A new government, concerned about economic policies and uneasy about its polling numbers, seeks help from business leaders to revamp Whitehall. Recently, Rachel Reeves instructed ministers to submit their spending proposals to corporate leaders for review. Among those set to enforce a strict stance against waste are former bankers from institutions like Lloyds and Barclays. Interestingly, this scenario mirrors back to the summer of 2010 when David Cameron enlisted Sir Philip Green as an advisor to boost efficiency.
From the outset, Sir Philip’s appointment was met with skepticism. Just a short time before the general election, this “king of the high street” had thrown his support behind the Tories, only to find himself soon part of the government machinery. The question on many minds was why a billionaire, with ongoing scrutiny regarding his tax affairs, should be involved in auditing public spending. The review he conducted, which spanned two months and filled a mere 33 pages, is unlikely to make a mark in his biographies or be remembered as a standout moment in Lord Cameron’s tenure. Ultimately, it appeared as little more than a publicity stunt, especially considering Sir Philip’s controversial involvement in the collapse of BHS, the depletion of its pension scheme, and the parliamentary vote to revoke his knighthood.
When successful business figures step into the political arena, officials often approach them with a sense of reverence that’s perhaps too deferential. Take, for instance, Rishi Sunak’s “interview” with Elon Musk, essentially turning Downing Street into a marketing platform. Reflect on Gordon Brown’s praise for bankers on the brink of the credit crisis, hailing them for crafting “the most modern instruments of finance.” Or Tony Blair’s decision to knight Philip Green, applauding him as “the person who dreamt up the dream and made it a reality.” Green even claimed to have Blair on speed dial. Such deference hardly fosters solid business relationships and undermines both public sector confidence and political authority. As Teddy Roosevelt noted, “The government is us,” with democratic representatives gaining their legitimacy from being publicly elected and accountable, a distinctly different authority than that of corporate executives serving shareholders.
Every administration should indeed strive to use taxpayer money efficiently and effectively. It’s also appropriate for the chancellor to urge businesses to contribute their fair share in taxes and wages, while upholding responsible practices. However, Cabinet Office Minister Pat McFadden’s suggestion that Whitehall emulate a startup culture seems misplaced. Institutions like hospitals and schools aren’t designed to “move fast and break things” like Facebook does; they’re meant to serve millions with consistent, high-quality standards. Ironically, it’s the private sector that could benefit from heightened competition to curb price hikes on essentials like food and energy and prevent profiteering in areas such as children’s social care.
The review led by Green briefly served as a convenient excuse for the Conservatives’ long stint of budget cuts. They maintained that public services needed to accomplish more with fewer resources, akin to the expectations placed on businesses. This approach pushed many public services to the brink of collapse, highlighting their fundamental differences from private enterprises. If a brewery falls short on producing stout, consumers can easily switch brands, but when prisons overflow, early releases become necessary. If a council goes bankrupt, an entire community faces the loss of essential services and its democratic voice. When schools can’t hire enough teachers, future generations suffer from the fallout. Our public services cannot be purely business-driven, as their role is far more universal and significant.
