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.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Unemployment nears four-year high in wake of Reeves tax raid
UK unemployment has hit its highest level in almost four years as businesses shed jobs and freeze hiring in the wake of Rachel Reeves's tax raid. Official figures showed the unemployment rate rose to 4.6pc in the three months to April, up from 4.4pc in the previous three months. This is the highest since the summer of 2021 when Britain was only just emerging from lockdowns. The Chancellor's tax rises came into effect in April, but employers had warned that the Chancellor's £25bn National Insurance tax raid and another inflation-busting minimum wage jump were forcing them to freeze hiring in the months beforehand. Meanwhile, employers put the brakes on hiring with the number of vacancies falling from to 736,000 in the three months to May, compared with 760,000 in the previous quarter, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said. Wage growth also slowed, to rise by 5.2pc in the three months to April on a year earlier, the slowest pace in seven months. Andrew Griffith, shadow business secretary, said: 'It is disappointing but no surprise that unemployment is up again. 'Businesses are still absorbing a £25bn jobs tax but things are about to get even worse as Labour's £5bn unemployment bill hits businesses with higher regulation.' Despite the surge in unemployment, jobs in the public sector jumped to the highest level in 14 years as the Chancellor prepares to unveil a £300bn spending spree this week. Almost 6.2m people were employed in the public sector in March, official figures show, 35,000 more than a year earlier. This is the highest number of public sector employees since December 2011. It comes ahead of Ms Reeves's spending review on Wednesday, which is expected to offer big increases to defence and health while squeezing other departments. The Chancellor has raised departmental spending by nearly £400bn since Labour won the election. It comes as economists have warned more tax rises are 'inevitable' in autumn. The figures from the ONS also show that the number of civil servants is the highest since 2006, at 550,000, rising by 6,000 from a year earlier. This helped to push the total figure of central government workers to a record high of 4m, up by 93,000 from a year ago. The ONS said the rise was driven by the NHS, the Civil Service and some local authority schools becoming academies, which changes how their staff are classified in the numbers. Private sector workers experienced slower pay growth than those in the public sector when excluding bonuses, at 5.1pc to 5.6pc in February to April compared with the same period last year. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.


Bloomberg
2 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Australia Names Wilkinson Treasury Head, First Woman in Role
Australia's Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has named Jenny Wilkinson as the nation's new secretary to the Treasury, making her the first woman to hold the bureaucracy's top economic post. Wilkinson, currently head of the Department of Finance, will replace Steven Kennedy who will oversee the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet after almost six years at Treasury. The two officials will take up their new roles with five-year terms on June 16.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
CNN Correspondent Detained By LAPD, Camera Crew Arrested
CNN National Correspondent Jason Carroll, who has been reporting on the unrest in Los Angeles for the past few days, found himself a part of the story tonight when he was detained and briefly questioned by Police in Los Angeles. During a live shot, Carroll is heard telling police his name and then seen being walked away with his hands behind his back. More from Deadline Jon Stewart Weighs In On L.A. Protests, Says Trump Is Escalating To Distract From Elon Musk's Epstein Accusation: "Petty And Petulant Man-Babies" Trump Sending Marines To L.A. To Respond To ICE Protests; POTUS Also Plans To Deploy Additional 2,000 Guard Troops, Gavin Newsom Says - Update BET Awards Set To Go On Amid LA Protests Against Immigration Raids A police officer is then heard saying, 'We're letting you go. You can't come back. If you come back, you will be arrested.' Carroll is heard to say, 'Ok.' You can see the scene below. CNN later reported that, while Carroll was released, two members of his camera crew were arrested. Carroll described the scene to Laura Coates back in the studio: 'I was walking over to the officer, tried to explain who I was, who I was with. He said, I'd like you to turn around. I turned around, I put my hands behind my back. They did not put me in zip ties, but they did grab both my hands as I was escorted over to the side, they said, you are being detained.' Carroll is not the first member of the press to get caught between police and protesters. On Sunday, Lauren Tomasi, the U.S. correspondent for Australia's 9News, appeared to be shot by a rubber bullet while reporting on the immigration protests. Nick Stern, a British news photographer, reportedly needed emergency surgery over the weekend after sustaining a leg wound during the clashes. A coalition of 27 press and civil liberties advocacy groups wrote to U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem today 'to express alarm that federal officers may have violated the First Amendment rights of journalists covering recent protests and unrest related to immigration enforcement in the Los Angeles area.' The coalition, led by the Los Angeles Press Club, First Amendment Coalition and Freedom of the Press Foundation, further wrote that 'The press plays an essential role in our democracy as the public's eyes and ears. The timely reporting of breaking news is necessary to provide the public with complete information, especially about controversial events. 'A number of reports suggest that federal officers have indiscriminately used force or deployed munitions such as tear gas or pepper balls that caused significant injuries to journalists. In some cases, federal officers appear to have deliberately targeted journalists who were doing nothing more than their job covering the news.' The LA Press Club referred to at least 24 'documented' instances of journalists being targeted by law enforcement while covering the protests in Los Angeles between June 6-8, and multiple media workers report having been shot by police with less-than-lethal munitions. Those journalists included Southern California News Group's Ryanne Mena, freelance journalists Anthony Cabassa and Sean Beckner-Carmitchel, The Southlander's Ben Camacho, British photojournalist Nick Stern, and LA Taco's Lexis Olivier-Ray. City News Service contributed to this report. Best of Deadline Sean 'Diddy' Combs Sex-Trafficking Trial Updates: Cassie Ventura's Testimony, $10M Hotel Settlement, Drugs, Violence, & The Feds A Full Timeline Of Blake Lively & Justin Baldoni's 'It Ends With Us' Feud In Court, Online & In The Media Where To Watch All The 'John Wick' Movies: Streamers That Have All Four Films