Strengthening The Institutions We Rely On

Strengthening The Institutions We Rely On

Oct 12, 2025 | Articles, News

by Helen Johnston for Yorkshire Bylines

A new report finds that the UK’s arm’s length public bodies are highly vulnerable to politicisation.

Earlier this month, we reported on a talk by Professor Christina Pagel of University College London (UCL) at a Grassroots for Europe  webinar about the Trump Action Tracker project, documenting the systematic dismantling of democratic institutions in the United States by the Trump regime.

Now, a new report, ‘Strengthening the institutions we rely on’ by Pagel and her colleagues Luke Flynn and Martin McKee at the UCL Policy Lab and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) respectively, finds that the UK’s top scientific institutions, from the Met Office to the UK Health Security Agency, have inadequate institutional defences to prevent potential political interference.

Learning from the US experience

The tracker shows that under Donald Trump, independent institutions in the US have been systematically attacked in a number of clear areas:

With its populist, far right, nationalist agenda, the Reform Party is on the rise. We can see only too clearly how Nigel Farage is reading, and following, the Trump playbook. Professor Pagel explained that, as she watched events unfold in the States, she began to wonder: “What can we do that is a bit more positive than just tracking this kind of doom spiral. Do we need to protect British institutions if a right-wing populist government came into power here in four years’ time?” Her ANCHOR (Advancing National Commitment to Health and Science, Open Data & Resilient Oversight) project examines how UK institutions can be protected by understanding the US experience.

Identifying weak points

By mapping the independence of 24 arms-length bodies (ALBs), specifically involved in producing or publishing evidence or holding governments to account, the project aims to identify and counter potential vulnerabilities. Results for eight key bodies are shown below (taken from the Report’s executive summary).

Reassuringly, they show that the Office for National Statistics (ONS) is already substantially protected from interference. But some other vital bodies have very little independence. The UK Health Security Agency has the right to publish without interference, but it could be abolished rapidly, with no parliamentary oversight. This is effectively what the Tories did to its predecessor, Public Health England, in the middle of the pandemic.

The most vulnerable aspect across all the ALBs studied is that of independent appointments. The 2015 Grimstone Review significantly weakened the powers of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. Independent panels draw up a shortlist of candidates, but the new rules allow ministers to override their recommendations and pick whoever they want:

“Given what’s happened in the US, I think we can all see where that can go wrong.”

There is already evidence of interference in the independent functioning of some key bodies. While acknowledging the limitations of the UK’s parliamentary sovereignty, Pagel believes strengthening public accountability mechanisms can at least ensure parliamentary and public scrutiny of proposed changes to remit, funding or leadership, and so slow or prevent potential authoritarian shifts. “There is obviously a democratic argument that ministers should set overall strategy, but within that, ALBs should have the ability to set priorities on how to meet that strategy.”

How populists exploit vulnerabilities

The UCL Policy Lab report published today examines how the resilience of these key bodies can be strengthened to protect them from a populist government. According to Pagel: “We only need to look across the pond to the actions of the second Trump administration in the USA to see how a coordinated attack on institutional guardrails can rapidly undermine the independence of federal agencies and diminish evidence-based governance. This was not done through sweeping, time-consuming legal reform, but through the calculated exploitation of a series of structural vulnerabilities.

“We’ve seen how the replacement of agency leadership, purges of internal watchdogs and legal re-engineering have been weaponised in the USA, not to mention the slashing of funding and the suppression of research, and it is vital the UK learns lessons from this before it is too late.” 

The report highlights how around one-third of the independent bodies studied lack statutory status, meaning their existence, powers and functions are not defined and authorised by an Act of Parliament, leaving them at risk of being redefined or even abolished behind closed doors.

Co-author Professor Martin McKee (LSHTM) says: “We compare the current situation to a castle with open gates and holes in its walls. This may not matter when there is peace but, when a threat arises, these weaknesses really matter.”

