
Rachel Reeves can't outsource decision-making to unelected quangocrats
In ancient Rome, the state services of haruspices were much in demand. By inspecting the entrails of birds and animals (the sheep's liver was a favourite), these priestly officials divined whether the gods would look favourably on any important future action, such as a war.
Even our secular modern world likes this mixture of forecasting, prophecy, and hieratic hocus-pocus. Twenty-first century British governments have the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR).
It is not wrong, of course, to convene experts to test and project the figures which governments come up with, but it is wrong for political leaders to outsource their decisions to them. This may not have been the intention, but it is the effect. When he created the OBR on becoming Chancellor of the Exchequer in 2010, George Osborne emphasised its independence. Its endorsement, he thought, would lend financial respectability to his policies.
But such 'independence' is problematic. First, it is somewhat notional: the OBR is fully funded from the Treasury budget, so its officials will almost certainly share the establishment groupthink of the era, rather than the views of elected politicians, let alone the attitudes of the public.
Worse, political power shifts, over time, to these 'independent' bodies. The public is encouraged to think they are more honest than politicians. The politicians therefore seek their approval. In response, the bodies tend to behave more politically (though not usually party-politically). They get too big for their boots.
The eternal Climate Change Committee, for example, tries to lay down the law about how we should get to net zero. The Supreme Court, which Tony Blair invented, decided, with the Remainer Lady Hale wearing her spider brooch for the occasion, that it could tell prime ministers not to prorogue Parliament. In Parliament itself, the conduct of MPs, for which they should answer to one another and the electorate, is now policed by an 'independent' commissioner who can ruin careers without due process.
There are dozens of such bodies nowadays. Their cumulative effect is to make Britain governed more by a permanent bureaucracy than by a parliamentary democracy. Bad politicians quite like this trend, because the buck no longer stops clearly with them. They can wriggle out of the doctrine that 'Advisers advise: ministers decide.'
In a properly run government, the departments themselves, and ultimately the Cabinet, should be responsible. That very name – Office for Budget Responsibility – implies that the Treasury, which creates the budget, does not do so responsibly. What is the Treasury for, then?
Towards the OBR, Labour is even more slavish than were the Conservatives in Mr Osborne's time. When Liz Truss was briefly prime minister, Labour professed absolute horror that she and her Chancellor had launched their tax-cutting mini-Budget without seeking the OBR's forecast. She did, indeed, behave in a politically inept way, which caused the 'Blob' to spread panic in the markets, but she had not committed a constitutional outrage.
Caught by its own rhetoric, Labour must now beg approval from the OBR to bolster the confidence so shaken by the recession-inducing decisions of Rachel Reeves's first Budget last October. This dependence simultaneously confines her room for manoeuvre and puts pressure on the OBR to concede, un-independently, something she wants. It decided, with the bogus precision which its methods demand, to state that the Government's planning reforms, not yet implemented, could produce 0.2 per cent growth by 2029.
A further problem with the OBR's dominance is that where its remit does not run, not enough work seems to have been done. It has not had the chance to forecast the costs of the Employment Rights Bill currently going through Parliament. Yet they will be big. The Bill culminates the Government's relentless campaign, which began with NI employers' increases and attacks on farmers and small businesses, to dissuade any private-sector business from giving anyone a job ever again.
Hence the Spring Statement's peculiar mixture of 'everything has changed' rhetoric and nothing-very-much measures. Almost the main aim of the Chancellor seems to be to recapture the 'headroom' which her own choices have lost over the past six months. Most of the dramatic things she said were not true. 'We are building a third runway at Heathrow,' she announced. I hereby invite her to take me along and show me the diggers at work. The mostly undramatic things she is actually offering fall below the level of events.
I am not saying the Government is wilfully ignoring all the evil economic omens of a world in turmoil. It is clearly very worried about them. Some of its reactions – seeing the need to increase defence spending, improve defence procurement and alliances, cut and improve the Civil Service, prevent welfare being the great destroyer of work – are the right ones.
But what I do question is whether it is prepared to 'kitchen-sink' the problems. If it did so, would it put quite so much emphasis on the absolute primacy of financial and fiscal 'rules'? Rules usually do lend credibility to economic policy and increase business confidence, but if it is true, as Ms Reeves also says, that everything has changed, might not the old rules prove as irrelevant as the Maginot Line? Remember Gordon Brown's 'golden rule' – and remember that he had to break it.
In her Budget speech last autumn, the Chancellor mentioned spending to help Ukraine, but offered no estimation of the vast effect of the war on global economic stability. So obsessed was she by the '£22 billion black hole' left by the Tories, that she could not look further to that much bigger, blacker and more expensive hole further afield – the spread of European war. Only now, in her Spring Statement, does she speak of 'a world that is changing before our eyes' because 'the threat facing our Continent was transformed when Putin invaded Ukraine', almost as if that were new.
