Rachel Reeves’s duty is to the people, not the markets | Letters
Share:
Treasury orthodoxy is such that the chancellor doesn’t seem to think she has a choice, writes Anthony Lawton, while Ros Wain says the government needs to get over the household view of the public finances. Plus a letter from Phil Tate. Your editorial (14 January) rightly critiques Rachel Reeves’s adherence to Treasury orthodoxy. But the persistence of this framework goes deeper than institutional inertia. It reflects a failure to recognise a choice at all – and an inability to imagine and craft better alternatives.
Treasury orthodoxy is rooted in the Thatcher-Reagan era. It is not just outdated, but has become invisible to those who wield it. Traditional economic training teaches policymakers to see fiscal discipline and market reassurance not just as good options but as the only ones. This narrow view blinds them to evidence that transformative public investment, targeted redistribution and state-led solutions can be essential to tackle inequality, stagnation and the environmental crisis.
The Treasury’s intellectual framework is too narrow and entrenched to encourage its staff to question their own assumptions. Without sufficient exposure to alternative economic models – from modern monetary theory to green economics – policymakers lack the intellectual tools to think beyond the constraints of orthodoxy.
Labour is clearly serious about governing in the whole public interest. But to succeed, it must champion new ways of thinking. This is not just about adopting bold policies; it is about equipping our institutions – and those who staff them – to recognise that boldness is necessary, feasible and credible.