The report recommends: 

  • Increasing legal and statutory protection – Parliament should expand statutory underpinning where needed, especially for ALBs involved in regulation, scrutiny, or advice. It should protect against ministerial overreach.
  • Supporting independence in leadership – The Civil Service should adopt appointment procedures that limit the direct involvement of ministers beyond setting the strategic direction of a post.
  • Resilient funding models – Sponsoring departments should safeguard medium-term funding by expanding multi-year funding settlements to support sustainability and delivery and build on experience with existing practice.
  • Strengthening accountability – Parliament should strengthen accountability by requiring ALBs to produce parliamentary accountability reports, which the National Audit Office would review.
  • Setting priorities and safeguarding operational autonomy – Priority setting must reflect a balance between democratic oversight, the public interest and institutional independence.
  • Protecting the freedom to publish – Legislation should protect the right of ALBs involved in scrutiny, regulation, or public health to publish independently, without needing the prior consent of ministers.
  • Framing the national conversation – Ministers should publicly support the ALBs for which they are responsible and avoid using pejorative language or creating politically motivated bodies.

There is broad public agreement for these principles: polling for the report, carried out by More in Common, found 71% of Britons said it is more important for ALBs to be independent of the government, rather than controlled by it. Across all demographics, the public agreed that a key argument in favour of independent ALBs is that “politicians aren’t experts in many areas”.

 

Fighting back

The other participants in the webinar where Pagel introduced the ANCHOR project wholeheartedly endorsed the ideas behind it. Tom Brake of Unlock Democracy noted that, in opposition, Labour was very much in favour of restoring, for example, the independence of the Electoral Commission. Now it is in power, it prefers to leave the Tory changes on the statute book. “There are many examples of things that the government could be doing now to try to defend defenders better, should there be a change of government to one which seeks to do exactly the sort of things that Trump is doing in the US.”

Mike Galsworthy, chair of European Movement UK, agreed: “More democracy needs to happen in terms of empowering citizens’ voices, so that citizens can comment on, organise on, and resist power structures in politics … I think ANCHOR is a fantastic start to buttress the system”.

 

Original article by Helen Johnson for Yorkshire Bylines: https://yorkshirebylines.co.uk/politics/strengthening-the-institutions-we-rely-on/

Helen Johnston is a freelance translator who has lived in Spain for over two decades. She is on the council of the Bremain in Spain, and is the ‘Europe outside the UK’ member of the Grassroots for Europe Council.

The EU’s Youth Mobility Proposal

The EU’s Youth Mobility Proposal

Apr 22, 2024 | Articles, Bylines, News, Sue Wilson Writes

Our leaders may have been too hasty in rejecting the EU’s proposed youth mobility scheme so soon – it offered mobility, not freedom of movement.

On Thursday 18 April, the European Commission proposed a new scheme allowing improved mobility for young people between the EU and the UK. Within 48 hours, the UK government had already rejected the proposal saying there was no interest from the UK side. The British public, and Britain’s youth in particular, may beg to differ.

https://twitter.com/EU_Commission/status/1780901597649707162

The youth mobility proposal

In their recent press release, the commission outlined plans to “rebuild bridges between young Europeans on both sides of the Channel”. The proposal – which still needs approval by the EU Council – aims to offer visa-free exchanges for young people. The first of these council discussions – expected to result in a “qualified majority in favour” from member states – takes place on Friday 26 April.

According to the commission, post-Brexit immigration rules have resulted in “decreased numbers of persons exercising mobility between the EU and the UK”. Young people have been “particularly affected” by the removal of the benefits of “youth, cultural, educational, research and training exchanges”.

The objective of the proposed scheme is to “facilitate youth exchanges, making it easier for young EU citizens to study, work and live in the UK, with reciprocity for young UK nationals in a member state”. The commission also hopes the scheme “could be usefully supported by a parallel discussion” on Erasmus+, the EU’s student exchange programme.

The scheme would be available to 18–30-year-old EU and UK citizens and would offer the opportunity to work, study and live in the UK and EU respectively for up to four years. Those wishing to participate would need to meet certain conditions in order to qualify (age, length of stay, conditions of eligibility, etc) – that’s assuming, of course that future negotiations with the UK prove successful.

