorry, I don’t think I did, and certainly Jenkins didn’t.
A last question, were either of you two actually around when Jenkins was, and did you ever hear him speak ? I was, and I can tell you Shirley Williams was far more impressive.
@David Raw
With all due respect, I don’t really understand your point, other than to just run down something that is of interest to a handful of people.
You’ve not really offered anything constructive, you’ve just written line after line about how you see no point in this group; and that’s fine and is your right, but 159 people have so far seen a reason to join, and we’ve so far seen some great discussions.
Like, I get it, you don’t see merit to the group, and that’s fair.
But I don’t really know what to say to you other than just shrugging my shoulders and moving forward with focusing on those who want to be there.
I’m not sure many of the younger generation will know who Roy Jenkins actually was. I’d forgotten myself so thanks, Jack, for reminding me.
He was the son on a miner. His entire career was built on being a member of the working class movement. He got into Parliament as a Labour MP. Every office he held was because of the Labour Party. He was made a Cabinet minister by a Labour PM.
Then he then chose to kick away the ladder and help form a Party which split Labour’s vote giving Mrs Thatcher three consecutive election wins.
So what was it about Labour that justified what many would call a betrayal? There were plenty in the party who shared his views. If he’d hung on he could easily have teamed up with the Blairites.
The Labour Party has always been relatively tolerant in accepting those on the political right. Many would say too tolerant. Roy Jenkins, himself, was never threatened with expulsion. It’s been those on the left, including a former leader, who have been ‘purged’. This, most recently, by those on the right who fraudulently claimed to be on the left to gain the leadership of the party.
@ Jack Meredith I wouldn’t dream of stopping you from setting up your group. Good luck with it if that’s what you want.
Would merely say there’s no such thing as Jenkinism as a doctrine, and I’m also sorry to say that ultimately and historically, Lord Jenkins didn’t really cut it as a Leader – as events in 1983 show. I wish that wasn’t the case.
@David Raw
Again, all you’re contributing is negativity for the sake of it. There’s nothing we can do with your comments other than just acknowledge them and move on, which is disappointing, as I had hoped for more constructive feedback than “I don’t like this, you’re wrong”.
@Peter Martin: I think that’s a little unfair about Roy Jenkins. At the time that he helped form the SDP, Blair was far in the future and could not be predicted. Labour was pushing to outright leave the (then) EEC, unilaterally give up nuclear weapons without asking for anything in return from the USSR, and for mass nationalization. There was no reason to believe that Labour was going to move back toward the kinds of politics Roy Jenkins believed in.
We can never know what the electoral outcome would’ve been if the SDP hadn’t broken away, but realistically, Labour was looking so unelectable under Michael Foot and Mrs. Thatcher so popular in the aftermath of the Falklands War that it seems likely the Tories would’ve won a landslide win anyway. You can’t assume that everyone (or even most people) who voted Liberal/SDP in 1983 would’ve otherwise voted Labour. Doubtless many would’ve voted Tory if a realistic centre option wasn’t there.
In the end Roy Jenkins fought for what he believed in the best way he knew how. Whether you agree or disagree with what he believed in, I don’t think you can fault him for that.
Peter Martin – Utter rubbish. It was Labour falling apart and doing nothing but argue, whilst Thatcher tore our country apart. It would have been entirely false for the Gang Of Four and tens of thousands of people like me who wanted an alternative to the witch and her cronies, but the 1981 Labour Party held no attraction.
I joined the SDP for negative reasons, but then realised it was a positive home for me.
Well said Simon Robinson
It can also sharpen Britain’s external focus, as a serious growth mission requires fewer trade barriers, especially with our nearest markets.
We reduced our trade barriers overall on leaving the EU, not least by unilaterally scrapping the EU Customs Union’s protectionist nuisance tariffs (those under 2%) thus raising the UK to eighth place in the International Trade Barriers Index. The way forward is to digitalise customs using the Electronic Trade Documents Act. Reducing trade barriers with the EU by dynamic alignment would be net negative for growth as even some Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs now appear to be realising…
‘Labour’s love affair with Europe has run into big and unexpected trouble’ [13th. February]:
https://archive.is/1abyV
@Peter Martin 13th Feb ’26 – 10:14am….
Thanks for reminding me that it was this party and the SNP who forced the 1979 ‘No Confidence’ vote that enabled Thatcher’s election.. In 1979 I was just a lad of 25 so my memory needed ‘updating’ regarding James Callaghan’s speech……
“We can truly say that once the Leader of the Opposition discovered what the Liberals and the SNP would do, she found the courage of their convictions. So, tonight, the Conservative Party, which wants the Act repealed and opposes even devolution, will march through the Lobby with the SNP, which wants independence for Scotland, and with the Liberals, who want to keep the Act. What a massive display of unsullied principle! The minority parties have walked into a trap. If they win, there will be a general election. I am told that the current joke going around the House is that it is the first time in recorded history that turkeys have been known to vote for an early Christmas……— James Callaghan during the no-confidence debate
Considering that, in the resultant GE, this party lost seats and the SNP was virtually wiped out, how right he was…
If we’re going to turn this thread into a Who can we blame for Margaret Thatcher debate, can I point out that The Conservatives under Mrs. Thatcher never got more than 43.9% of the vote in any general election that she won. The reason they got massive majorities on a minority of the vote was our ridiculous 1st-past-the-post electoral system.
Can someone remind me which parties in the 1980s were committed to reforming the voting system to bring in fair votes, and which big (socialist) opposition party was totally dedicated to keeping the very electoral system that gave the Tories those majorities…
@expats
As I recall, the vote of no confidence in the Labour government in 1979 was due to it deciding not to proceed with Scottish devolution after the referendum that year resulted in only a yes majority of 77,000 votes and, crucially, the total yes vote representing less than 40% of those entitled to vote. A certain George Cunningham was the MP who managed to amend the legislation with his notorious 40% rule – the same George Cunningham who later joined the SDP which later formed an alliance, then merged, with the Liberals to form the Liberal Democrats.
Quite ironic that someone so opposed to devolution would end up supporting a party that believed in federalism…
We live in the most centralised country in the Western world.
Westminster and Whitehall simply view local government as the delivery arm of central government. We are being crushed by 16 years of austerity cuts and successive governments continue to “give us permission” to put up council tax to try to cover the soaring costs of adult social care and children with special needs which now take up over 60% (closer to 70%) of our budgets.
Both the government and the NHS refuse to invest properly in early prevention services which would improve people’s lives (and cost considerably less to the public purse) but continue to throw money at acute services for people who could have been helped years before.
If we want to truly come up with radical ideas, we should be the party championing real devolution – not the Labour party’s version of upward centralisation of power in the hands of regional Mayors – but real powers and funding to local government.
Change starts with the power of local people and local communities to shape their area, prioritise what would really make a difference in that place and give people the tools to make it happen.
True devolution – now there’s a radical idea.
Ruth Dombey has been a councillor in the London Borough of Sutton since 2002 and was Leader of the Council 2012-2024