Rachel Reeves: Talking Growth Without Saying Much at All

My post contentRachel Reeves, the fresh-faced Chancellor riding in on a white horse named “Growth.” She’s here to save the economy, sprinkle a bit of investment magic dust, and make Britain the land of opportunity once again. Sounds fantastic, doesn’t it? Except, after reading her grand declaration in The Sunday Times, one can’t help but wonder if Reeves knows what "growth" actually looks like—or if she’s hoping the rest of us won’t notice that those big promises come wrapped in more vagueness than an astrology column.

She repeats “growth” like it’s a password that will unlock prosperity, but beyond that, we’re left with more questions than answers. It's the political equivalent of a friend promising they’ll cook you a Michelin-star meal without knowing how to turn on the oven. Reeves might be selling us a future full of “investment,” but without any concrete details, her pitch is as inspiring as a rainy Tuesday in Grimsby.

“Growth Is the Number One Mission!” But What Does That Even Mean?

Here’s Rachel’s big rallying cry: “economic growth is the number one mission of this government.” Well, fantastic! But forgive me if I ask, what exactly is this growth? Are we talking GDP growth? Real wage growth? Or that uncomfortable growth on the back of your neck that you’re not sure you should get checked out?

Because, for all the talk of growth, she never actually defines it. You’d think after a decade of economic stagnation, she’d have something a bit more detailed. Some targets, maybe? Perhaps a timeline? Nope. Instead, we get vague assurances that Britain will be booming, bustling, and brimming with opportunity… sometime in the near, unspecified future.

It’s all a bit like planning to “get in shape” without actually committing to a gym. Growth, in Reeves’ world, seems more like a general vibe than a measurable outcome. She promises us a prosperous future, but it’s hard not to feel like she’s standing at the edge of a cliff with a blindfold on, telling us to jump because “the view is great down there, trust me.”

Investment: The Magic Word (But What’s the Spell?)

Now, Reeves hangs a lot on the word investment. In fact, she says it so often you’d think she’s trying to convince herself more than us. According to Rachel, investment is the magic solution to all our problems. And sure, she’s got some impressive-sounding numbers to wave around—£24 billion from Iberdrola here, £8 billion from Orsted there, and a bit of extra green cash from SeAH Wind for good measure. It sounds like the economic jackpot, doesn’t it?

But here’s the thing: does Reeves really think these companies are investing because of her genius economic plan? Or could it be that these firms were going to invest in clean energy projects anyway, because, I don’t know, climate change exists and renewable energy is quite profitable?

It’s a bit like claiming credit for someone watering their own garden because you happened to walk by with a watering can. Great timing, Rachel, but let’s not pretend this wind turbine gold rush is all down to Labour’s irresistible charm.

And let’s not overlook the fact that these investments, while substantial, are long-term projects that won’t put money in anyone’s pockets any time soon. Unless, of course, you’re in the wind turbine business. So yes, these investments sound fantastic—if you’re content to wait five to ten years for that trickle-down breeze to reach the economy. For everyone else? You might want to hold your applause until the dividends start showing up on your payslip.

Counting the Benefits, Not the Costs: A Politician’s Favourite Magic Trick

Now here’s a phrase that really raised an eyebrow: “It’s time the Treasury moved on from just counting the costs of investments to recognising the benefits.” Ah, how lovely. Translation: “Let’s stop worrying about that pesky thing called ‘money’ and focus on the nice warm feeling we get from spending it.”

In political terms, this is the equivalent of saying, “Don’t worry about how much the house renovation will cost, think of how fabulous it’ll look when it’s done!”—completely ignoring the fact that the bathroom is already flooding and we haven’t paid the contractors yet.

Sure, investments bring benefits, but someone still has to pay for them now. The problem with pretending that benefits magically outweigh costs is that you end up playing a dangerous game of economic Jenga, hoping you don’t pull out the wrong block and send the whole thing crashing down. Meanwhile, the bills keep piling up, but never mind that—just keep your eyes on those glittering benefits coming at some point in the future.

The International Investment Summit: More Flash Than Substance?

Reeves is also keen to talk up the upcoming International Investment Summit, where she’ll be playing hostess to business leaders with a cool £40 trillion in assets. It’s all very glamorous, isn’t it? CEOs arriving on private jets to pledge “tens of billions” of investments in Britain, just because Rachel’s economic plan is so irresistible.

But hold on—are these CEOs actually pledging all that cash because of Labour’s stellar new economic policies? Or, like the green energy deals, is this just more of the same business investment that would’ve happened regardless? Britain, for all its faults, has always been a reasonably attractive place to invest. It’s not like companies were sitting around waiting for Rachel Reeves to offer them a biscuit before they decided to open their wallets.

And these summits are notorious for producing a lot of noise but not always delivering the goods. You get all the glitzy announcements of “new investment,” but dig a little deeper and you’ll often find it’s either money that was already earmarked for the UK or vague pledges that don’t quite materialise in the way they were hyped. It’s political theatre, and while Rachel may be centre stage, the real action may be happening backstage where the script never quite gets performed.

Economic Stability... But at What Cost?

Reeves also assures us that the upcoming Budget will focus on “restoring economic stability” while delivering “the promise of change.” I don’t know about you, but this sounds suspiciously like trying to square a circle. Restoring stability means keeping spending in check, but change implies investment. So, which is it, Rachel? Are we fiscally conservative now, or are we splashing the cash?

The truth is, Reeves seems to be trying to thread the needle here. She wants to be the chancellor who delivers on Labour’s big promises—improving public services, rebuilding infrastructure, creating jobs—without falling into the “tax-and-spend” trap. It’s a neat trick if you can pull it off, but history suggests you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Can Labour really deliver the transformative change it’s promised without either hiking taxes or going on a borrowing binge? Reeves is betting that growth and investment will do the heavy lifting, but without targets or measurable goals, it’s hard to see how this all adds up without some seriously creative accounting.

The Future Is Bright... But Vague

In the end, Reeves wraps it all up with a flourish, declaring that Britain’s future has “never held so much potential.” But here’s the thing: potential is only exciting if you actually have a plan to turn it into reality. And right now, Rachel Reeves’ vision of growth feels more like a hopeful daydream than a well-crafted economic strategy.

Without any clear targets, measurable outcomes, or a definition of success, Labour’s economic plan seems to be a lot of talk about what might happen if everything goes perfectly. But as we all know, things rarely go perfectly. So while Reeves waxes lyrical about the opportunities ahead, the rest of us are left wondering: Is there an actual plan here, or is this just the economic equivalent of wishful thinking?

Growth, investment, opportunity—it all sounds wonderful. But as Reeves herself should know, it’s the details that count. And right now, those details are about as clear as a British summer’s day: occasionally sunny, but mostly cloudy, and full of uncertain forecasts.