The market for global health governance just took a nosedive. The UK-led global health taskforce, a pet project of the last government, has been scrambled to the Democratic Republic of Congo after armed groups torched Ebola treatment centres. This is the same taskforce that was meant to be a model of efficiency. Instead, it looks like a classic case of throwing good money after bad.
Let's check the numbers. The UK has poured over £200 million into this taskforce since its inception. The rationale? To prevent the kind of outbreaks that disrupt supply chains and capital flows. But what do we get for our money? Torched facilities in a country where the state is little more than a collection of warlords with diplomatic passports.
The bond market is watching. If the UK cannot secure a handful of treatment centres in a mineral-rich region, what does that say about our ability to protect more strategic assets? The risk premium on UK gilts just inched up. You can be sure the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee noticed.
Of course, the official line is full of buzzwords about 'resilience' and 'partnerships'. But the hard truth is that this taskforce was designed to be a nimble, private-sector-style response unit. Instead, it got bogged down in bureaucratic procurement processes and security contracts that would make a City hedge fund blush. The result? A £200 million loss on a bet that was always going to be a speculative investment.
The irony is that the private sector had already cracked the code on medical logistics in difficult environments. Companies like International SOS and Aetna have been running efficient operations in conflict zones for years. But the government, in its wisdom, decided that it knew better. They created a parallel structure with all the inefficiencies of the public sector and none of the agility of the market.
Now we have a situation where UK taxpayers are footing the bill for a taskforce that cannot even protect its own assets. The cost per treatment centre lost? We are talking about tens of millions of pounds destroyed in a matter of hours. That is a scale of fiscal irresponsibility that would get any fund manager fired.
The DR Congo itself is a tragedy of poor governance and resource mismanagement. But that is precisely why we should not be channelling hard-earned UK wealth into its bottomless pit of instability. The market is already punishing us with higher borrowing costs, and the Bank of England is going to have to factor this into its outlook for inflation.
Capital flight from the region will accelerate. The taskforce's failure is a signal that the UK's ability to project soft power and protect health security is deteriorating. Investors do not like uncertainty, and they especially do not like it when taxpayers' money is being torched alongside Ebola centres.
The taskforce needs to be scrapped and the funds returned to the Exchequer. Alternatively, if the government insists on this grandstanding, they should contract out the entire operation to the private sector and let them take on the risk. At least then the market can price in the probability of failure. But as it stands, we are left with a burning heap of cash and a damaged reputation.
The bottom line is simple: the UK-led taskforce is a liability. It is time to cut our losses and walk away. Otherwise, we will be funding this bonfire of the vanities for years to come.