If the Chancellor and Prime Minister really do believe that the defence of Britain is profoundly insecure because of the Putin-Trump combination (which it is), then this becomes the first-order question, threatening both our security and prosperity. It will therefore need to be funded in a way quite out of the ordinary.
As I recently argued in these pages (March 11), it would need to be something like the War Loan (though its effect would make it a Peace Loan) which began in 1915 and took a century to pay off. Such a 'perpetual' loan is normally pre-agreed with the backing of big national business institutions, such as banks and pension funds. Its size and patriotic motive, rather than frightening people off, tend to make them want to buy. It convinces them that both the crisis and the Government are serious. At present, people are unconvinced.
Other things should be thrown into the kitchen sink, if not in a single speech and coming from the Prime Minister as well as the Chancellor. One would be net zero which, interestingly, was not mentioned at all in the Spring Statement. We have now reached the right moment for Sir Keir Starmer to say, at the very least, that the current timetable is unaffordable.
Another topic not dealt with by the Chancellor is mass immigration, especially its economic effects, which the Treasury always, and wrongly, asserts are wholly beneficial. And yet another, already under scrutiny, but not nearly enough to make a difference, is welfare.
The current phrase 'luxury beliefs' could have been invented for the attitudes of Sir Keir before he became Prime Minister. They have to go. There are no political or economic luxuries left.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Western Telegraph
7 minutes ago
- Western Telegraph
Irish premier and president offer condolences after India plane crash
Air India said the Boeing 787 Dreamliner aircraft was leaving Ahmedabad Airport with 242 people on board. The airline said 169 passengers were Indian nationals, 53 were British, seven were Portuguese and one was Canadian. Taoiseach Micheal Martin said: 'It is horrific and very, very sad what has happened in India, the plane (crash) just shortly after departure, I believe less than a minute.' He added: 'Our thoughts and our prayers are with the families of those bereaved, crew members bereaved, and with the people of India, Britain and Canada. The world is a much closer place, we all travel. My thoughts and prayers are with the people of India after the terrible plane crash in Ahmedabad earlier today. Thinking of the families of all those on board, along with the emergency services attending the scene. — Micheál Martin (@MichealMartinTD) June 12, 2025 'It is extremely sad and shocking that an accident of this scale has occurred with the loss of so much life.' He noted that it took place close to the 40th anniversary of the Air India flight 182 disaster, in which the plane crashed off the coast of Ireland on June 23 1985 as a result of a terrorist attack. 'All of us who experienced that had a sense of trauma that people go through when crashes of this kind happen,' he said. Irish deputy premier and minister for foreign affairs Simon Harris also extended his sympathy 'to all of those caught up' in the 'very tragic and horrific' crash. 'We think of all of them and their families in what is an evolving story, with no doubt, more information to come,' he told the Irish parliament. Irish President Michael D Higgins said: 'May I express my deepest condolences to the families and communities of all those who have lost their lives in today's tragic airplane crash in the city of Ahmedabad, India. 'All of our thoughts are with those who are grieving those lost, be it passengers or those in the vicinity of the crash, as well as the emergency workers at the scene. 'As president, I extend the condolences of the Irish people to the president of India, HE Droupadi Murmu, His Majesty King Charles, and to the citizens and heads of state of all those countries who have been impacted by this tragic event.'


Telegraph
11 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Britons could be stopped from entering Gibraltar by Spanish police, Lammy admits
Spanish border guards will be able to stop Britons entering Gibraltar because of the new Brexit deal for the Rock, the Government has admitted. Fabian Picardo, Gibraltar's chief minister, furiously denied surrendering any sovereignty to Spain or the EU after The Telegraph reported details of the deal on Wednesday. But David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, was forced to concede in the House of Commons on Thursday that Spanish guards working for the European Union would have control over who entered Gibraltar. Under questioning, Mr Lammy told MPs that a British person stopped by Spanish guards at Gibraltar airport would have a choice: they could either voluntarily go over to Spain for questioning, or be returned to the Gibraltarian authorities and return to the UK. 'It is clear from the Foreign Secretary's answer that Spanish border officials can prevent a UK citizen from entering one part of the UK from another part of the UK,' Richard Tice, the Reform UK deputy leader, said. 'This appears to be a significant sovereignty compromise,' he told The Telegraph. The deal ensures Gibraltar's border with Spain remains open after Brexit, and means the 15,000 people who cross it every day will not have to have their passports stamped. Border checks will be moved to Gibraltar's nearby airport after the Rock effectively becomes part of the EU's Schengen zone of passport-free movement. People flying into Gibraltar from the UK will face one check from Gibraltarian officials and another by the Spanish on behalf of the EU. Mr Lammy said: 'For those arriving by air into Gibraltar's airport, there will be a dual border control check, in a model similar to French police operating in London St Pancras station.' Dame Harriett Baldwin, a former Conservative minister, asked: 'Can a British citizen flying from the UK to Gibraltar now be stopped by a Spanish official as they land?' Mr Lammy replied: 'There will be a second line queue, as there is in St Pancras, and there will be Spanish border guards and police situated in that second line. 'And of course, if there was an alert, then at that point, not on their own, but at that point, there would be a hand-back facility with the Gibraltar police, so they are working alongside that Spanish team. 'And if there was an alert, then the individual would have a right to legal advice. They would either be able to return to their country of origin, let's say the UK, or they would be able to voluntarily go over to Spain to face the questions they are facing.' Mr Tice asked whether Spanish border officials 'have an effective veto on the entry of a British citizen from the United Kingdom landing on British sovereign territory in Gibraltar'. Mr Lammy said if Mr Tice flew to Gibraltar and there was an alert in the Schengen system, 'he would be handed back to the Gibraltarians, where he might feel more comfortable' before returning to the UK. 'No doubt the Spanish would seek to extradite him, and many in this House would be rather pleased,' he added. Mr Lammy said he had insisted on a 'sovereignty clause' in the treaty and added that immigration, policing and justice remained the responsibilities of Gibraltar's authorities.


