Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Recommended Posts

I've recently noticed many references to the "Finance Ministry" - which is not a name I recall having noticed in the past.  For example:

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-britain-training/finance-ministry-pledges-funding-to-triple-number-of-uk-traineeships-idUKKBN2460V6

Rishi Sunak - isn't he "Chancellor of the Exchequer" and "Second Lord of the Treasury"?

What are the implications of him being presented as leading the "Finance Ministry"?

What is the relationship between the "Treasury" and the "Finance Ministry"?

Edited by A.steve
Added quote characters for clarity.
Link to post
Share on other sites

If there's a G7 conference, they might refer to a meeting of 'finance ministers' where each might have different job titles and department names but all essentially the same.

Maybe more telling is Rishi did mention he was ignoring dogma of the past so he at least is willing to implement a gov driven economy by spend and tax (of some sort but as yet decided).

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, byron78 said:

It's the international term for whoever, or whatever, is in charge of a country's purse strings.

Because not all news is UK news (like your link).

? My observation was the recent change in terminology when relating to the department that Sunak leads.  I know other countries have a "Finance Minister" - and for example, Yanis Varoufakis was the Finance Minister for Greece under Syriza.  I noted, when Varoufakis was in the news, that we didn't hear about the "British Finance Minister."  This seems to have changed recently.  I am wondering why - and what might be inferred from it.

2 hours ago, nightowl said:

If there's a G7 conference, they might refer to a meeting of 'finance ministers' where each might have different job titles and department names but all essentially the same.

According to Wikipedia... a "Finance minister" is an executive or cabinet position in charge of one or more governement finances, economic policy and financial regulation.

So, obviously, Sunak qualifies as "Finance Minister" - but so did Javid and Hammond and Osborne and Darling and Brown... etc. but these politicians tended not to be given this specific title.  I am curious to find out if a change in terminology reflects a change in status/responsibility.  For example: might it hint that the Bank of England is no-longer be as independent (of government policies) as it has been in recent years?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, A.steve said:

 

? My observation was the recent change in terminology when relating to the department that Sunak leads.  I know other countries have a "Finance Minister" - and for example, Yanis Varoufakis was the Finance Minister for Greece under Syriza.  I noted, when Varoufakis was in the news, that we didn't hear about the "British Finance Minister."  This seems to have changed recently.  I am wondering why - and what might be inferred from it.

According to Wikipedia... a "Finance minister" is an executive or cabinet position in charge of one or more governement finances, economic policy and financial regulation.

So, obviously, Sunak qualifies as "Finance Minister" - but so did Javid and Hammond and Osborne and Darling and Brown... etc. but these politicians tended not to be given this specific title.  I am curious to find out if a change in terminology reflects a change in status/responsibility.  For example: might it hint that the Bank of England is no-longer be as independent (of government policies) as it has been in recent years?

 

You posted an international news source. Have our domestic press also started refering to Sunak as such? I've not noticed this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, byron78 said:

You posted an international news source. Have our domestic press also started refering to Sunak as such? I've not noticed this.

The post I presented was from the UK Reuters news agency (while the site uses the international .com suffix, the UK prefix denotes the region to which the news relates.)  I've read UK Reuters for many years and I've not previously noticed the British Chancellor being labelled the "Finance Minister".

Wikipedia suggests that Chancellor of the Exchaquer is the correct label for the role that, in other countries, is called "Finance Minister".  To me, it feels like the "Finance Minister' label is a (very) subtle hint that something important has changed.  The Chancellor article states that the Chancellor: "previously controlled monetary policy as well until 1997, when the Bank of England was granted independent control of its interest rates."  On the other hand, perhaps Australia's terminology provides an insight? Apparently, Australia have a "Treasurer" (who is senior) and a "Finance Minster" who is junior.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are reading too much into it.

Just imagine if every countries finance minister was referred to by some archaic title, keeper of the privy purse, His Majecsties treasurer,Holder of the vault keys.

No one would know who they were when referred to in the international press.

When the press refers to Rishi Sunak, the "finance minister" bit is to inform readers who may not know who he is. If "finance minister" was substituted for "horder of the elephant tusks" then it wouldn't be particuarly illuminating for many people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

I think you are reading too much into it.

That is possible... but, as someone who is extremely familiar with the head of the Treasury being the "Chancellor of the Exchequer" I found the change in nomenclature odd. I cited one article - but I've seen it in many recent articles.

I also found it odd that, despite Sunak being chancellor - and Javid having no ministerial post - that Sajid Javid appeared alongside Andrew Bailey (BoE Governor) and announced that, without BoE intervention, the government bond auction (the big £200bn one) would have failed.

Edited by A.steve
COMMA
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/07/2020 at 11:55, A.steve said:

The post I presented was from the UK Reuters news agency (while the site uses the international .com suffix, the UK prefix denotes the region to which the news relates.)  I've read UK Reuters for many years and I've not previously noticed the British Chancellor being labelled the "Finance Minister".

Wikipedia suggests that Chancellor of the Exchaquer is the correct label for the role that, in other countries, is called "Finance Minister".  To me, it feels like the "Finance Minister' label is a (very) subtle hint that something important has changed.  The Chancellor article states that the Chancellor: "previously controlled monetary policy as well until 1997, when the Bank of England was granted independent control of its interest rates."  On the other hand, perhaps Australia's terminology provides an insight? Apparently, Australia have a "Treasurer" (who is senior) and a "Finance Minster" who is junior.

 

 

Perhaps I didn't explain well enough. Here's the same story from the global site. Same text. The same text (and story) also ran in all the other individual country versions of Reuters. 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-britain-training-idUSKBN2460VX

You'd do well to read up on the history of Reuters (and how it operates), as perhaps you young uns genuinely don't know.

It's UK based (at least it was), but the whole point of Reuters has always been global news and individual subsidiaries in various territories that then parrot that.

The author (or editor) would have realised this will go out in the US, India, Israel, and all the other places Reuters usually pop up. They would then use terminology that's universal.

Is that clearer?

Edited by byron78
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, byron78 said:

Perhaps I didn't explain well enough.

...

Is that clearer?

I understand that "Finance Minister" is a term used to describe ministers in other countries with roles comparable with the Chancellor of the Exchaquer.  I agree that it is not "wrong" per se. - but it is a curious (subtle) choice to avoid using the actual title of his role.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, A.steve said:

I understand that "Finance Minister" is a term used to describe ministers in other countries with roles comparable with the Chancellor of the Exchaquer.  I agree that it is not "wrong" per se. - but it is a curious (subtle) choice to avoid using the actual title of his role.

 

 

It really isn't. It's just the term most likely to be understood by the wider audience. I don't think this is new for Reuters either. They referred to Brown, Darling, Osborne, and Hammond in exactly the same way. It's a style choice for an international audience.

Edited by byron78
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 418 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.