🔗 Share this article

This allegation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled UK citizens, frightening them to accept massive additional taxes that would be funneled into higher welfare payments. However exaggerated, this is not usual political sparring; on this occasion, the stakes are higher. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it is denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious charge requires clear responses, therefore here is my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? On the available evidence, no. She told no major untruths. However, despite Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public about the factors informing her choices. Was this all to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the numbers prove it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Hit, But Facts Should Win Out

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her reputation, but, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

But the real story is much more unusual compared to the headlines indicate, extending broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, this is an account concerning what degree of influence the public have in the running of the nation. This should concern you.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

After the OBR published last Friday some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she wrote the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not only has the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Take the Treasury's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated this would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented it forced morning television to break from its usual fare. Weeks before the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the primary cause being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK was less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, this is basically what transpired at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her justification, because those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have made other choices; she could have given other reasons, including on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not the kind Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be paying another £26bn a year in taxes – and most of that will not be funding improved healthcare, public services, nor happier lives. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of being spent, over 50% of the extra cash will instead provide Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have been barking about the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget as balm for their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument for itself. The margins from the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, particularly given that lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Combined with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

You can see why those wearing red rosettes might not couch it in such terms when they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market as a tool of control against Labour MPs and the voters. This is why the chancellor can't resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It is also why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Statecraft and a Broken Promise

What is absent from this is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,