Reeves’ growth strategy depends on selling positive changes

Unlock the editor’s digest in free

FT editor Raula Khalaf selected his favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.

Author former Treasury Minister

Chancellor Rachel Reeves made a clear attempt to change the story about the UK’s economy and the Starmar government’s ability to increase it. It was necessary. The mood of the negative background, after the elections, and immediately after the election, the budget was repeated after the budget that was one of the disappointments in one of the disappointments, due to the clear lack of description in short expectations and frustration.

The UK has re -entered around zero economic growth. The budget has been further strengthened by anxiety over the hits of business confidence, the yield of worldwide bonds and the ability to spend the government with the government, and to accept B with it.

In his speech, Reeves acknowledged the expenditure for business from growth of national insurance – and tried to explain again that he thought he was needed to be in financial control. However, when he portrayed the direction of the supply, the film became more optimistic.

Instead of excessive pressure on demand management, I believe that this supply-side focus is correct. First, because most demands will be determined by the Bank of England: If interest rates are reduced by many forens, it should be an important driver. So Reeves will not want to take steps to take this possibility too much – at least not because it will probably help reduce the yield of UK bonds.

Second, since the ministers were eager to say that anyone would hear, the government is limited to its own financial rules, the first of which is the first to limit the current cost. If it wants to avoid a further tax increase, it has to stick with them – or something close to them.

Third – and this is especially important – the UK problem is about to return to the financial crisis of 20, and before that was the aspect of the supply. Namely, our horror productivity and our weak personal and public investment. Since the crisis, the weak average growth of 1.5 percent has been almost completely driven by almost complete labor force growth. Production of productivity remains extremely weak. If we have a stronger growth when we have less inflation-prone, we need more investment and more productivity-it’s really easy.

So Reeves needs to confirm the government 10 -year infrastructure strategy From now on the center of the center.

The Chancellor spoke properly about the lack of commitment to the promise of additional control of the plan, the block of planning approval and the growing investment project. He promised to assist in a large spread of projects to tackle continuous delays and obstacles in infrastructure, including the Ox-Cam project, the third runway in Heathrow as well as the support of several schemes in the north of England.

What was missing was the structure. For the transparent, high-Multiplair investment companies that will be important in his narrative there was no place in his narrative-and they are still up and not moving. But if the government is confident of investors, this emphasis needs to be emphasized.

Even if Chancellors prefer to announce big attention-cutting investment even if Heathrow expansionThey are controversial. Although often, they are not with fresh government capital and are declared on the basis of “our faith” in terms of real, permanent benefits.

In this, Reeves is no exception. He quoted Frontier Economics Research and suggested that the third runway would have positive qualities outside the London region – it should be part of the structure of each major initiative. However, it must be done systematically, especially the government must observe its second financial rules and borrow for investment. Without this national structure, “Believe us” may not get this positive response from the Gilt or Equity Market.

The new national infrastructure and service conversion authority will not be established until April. However, with this entity, the National Audit Office and others, it would be absolutely basic to encourage business within and outside the UK to increase the possibility of increasing the economy with investment. I was surprised that the Chancellor chose not to talk about it: In reality, it would add and support the treasury growth-centric department that promised to establish both Reeves and Sir Care Starrs.

In this consciousness, I hope that the reeves will be able to be completely transparent about the investment projects that will have positive qualities. Because it indirectly exposes the spirits of chronic organisms between the business and consumers, the way to increase the demand for the economy.