The scheme is likely to have been welcomed by industries suffering severe staff shortages since Brexit. UK Hospitality, who have been calling for the expansion of youth mobility schemes said the agreement would be a “huge success”, to the benefit of hospitality, tourism, live music and events.

Lord Kinnoull, chair of the House of Lords European Affairs Committee, which proposed such a scheme, welcomed the proposal as “greatly to the mutual benefit of both parties and to the youth of Europe” – an opinion shared by very few in Westminster.

Mobility is not freedom of movement

Despite what many press headlines are suggesting, the EU is not advocating a return of freedom of movement with the EU/UK, even for the young. While the proposal would certainly enable young people to have improved mobility, there are limitations. For EU citizens, who only lost freedom of movement in the UK thanks to Brexit, the scheme represents an important step forward.

However, the benefits of the scheme for young Britons would be limited to one designated country, despite them having lost their mobility in 27 EU countries, as a result of Brexit. So, while British participants would have more freedoms than at present, those freedoms would not allow movement between EU countries. They would, though, still allow for Britain’s youth to work, study, live in Spain or France, Cyprus or Italy, or any other EU country.

The other major difference, of course – and one that some commentators are describing as ageist – is that anyone over 30 would be excluded.

UK government reject the proposal

With the exception of a few Brextremists – for whom closer EU ties of any kind are regarded as a betrayal of Brexit – the UK government was initially said to be “open” to discussing a deal with the EU. That supposed openness didn’t last very long.

Just two days after the proposal was announced, Rishi Sunak rejected the proposal outright. A government spokesperson stated, “we are not introducing an EU-wide youth mobility scheme – free movement within the EU was ended and there are no plans to introduce it”. The main objection seems to be against an EU-wide approach – the government preferring to make bespoke deals with individual EU countries of their choice. It would seem that the Brexiter appetite for ‘cherry-picking’ has not gone away.

It would also appear that the government is willing to ignore the wishes of Britain’s youth, or maybe they’ve already given up any hope of appealing to anyone under 30. A recent survey by J.L. Partners showed that “the age at which Britons are more likely to choose the Tories over Labour opposition has risen to 70 from 39”. This latest government decision seems unlikely to change any young minds about which party best represents, or doesn’t, their own needs and wants.

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1781090554111053893

 

Labouring the point

Anyone expecting a more positive response from the likely next government, will have been disappointed by Labour’s reaction. Initially, Labour were said to have “no plans” to negotiate such a mobility deal, citing the fact that, in their eyes at least, the deal “was synonymous with freedom of movement”.

Just 24 hours later, Labour said they would “seek to improve the UK’s working relationship with the EU within our red lines – no return to the single market, customs union or free movement”. A spokesperson also noted that the scheme had only come about because the UK government had been reportedly approaching individual EU member states.

Despite the vast majority of the British public being desperate to see the back of the Tories, many are becoming increasingly frustrated with Labour’s stance on important issues, especially Brexit. While we may understand Labour’s need to make the Tories own Brexit, we also appreciate the importance of focusing on winning the election. Us pro-Europeans may be willing to bite the bullet in order to ‘get the Tories out’, but only up to a point.

What many of us fail to comprehend is Labour’s insistence that “Brexit is settled” and/or can be made to work. As for the party’s red lines, not only are they totally unnecessary, but they are also widely unpopular with the public, and risk turning supporters away. We can only hope that, once in power, Labour will be willing to reconsider their Brexit position, when the realities of running a failing economy present themselves.

Support from the EU

One thing we can be sure of is fair treatment, bold thinking and a willingness to provide help and support from the European Union. This latest scheme, for all its imperfections, is proof that we are better represented by our colleagues in Brussels than we are by those in Westminster. And we’re not even EU citizens anymore.

The EU has once again demonstrated a willingness to look out for the mobility, health, wealth and safety of British citizens, when others tasked with those responsibilities have shirked them. Is it any wonder then that we still look to Brussels and dream of getting back all that we have lost?

Whether the current government, or the next one, like it or not, a youth mobility scheme would be another small step towards closer ties with the EU. Small steps add up. Eventually they will become strides.