The Independent
22 minutes ago
- The Independent
Gibraltar not joining Schengen free travel area under deal with EU, says Lammy
David Lammy has urged MPs not to believe the 'fake news' surrounding the UK's deal with the EU over Gibraltar's border with Spain. The prospect of Gibraltar 'joining' the European Schengen free travel area was 'never on the table', the Foreign Secretary told the Commons. The agreement on a 'fluid border' will allow travellers to cross by land without checks. Those flying into Gibraltar from the UK will face one check from Gibraltarian officials and another by the Spanish on behalf of the EU. In a statement on the agreement, Mr Lammy said: 'Residents of Gibraltar and residents of nearby Spanish communities will be able to go about their daily lives as they have done before. 'For those arriving by air into Gibraltar's airport, there will be a dual border control check, in a model similar to French police operating in London St Pancras station. 'Ignore the fake news, Gibraltar will not be joining Schengen. This was never on the table. Immigration, policing and justice in Gibraltar will remain the responsibilities of Gibraltar's authorities. 'For products entering Gibraltar across its land border, there will be a unique goods and customs model, avoiding the need for onerous checks at the border. 'And with this pragmatic solution, flights will be able to operate from Gibraltar airport to across Europe, driving growth and jobs for the people of Gibraltar. 'This Government is showing that a pragmatic, positive relationship with the European Union pays off for the British public.' The move could also see airlines start to add flights to Gibraltar from countries other than the UK in a boost to tourism. Officials say a hard border would have been introduced under the EU's incoming exit and entry control system if no deal was reached, causing delays for some 15,000 people who cross the border every day as every individual passport was checked. Talks on rules governing the border have been ongoing since Britain left the European Union in 2020. Conservative former minister Dame Harriett Baldwin asked: 'Can a British citizen flying from the UK to Gibraltar now be stopped by a Spanish official as they land?' Mr Lammy replied: 'There will be a second line queue, as there is in St Pancras, and there will be Spanish border guards and police situated in that second line. 'And of course, if there was an alert, then at that point, not on their own, but at that point, there would be a hand-back facility with the Gibraltar police, so they are working alongside that Spanish team. 'And if there was an alert, then the individual would have a right to legal advice. They would be either be able to return to their country of origin, let's say the UK, or they would be able to voluntarily go over to Spain to face the questions they are facing.' Deputy leader of Reform UK Richard Tice pressed the minister on whether Spanish border officials 'have an effective veto on the entry of a British citizen from the United Kingdom landing on British sovereign territory in Gibraltar'. Mr Lammy said if Mr Tice flew to Gibraltar and there was an alert in the Schengen system 'he would be handed back to the Gibraltarians, where he might feel more comfortable'. 'He will be able to access his rights and the legal system that he says he feels comfortable with, which is ours, and he would be able to return to the United Kingdom, where no doubt the Spanish would seek to extradite him, and many in this House would be rather pleased,' he said. Shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel urged the Government to 'safeguard our defence and interest' and maintain operations of the UK's military facilities. Gibraltar's airport is run by the Ministry of Defence and hosts an RAF base. The overseas territory also has an important naval facility. Dame Priti said: 'Can he confirm that nothing will be agreed that infringes on our ability to operate the base? And will members of our armed forces be able to access Gibraltar without needing Schengen checks?' She continued: 'Our principles have been that nothing compromises or infringes on the sovereignty and constitutional arrangements of Gibraltar, it is to remain British.' Mr Lammy said he had insisted on a 'sovereignty clause' in the treaty, after both the UK and Gibraltar governments insisted the changes would not affect the British overseas territory's sovereignty. He added: 'On the military base, it will continue to operate as it does today. There will be zero change. It's vital for UK national security, it's protected by this agreement, and that was a red line for us throughout these negotiations.' Gibraltar was ceded to the UK by Spain in 1713 and the population is heavily in favour of remaining a British overseas territory. The last time it voted on a proposal to share sovereignty with Spain, in 2002, almost 99% of Gibraltarians rejected the move.