Comment: You can’t depoliticise people
George Osborne’s decision to take the politics out of economic forecasts is inspiring. But why stop there?
As part of the ‘new politics’ perhaps the coalition should consider a wave of depoliticisation affecting all branches of government.
Future wars could be conducted by an Office of Military Responsibility. Decisions on how to improve public health could be delegated to an Agency for Fat People. The welfare system could be transferred to a Jobless Council composed of claimants, thus helping reduce the number of unemployed.
Thorny constitutional issues like reforming the Lords could even be tasked to a higher-minded panel of relatively independent individuals, respected in their own fields and with a track record of holding the government to account. Oh, wait – that’s the House of Lords. Better get the peers to decide their own fate, then.
It’s clear there is limitless scope for this sort of behaviour. But being flippant about it obscures the fact that exactly this sort of thing is going on all the time.
It’s politicians’ job to make decisions. The divisions which influence their thinking when they do so is the life blood of the political system. So it might seem a little strange they spend so much of their time wriggling away from actually making a judgement call.
Perhaps it’s just that part of that judgement is about when it’s in your interest to avoid making decisions at all.
Gordon Brown did it in 1997. Handing the Bank of England independence meant the setting of interest rates was no longer an act for which politicians could be held accountable.
There are hundreds of other examples – a review ordered here, a commission there to investigate or assess or learn the lessons. Most of the time politicians in power want to do the right thing, gaining as broad a base of approval as they possibly can. Doing things makes people dislike you. So doing lots of things – which ministers tend to be forced to do – is fraught with peril.
What about today’s decision from the chancellor? The Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) seems more the fruit of the frustrations of opposition than anything else. It will provide the coalition with some political capital for a short time. But it is far from a panacea for independent, reliable figures.
The difference between the OBR and the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee is the latter has institutionalised division, with members voting for the interest rate change they see fit. Economic forecasting is more of a science than the art of setting the base rate. Yet there is more than enough scope for future ministers to become frustrated with its forecasts and question the judgement of its practitioners.
The fate of Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup can be found on the flip side of the depoliticisation process. He is a civil servant, a public sector worker tasked with assisting the government on all matters military.
Yesterday new defence secretary Liam Fox announced he would leave his post early. The decision is widely viewed as a partisan one, despite denials from Fox. The enthusiastic approval of his predecessor Bob Ainsworth reinforces the view Sir Jock got too close to the Labour government for comfort.
His fate follows that of former Met police commissioner Sir Ian Blair, who had to quit after Tory mayor Boris Johnson announced he had “lost confidence” in him.
Their fate reveals a troubling truth: you can depoliticise an office or a position, but you can’t depoliticise people. The OBR starts out as an excellent idea, but it might yet not end that way.
The views expressed in politics.co.uk’s comment pages are not necessarily those of the website or its owners.