Sue Wilson MBE

Elections 2024: Conservatives Ramping Up Disinformation Campaign

Elections 2024: Conservatives Ramping Up Disinformation Campaign

Apr 9, 2024 | Articles, News, Sue Wilson Writes

As the mayoral and council elections loom, evidence mounts of disinformation tactics to smear the opposition.


All across England, local elections for 2600 councillors and 10 mayors are looming, and the Conservatives are terrified. With Labour polling at 43% (23% ahead), they are right to be concerned, not only about the forthcoming general election, but about local elections too.

In an effort to stem the tide, the Conservatives are treading on treacherous terrain with their latest attempts to spread fear and disinformation about the opposition. The main focus – and likely no surprise to those living north of Watford – seems to be on London; the main target, London mayor, Sadiq Khan.

The Disinformation Disease

Disinformation in political campaigning is hardly new. In fact, we’ve become sadly familiar with lies and untruths being spread by certain political candidates, especially during and following Brexit. It’s a disease that is spreading, and not just in the UK. You only have to look at Donald Trump in America, or those in British politics aiming to emulate him, for plenty of examples of truth-twisting.

Worrying as the spreading of disinformation is, it raises other serious concerns. If we are surrounded by disinformation, we can easily become inured to it. It becomes the new normal. Worse still – and clearly this is the aim of these campaigns – people will be tricked into believing the untruths and treat them as facts. Sadly, some will be too lazy, or too indifferent, to bother to check for themselves. A fact, no doubt, that the Conservatives are relying on. After all, it worked superbly with Brexit.

https://twitter.com/AntacsB/status/1777261324956762190

False Leaflets, False Claims

The London Conservatives have been engaging in a campaign aimed at spreading fear around Khan’s supposed policies. A leaflet being put through Londoners’ doors warns of the Labour mayor’s proposed policy to further tax drivers with a ‘pay-per-mile’ scheme – a policy that has been repeatedly denied.

More fuel has been added to the fire by right-wing media – the Telegraph and the Daily Mail – who claimed that Khan was investing £150mn in “secret” technology aimed at facilitating a pay-per-mile scheme. However, Khan has declared that “as long as I am mayor”, there will be no such charges.

Conservative candidate for the London Assembly, Callum McGillivray, described the non-existent pay-per-mile scheme, in a video on social media, as “the final deadly blow to motorists, carers, small businesses and tradespeople”. Had he been talking about the Conservatives themselves, his statement would hardly have needed any fact-checking.

The Conservative candidate for London mayor, Susan Hall, is not averse to a little misrepresentation herself. A regular critic of Khan’s ultra low emission zone (ULEZ), Hall describes the supposed pay-per-mile scheme as ULEZ 2.0 and a “disaster for London”. Not only would it drive families and businesses “into debt” but it could force them “out of London” altogether. While Hall may have strong feelings about a non-existent Labour mayoral policy, surely that doesn’t justify sharing a ‘photo’ of a non-existent road sign – depicting a non-existent pay-per-mile zone – on social media. As of the time of writing, the tweet in question is still showing on Hall’s timeline, albeit it with a ‘readers added context’ warning of the inaccuracy.

https://twitter.com/SueScarrott/status/1776295988614894012

 

Disinformation: Facing The Facts

Full Fact, a team of independent fact finders (with 229,500 followers) have expressed concerns about Conservative Party claims in their leaflets. “Deceptive campaign practices”, they say, “can mislead the public during elections and that’s not on”.

Full Fact are also concerned that political parties are dressing up their leaflets to look like local newspapers. So concerned, in fact, that they have started a petition demanding improvements to the rules around the transparency of campaign materials. Perhaps someone should draw their attention to the Conservatives replacing their usual blue leaflets with green ones, in an effort – it would seem – to disguise the party the candidate actually represents.

The Full Fact petition – Stop politicians from pretending to be your local newspaper – aims to end these deceptive practices, which are “misleading the public and undermining trust in our institutions”. Perhaps they could also come up with a campaign to stop politicians pretending to put the country first.

