It seemed like a good idea at the time

A history of failed newsletters

“Nothing is more dangerous than an idea when it’s the only one you have,” wrote the French philosopher Émile-Auguste Chartier. I would add that nothing is more irritating than an idea that felt profound during a highly caffeinated walk in the sunshine, only to reveal itself on first inspection as possessing the structural integrity of a Solero.

So, in the spirit of creative honesty, and because there is nothing more to say about next week’s Budget, I’m opening up the archives of the Museum of Things I Briefly Thought Were Brilliant.

The Barnett formula

Can I tell you my favourite Barnett formula chat show anecdote? For the uninitiated, this is the mechanism used by the Treasury to calculate the annual block grants to the devolved administrations, i.e. the Scottish and Welsh governments and the Northern Ireland Executive (in the fleeting windows in which the latter is operational).

Like so much of the UK’s fiscal framework, it was a temporary solution from which we are yet to extricate ourselves. The formula was introduced prior to the 1979 general election by then Labour chief secretary to the Treasury, Joel Barnett. Immortality takes many forms, though Barnett himself was never much of a fan of his own creation.

You don’t really need to know how it works. Most people in Whitehall haven’t the foggiest either. When I was at the Treasury, working in the devolution team no less, it was — and this sounds made up but it isn’t — a bloke called Keith who essentially operated the entire thing alone.

Scottish Parliament Building (Bernt Rostad)

Basically, if the UK government increases spending per head in England on something that is a devolved competency, such as health, a pre-set percentage increase is applied to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But if it is spent on something UK-wide, such as defence, no Barnett consequentials are due.

Of course, it isn’t always that simple. For the 2012 Olympics, the UK government spent a lot of money. There were stadiums to be built, transport links to be improved and a massive regeneration effort undertaken in East London. Surely, this would see big cash transfers to the devolved administrations? The Labour government had other ideas.

In the 2007 Spending Review, then chief secretary to the Treasury, a certain Andy Burnham, reclassified spending on Olympics regeneration as UK-wide benefit, rather than England only. I suppose on the basis that, while the Games were happening in a specific locale, the feel-good factor would be nationwide? Ultimately, this was a shameless cost-saving exercise, one that would deny the devolved administrations hundreds of millions of pounds.

2012 Olympics opening ceremony (Jon Smith)

It was referred to the Joint Ministerial Committee (JMC) disputes panel, which by that time was overseen by Conservative minister for the cabinet office, Frances Maude. The devolved administrations were demanding a total of £330m in consequentials (£165m for Scotland, £100m for Wales and £65m to Northern Ireland.)

In December 2011, it was announced that the devolved administrations would receive one-off payments of just £30m between them. Which is less. Another red letter day for the Treasury.

The Draghi Report

Mario Draghi, former President of the European Central Bank, helped to save the euro with his now famous “whatever it takes” comment. More recently, he submitted a wide-ranging report on the future of European competitiveness, which looks at the challenges faced by industry and companies in the Single Market, and warns of “how Europe will no longer be able to rely on many of the factors that have supported growth in the past.”

Mario Draghi (European Parliament)

It includes a great line about how Europe has imposed tariffs on itself. More broadly, the report identifies concrete steps to boost growth, competitiveness and security, while criticising the continent’s lack of focus, fragmented approach to procurement (particularly important with regards to defence spending) and poor co-ordination between national and EU efforts. It is a fascinating report and I think I rightly concluded I was not best-placed to write about it.

Location, Location, Location

Why are relatively small countries in dangerous parts of the world often so good at technology? Think Taiwan and semiconductors, South Korea and consumer electronics, Estonia and digital systems, Israel and medical devices/agritech, Singapore with logistics/trade. Is it as simple as necessity and threats from larger neighbours feeding a sense of urgency, which in turn drives investment, innovation and growth? Or is this a self-selecting list? Advice on further reading appreciated.

Ministers Reflect by the Institute for Government