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


USA Today
38 minutes ago
- USA Today
Israeli forces seize Gaza aid boat carrying Greta Thunberg, officials say
Israeli forces seize Gaza aid boat carrying Greta Thunberg, officials say Show Caption Hide Caption Climate activist Greta Thunberg sets sail for Gaza to deliver aid "We have to keep trying." Climate activist Greta Thunberg set sail to deliver aid to Gaza just weeks after a similar mission was thwarted by bombs. JERUSALEM, June 9 (Reuters) - Israeli forces have taken command of a charity vessel that had tried to break a naval blockade of the Gaza Strip and the boat with its crew of 12 including activist Greta Thunberg is now heading to a port in Israel, officials said on Sunday. The British-flagged yacht Madleen, which is operated by the pro-Palestinian Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC), was aiming to deliver a symbolic amount of aid to Gaza later on Monday and raise international awareness of the humanitarian crisis there. However, the boat was boarded during the night before it could reach shore, the FFC said on its Telegram account. The Israeli Foreign Ministry later confirmed that it was under Israeli control. More: US vetoes UN Security Council demand for Gaza ceasefire "The 'selfie yacht' of the 'celebrities' is safely making its way to the shores of Israel. The passengers are expected to return to their home countries," the ministry wrote on X. All passengers were safe and unharmed, the ministry later added. "They were provided with sandwiches and water. The show is over." Among the 12-strong crew are Swedish climate campaigner Thunberg and Rima Hassan, a French member of the European Parliament. "The crew of the Freedom Flotilla was arrested by the Israeli army in international waters around 2 a.m.," Hassan posted on X. A photograph showed the crew seated on the boat, all wearing life jackets, with their hands in the air. More: Greta Thunberg sailing to Gaza on aid ship after drone attack setback The yacht is carrying a small shipment of humanitarian aid, including rice and baby formula. The Foreign Ministry said it would be taken to Gaza. "The tiny amount of aid that was on the yacht and not consumed by the 'celebrities' will be transferred to Gaza through real humanitarian channels," it wrote. Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz ordered the military on Sunday to prevent the Madleen from reaching Gaza, calling the mission a propaganda effort in support of Hamas. Israel imposed a naval blockade on the coastal enclave after Hamas took control of Gaza in 2007. The blockade has remained in place through multiple conflicts, including the current war, which began after a Hamas-led assault on southern Israel on October 7, 2023, that killed more than 1,200 people, according to an Israeli tally. Gaza's health ministry says over 54,000 Palestinians have been killed since the start of Israel's military campaign. The United Nations has warned that most of Gaza's more than 2 million residents are facing famine. The Israeli government says the blockade is essential to prevent weapons from reaching Hamas. The United Nations' special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese, has supported the FFC operation and on Sunday, urged other boats to challenge the Gaza blockade. "Madleen's journey may have ended, but the mission isn't over. Every Mediterranean port must send boats with aid & solidarity to Gaza," she wrote on X. (Reporting by Crispian Balmer, Yomna Ehab and Enas Alashray; Editing by Richard Chang and Lincoln Feast.)
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Australian Reporter Lauren Tomasi Hit By Rubber Bullet In Dramatic Footage From L.A. Protests
Lauren Tomasi, the U.S. correspondent for Australia's 9News, appeared to be shot by a rubber bullet while reporting on the immigration protests in Los Angeles. 9News published footage of the incident, claiming that Tomasi was deliberately targeted by a police officer in the downtown district during the third day of clashes over Donald Trump's immigration crackdown. More from Deadline Trump Deploys 2,000 Troops To L.A. As Backlash & Protests To ICE Raids Surge; POTUS Action "Purposefully Inflammatory," Newsom Warns Los Angeles Q1 Shoot Days Continue To Plummet, Down By 22% Amid Wildfires L.A. Wildfires: Property Damage Estimated At Between $28B-$53.8B; Full Recovery Will Take At Least Until 2029 The video captures her wrapping up a live broadcast from the protests, telling viewers that the 'situation has now rapidly deteriorated, the LAPD moving in on horseback, firing rubber bullets at protesters, moving them on through the heart of L.A.' A police officer then appears to raise their gun in Tomasi's direction and fire. A projectile appears to hit her leg, and Tomasi cries out in pain. The reporter and her cameraperson then retreat, with a bystander shouting: 'You just f*****g shot the reporter!' She is asked if she is ok, to which Tomasi replies: 'I'm good, I'm good.' U.S. Correspondent Lauren Tomasi has been caught in the crossfire as the LAPD fired rubber bullets at protesters in the heart of Los Angeles. #9NewsLATEST: — 9News Australia (@9NewsAUS) June 9, 2025 In a statement shared with The Guardian, 9News said: 'Lauren Tomasi was struck by a rubber bullet. Lauren and her camera operator are safe and will continue their essential work covering these events.' 'This incident serves as a stark reminder of the inherent dangers journalists can face while reporting from the frontlines of protests, underscoring the importance of their role in providing vital information,' the network said on Monday.' Australian lawmaker Sarah Hanson-Young urged Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to raise the incident with U.S. President Donald Trump, describing it as 'shocking' and 'completely unacceptable.' Tomasi is not the only journalist to be caught up in the protests. Nick Stern, a British news photographer, reportedly needed emergency surgery after sustaining a leg wound during the clashes. There were also reports of journalists being harassed by protestors. Best of Deadline Tony Awards: Every Best Musical Winner Since 1949 Tony Awards: Every Best Play Winner Since 1947 2025-26 Awards Season Calendar: Dates For Tonys, Emmys, Oscars & More


CNBC
4 hours ago
- CNBC
China exports growth misses expectations despite tariff truce; imports plunge amid weak consumption
China's exports growth missed expectations in May, despite a temporary trade truce with the U.S. that prompted businesses to frontload shipments and capitalize on the 90-day pause on steep duties. Exports rose 4.8% last month in U.S. dollar terms from a year earlier, customs data showed Monday, shy of Reuters' poll estimates of a 5% jump. Imports plunged 3.4% in May from a year earlier, a drastic drop compared to economists' expectations of a 0.9% fall. Imports had been declining this year, largely owed to sluggish domestic demand. Exports had surged 8.1% in April as a jump in shipment to Southeast Asian countries offset a sharp drop in outbound goods to the U.S. Chinese shipment to the U.S. plunged over 21% in April, as prohibitive tariffs kicked in. U.S. President Donald Trump's prohibitive 145% tariffs on Chinese goods took effect in April, with Beijing retaliating with triple-digit duties and other restrictive measures, such as export controls on critical minerals. U.S. and China struck a preliminary deal in Geneva, Switzerland, last month that led both sides to drop a majority of tariffs. Washington's levies on Chinese goods now stand at 51.1% while Beijing's duties on American imports are at 32.6%, according to think tank Peterson Institute for International Economics. The temporary tariff ceasefire is expected to have triggered a renewed surge in trade as exporters and importers alike in China and the U.S. seek to frontload shipments, sending shipping costs soaring. Chinese Vice Premier and lead trade representative He Lifeng is expected to meet with the U.S. trade negotiation team led by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent in London later in the day for renewed trade talks. The second-round of meetings come after tensions flared up again between the two sides, as they accused each other of violating the Geneva trade agreement. Washington had blamed Beijing for slow-walking its pledge to approve the export of additional critical minerals to the U.S., while China criticized the U.S. decision to impose new restrictions on Chinese student visas and additional export restrictions on chips. China's Ministry of Commerce said on Saturday that it would continue to review and approve applications for export of rare earths, citing growing demand for the minerals in robotics and new energy vehicle sectors.