When things get as bad for the country as they have over recent years, it’s not uncommon for the public to be turned off politics completely; to believe that nobody is listening, our leaders are only in it for themselves and that all politicians are the same. Yet despite all the damage, the waste of taxpayers’ money, Brexit, political scandals and more, the polls would strongly suggest that the public can differentiate between the two main parties. We can only hope that they use this last opportunity before the general election to give voice to those feelings.

Just 18 months ago, Rishi Sunak became the latest unelected Conservative leader/prime minister. In his inaugural speech to the country, he pledged a government of “integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level”. The country, still reeling from the Boris Johnson and Liz Truss eras, were desperate to believe every word. They don’t anymore. Hopefully they won’t believe a word of the latest propaganda campaign either, and they’ll consign the misleading leaflets, and the Conservatives, to the bin.

Sue Wilson MBE
A Rose by Any Other Name?

A Rose by Any Other Name?

Mar 25, 2024 | Articles, News, Sue Wilson Writes

Multi-millionaire, Richard Tice, has got his knickers in a twist over the definition of Reform UK, formerly known as the Brexit Party. Reform UK – or to give it its official Companies House title, Reform UK Party Limited – has been labelled as a far-right party, a description Tice says is both “defamatory and libellous”.

The BBC has been forced to apologise after labelling Reform UK a ‘far-right’ party in a recent news report. Honorary President and major shareholder, Nigel Farage, told GB News that he “hopes no other media outlets make the same mistake”. Whether Tice’s threat of legal action will extend beyond Britain’s shores to challenge any international media using the same label – such as Le Monde in France – remains to be seen.

Far-right definition

Wikipedia describes far-right politics, or right-wing extremism, as “a spectrum of political thought that tends to be radically conservative, ultra-nationalist, and authoritarian”, often with “nativist tendencies”. The site equates the far-right with fascism and Nazism, and includes the National Front, Britain First and the British National Party (BNP) on a list of far-right groups.

While all three groups have faced bans on social media, Tice’s concerns regarding Reform UK’s description are more likely of a financial nature. He fears that the far-right label could affect the party’s access to bank accounts, loans and mortgages.

MA rose by any other name?

While Tice may not like the characterisation by some of his party as far-right, his policies bear a striking resemblance to other groups that satisfy that description. It’s a familiar list that includes anti-immigrant rhetoric, low taxes and patriotic slogans – the “Let’s Make Britain Great” catchphrase being remarkably similar to the National Front’s “Make Britain great again”.

Of course, many of these kinds of policies, and this kind of language, can be heard even from our own government. On occasion, the Tories themselves have been labelled a far-right party, and there are certainly factions within government actively and deliberately pushing the party in that direction.

 

Splitting the populist vote

After Lee Anderson’s recent defection from the Conservatives to Reform UK, no doubt Tice & co. will be looking to encourage more like-minded populists to jump ship. Claims that he has been offering financial incentives to Tory MPs have been strenuously denied by Tice who said he was merely offering Anderson (back in November 2023), “the chance to change the shape of the debate”. A supposed offer – a guaranteed matching of MPs salary for five years – that Anderson refused at the time.

Tice clearly believes that the way to electoral success is by fighting the government on a populist front. With Reform UK now third in the latest Westminster Voting Intention polls on 14%, and Tories on just 20%, they must believe their plan is working. It may even result in them achieving an electoral first -something they never managed as the Brexit Party – representation in the House of Commons.

https://x.com/gstokey/status/1770073752786604403

In a recent YouGov poll in January, the Conservative Party was “seen as being as right-wing as UKIP was” between 2014 and 2016. Between 2017 and 2019, UKIP was perceived as moving further to the right, with scores rising from 67 to 69 points. The Conservatives – having moved seven points more to the right when Boris Johnson took over – scored 62 points. As at October 2023, Reform UK scored 68 points, “notably to the right of the Conservatives”.

In the run up to the election, the Tories and Reform UK will no doubt continue to battle each other for the populist vote. With policies almost indistinguishable from one other, they’ll be unwilling to call out extremism from within their own ranks, while hypocritically denouncing it in each other. Both will likely at times be branded right-wing or far-right, whether they accept the characterisation or not.

