Tag Archives: andy chandler

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.