Tag Archives: treasury

On Tuesday, a somewhat cryptic message went up on Lib Dem social media promising a “big announcement” at 09:00. Naturally, expectations were raised. When a Party primes its members and supporters like that, you assume something substantial is coming — a major defection, implementation of a flagship policy passed by Conference, or a decisive shift in direction.

Instead, what we got was… rebranding the Treasury as the “Department of Growth.”

A dull, inoffensive, and uninspiring ghost of New Labour if ever I saw one.

We’re told its functions will be reorganised and the whole department relocated to Birmingham. For a policy supposedly rooted in growth, this sounds like a costly exercise in administrative musical chairs. Moving a major Whitehall department is not cheap.  Rebranding is not cheap.  Structural upheaval is not cheap. If the goal is efficiency, this feels like a curious starting point.  And, I’m not going to lie, naming it the Department of Growth (DOG) sounds concerningly close to Elon Musk’s “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE), and the last thing we need to do is to follow Labour into echoing MAGA slogans—though, at least, we haven’t paired red baseball caps with our resemblant new slogan. To me, it all sends entirely the wrong message.  

But, on top of this being a confusing policy move, the way this has been handled and communicated undermines the fundamental democratic foundations of the Party.  

As Liberal Democrats, we pride ourselves on being member-led and listening to our members.  Our Federal Committees, Federal Council, and Federal Board are formed of members who are elected to their positions.  They’re accountable to the membership and can be removed by the membership.  Meanwhile, policy is debated, amended, and adopted at Conference through a 1 member, 1 vote.  We all acknowledge that this is not an optional extra—it is the democratic heart of the Party and is what sets us apart from Reform, the Conservatives and in more recent years, the Labour Party.

So I am genuinely confused as to why this announcement has been presented as settled Party Policy when it does not appear to have been passed through Conference. Conference exists for a reason: to ensure that members, not just the Parliamentary Party, determine the Party’s direction. If we circumvent that process, even for something that might seem technical or presentational, we chip away at what makes us distinct. 

I have a massive problem when the Parliamentary Party just does stuff, and unilaterally writes its own brand new policy, rather than applying their own initiative to implement policy.  Not to bang the same drum, but I do find it suspect that very little noise is being made in the Parliamentary Party about recently passed Party Policy such as Free to Be Who You Are, as well as the several historic conference motions passed on Universal Basic Income.  It remains clear that Conference-approved policy is not treated as gospel, but as advisory rather than authoritative.