If Reform UK, and the Conservatives, aren’t far-right parties, then what are they? Centre-right? Perhaps. Or at least, that’s what they would like the country to believe. As to which is the more right-wing of the two, you pays your money, you takes your choice.

Meanwhile, as the Tories and Reform UK focus their attentions on battling each other, Keir Starmer will be counting his lucky stars and enjoying the ride all the way to number 10. Hopefully, for the sake of the country, very few far-right-wing politicians will making that same journey to Westminster.

Sue Wilson MBE

Brexit cost us our global reputation

Brexit cost us our global reputation

Sep 19, 2023 | Articles, News

The government can continue to stick plasters over Brexit, but the damage it has done to Britons abroad is undeniable, writes Bremain Vice Chair Lisa Burton for The New European.

We Brits love to emigrate, with almost one in ten living overseas. Yet, the portrayal of British migrants living in the EU is awash with stereotypes, principally due to the UK media’s insistence on referring to us as ‘expats.’ TV programmes like ‘Bargain Loving Brits Abroad’ don’t help, neither does their insistence on reporting from British enclaves whenever seeking our views on Brexit. The truth is however, we are as diverse as the British population itself. There are 1.3 million of us officially resident in the EU; on average, 79% are of working age and below.

An estimated 3.4 million UK citizens living overseas are disenfranchised. In 2016, at the time of the Brexit referendum, 60% of us residing in the EU had no vote, even though it would strip us of our EU citizenship. The issues we face post-Brexit are broad, complex, and far-reaching due to the loss of freedom of movement. Yet our own government cheered and celebrated, stripping these rights from not just us but every one of our fellow compatriots.
If you are wealthy, you can obtain the relevant visa and move to another country with some time, effort, and money. But it is no longer an option for most British people. If you have a low-income job or a state pension, forget it. Even though the cost of living is far cheaper in Spain, to qualify for a non-lucrative visa, the minimum income requirements are €2,400 per month, almost double the current UK state pension.

In 2018, I was still angry about how the UK government dealt with Brexit, but I felt my geographical position meant I could do nothing about it. Then, I found the citizens’ rights group Bremain in Spain. I immediately got in touch, became a member, and started campaigning. It allowed me to channel my frustrations and put them to good use.

Bremain works closely with dozens of Pro-EU groups across the UK and the EU. We give evidence to Parliament and Lord’s Select Committees. We worked closely with the British Embassy team in Madrid, reporting back to them on the issues British nationals were facing on the ground. We campaigned for ‘Votes for Life’ to end the arbitrary 15-year limit on overseas voters. It was a massive win for all those who campaigned and is part of The Elections Act 2022, which received Royal Assent on the 28th of April 2022. While we now must engage in information campaigns to inform and encourage people to vote, any British person overseas should be able to vote in the next General Election.

It’s a game-changer, and we are currently collaborating with New Europeans, the True and Fair Party, Lib Dems Abroad, France and EU, Unlock Democracy, and many others on a campaign for overseas constituencies so Brits abroad have dedicated MPs and representation in parliament. We recently had our first collaborative meeting with the EU Commission’s Specialised Committee on Citizens’ Rights, the committee in which the UK and the EU can raise concerns and issues with the other party on their implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement, and we are members of the Make Votes Matter Alliance.

I am now Vice-Chair of Bremain and their representative on the European Movement UK national council. We campaign because we are patriots, and we, above all, understand more than anyone the incredible gift that freedom of movement was because we are living proof of it. 

This September 23rd, I will speak on stage at the National Rejoin March in London. I will bring a positive message about freedom of movement. Our politicians can put sticking plasters on Brexit as much as they like, but as pro-Europeans, we are not going away until every person in the UK, no matter their wealth or social class, have the same rights and opportunities as 450 million of our European neighbours. Not until British people can live, love, travel, study and retire freely across this incredible continent once again. 

