An economist as Chancellor: Kamm’s opinion

Not for the first time, Oliver Kamm has made me feel much better. For in this post he states:

It’s not necessary – far from it – to have an economic and financial background in order to be an effective Treasury minister.

This makes me feel much better because I argued much the same point in a recent post about, amongst others, the hallowed St Vince of Cable.

Fortunately, Kamm also backs up the statement with some intellectual and informed supporting case studies, which was much more than I did, but much to the same effect:

Nigel Lawson was, on paper, superbly qualified to be Chancellor, yet he engineered the destructive Lawson boom. Denis Healey and his Treasury team were not overburdened by economic training (Edmund Dell was a historian; Joel Barnett was an accountant), but they had the political and intellectual weight to force through necessary cuts in public spending after the sterling crisis of the mid-1970s.


Published by


Man of letters & numbers; also occasionally of action. Husband to NTW. Dad of three. Friendly geek.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s