Backbench toadying and frontbench floundering at Treasury questions

It’s sometimes hard to know what to be more concerned by. That the latest figures showing inflation is still at 3% doesn’t even rate a mention. That almost none of the Treasury frontbench team shows any enthusiasm for the government’s Brexit strategy, yet still hang-doggedly promotes it. Or that someone of Liz Truss’s limited abilities should be second in command of the country’s finances.

The first Treasury questions of the new year got under way with a bit of shameless Tory backbench toadying. Was it not true that the economy was in fantastic shape, observed Charlie Elphicke, and that people on low pay were better off than they had ever been? He might as well have said “You’ve never had it so good”. The chancellor nodded appreciatively. It was all part of his tireless work to build a Britain fit for the future. Tick for the day’s first meaningless soundbite.

Things began to get rather more interesting when Labour’s Wes Streeting moved on to Brexit. With the chief executive of Airbus saying there wasn’t a single Brexit scenario that would leave Britain better off, surely now was the time to commit to remaining in the single market. Philip Hammond looked conflicted. Deep down there was nothing he would rather do, but it was more than his job was worth to say so. So he fudged it. “I want a jobs-first Brexit with the closest possible union,” he said.

Sensing weakness, others moved in for the kill. Tory Jeremy Lefroy tried to tempt Hammond with the catnip of membership of the European Economic Area. Nothing doing. “We are seeking a bespoke trade deal,” the chancellor said unconvincingly. He, as well as everyone else, knows that isn’t on offer. For someone as vain as Hammond, having to sound this dim in public must be torture.

The junior Treasury minister John Glen also found himself under the cosh when Labour’s Stephen Kinnock observed that with 80% of the British economy in the services industries and the government committed to a jobs-first Brexit, staying in the EEA was the bare-minimum requirement. Glen mumbled the standard line about being determined to get the most ambitious deal while ruling out everything that might help to get it.

“Isn’t it important,” said Nicky Morgan, chair of the Treasury select committee, “that the government determines what kind of end-state deal it wants so that business has some clarity?” The Treasury team were horrified by this suggestion. They wanted to keep the waters as muddy as possible for as long as possible. That way no one could know for certain just how clueless they were. Even if they suspected it.

This was all too much for the arch-Brexiter Andrea Jenkyns, who begged for reassurance that Britain’s best days were ahead of it. Glen shrugged. Maybe yes, maybe no. Though probably not.

With the session in danger of stalling with frontbench cognitive dissonance on Brexit, John McDonnell chose to ask about Carillion. His mistake was in putting his question to Truss, a cabinet minister whose only discernible talent is to make those around her appear slightly less mediocre.

Carillion was regrettable, Truss said, giving no real sign of understanding any of the complexities of the situation. There was a jobcentre helpline for anyone who lost their jobs, so what more did anyone want? The shadow chancellor pointed out that she hadn’t actually answered any of his questions about what the government knew about Carillion, when they knew it and how much its collapse could cost the taxpayer.

“We are a transparent government,” Truss insisted, thereby proving that even fools can accidentally stumble on universal truths. The government is transparent. It is transparently failing at almost everything.