Lisa Burton is Campaigning to Rejoin the EU from Spain.  For all the info, go to www.MarchForRejoin.co.uk

Hunt for optimism

Hunt for optimism

Jan 31, 2023 | Articles, News, Sue Wilson Writes

The chancellor’s economic plans for growth require a good dose of optimism, a dollop of delusion and some rose-tinted spectacle

Sue Wilson MBE bySue Wilson MBE

On Friday morning, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt outlined his economic plans for growth to a business audience in London. In his first major speech since the Autumn statement in November, he promised to use “Brexit freedoms” to boost economic growth in the UK.

According to Hunt, Britain is “poised to play a leading role in Europe and across the world” and the government’s plan for growth “is necessitated, energised and made possible by Brexit”. All that’s required is a good dose of optimism, a dollop of delusion and some rose-tinted spectacles.

Not all doom and gloom

Hunt criticised the media for suggesting that Britain is facing an “existential crisis” and “teetering on the edge”. The “gloom” being expressed about our country’s economic outlook was “based on statistics that do not reflect the whole picture”. Statistics, it seems, can only be relied upon when they support the story that the government is trying to peddle. In a desperate attempt to find some evidence of growth during the government’s time in power, Hunt could only state that the UK had “grown faster than France, Japan and Italy” by going back to 2010.

Without a hint of irony, Hunt suggested that “confidence in the future starts with honesty about the present”. Not sure when, exactly, that honesty about Brexit is expected to start, but there certainly was little to be found in this speech. Or any mention of so-called Brexit benefits.

When challenged to concede that Brexit was causing problems for business, Hunt admitted there had been some “short term disruption”, but said it was wrong to focus on those issues “without looking at the opportunities”. Whether business owners are cognisant of those unidentified opportunities, or would agree that three years of disruption could be classed as ‘short term’, is another matter altogether.

Hunt’s cunning plan

The plans for growth seem to rely on three things, all supposedly made possible by Brexit and based on “British genius” and “hard work”. The first – “restraint on spending” – effectively means £100bn being cut from government spending over the next two years. But balancing the Treasury budget does not equate to balancing the economy – or levelling-up, for that matter – and public services need investment, not further cuts.

Then we have Hunt’s plan to turn the UK into “the world’s next Silicon Valley”. Not exactly a new idea, and we’re hardly overrun with recent examples of entrepreneurial success. Hunt also aims to exploit “the freedoms which Brexit provides” and raise productivity levels. As with all other elements of his cunning plan, the details of how and when were left entirely to our imaginations.

The reaction

If Hunt was expecting wide coverage for his speech, he was to be disappointed. The leading business channel in Europe – CNBC – didn’t even bother to cover it.

The British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) highlighted the failure to announce detailed proposals as a lack of “meat on the bones of his vision”. The BCC also drew attention to the fact that energy costs and exports had not been mentioned. Although Hunt’s plan was a start, they said, we have moved “no further forward”. They ended their response by suggesting that the chancellor read the BCC’s own business manifesto “for realistic policies to help get back to growth”.

Labour’s shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves, agreed with Hunt that the UK has “so much potential”. Unsurprisingly, she claimed only her party could seize the opportunities and pointed out the economic failings of the last 13 years of Tory government.

Sarah Olney, the LibDems Treasury spokesperson, compared the chancellor’s comments to “an unfaithful partner asking for yet another chance”, adding “why should we trust them again?” Why indeed! The government’s record, she added, was “nothing less than a shambles” and the public would see through this “desperate attempt” to rewrite history.

On the government website, Hunt’s speech is described as “his vision for long-term prosperity in the UK”. A long-term view will be of little comfort to those feeling the effects of the cost-of-living crisis right now. Or to businesses suffering from additional red tape and expense thanks to Brexit. Considering that the Conservatives are likely to be kicked out of power next year makes such claims rather pointless. No wonder so few bothered to pay much attention.

Collins English dictionary defines optimism as “the feeling of being hopeful about the future or about the success of something in particular”. Not for the first time, we are being asked by the government to ignore reality and be optimistic about our country’s future. We are being entreated to believe in the cult of Brexit, despite all the evidence of economic damage and the government’s own appalling record of management. It might have worked six years ago. It might even have worked three years ago. It won’t work now.