🔗 Share this article

The charge is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived the British public, spooking them into accepting massive extra taxes which would be funneled into higher welfare payments. However exaggerated, this is not typical Westminster bickering; this time, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a shambles". Today, it is denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This serious accusation demands straightforward responses, so let me provide my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? On the available evidence, no. There were no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the factors shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures prove this.

A Reputation Takes A Further Blow, But Facts Must Prevail

Reeves has taken a further hit to her standing, however, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is much more unusual compared to the headlines indicate, extending wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies a story concerning what degree of influence you and I have in the governance of the nation. This should should worry everyone.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released recently a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she prepared the budget, the surprise was instant. Not merely has the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated it would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented that it caused morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, with the primary cause being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK had become less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, this is essentially what happened at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, since those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have chosen other choices; she could have provided alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be a technocrat buffeted by factors beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, only not one Labour cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn annually in tax – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of this extra cash will instead provide Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have been barking about how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget as a relief for their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, especially considering lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget enables the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see why those wearing red rosettes might not frame it this way next time they're on the doorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market to act as a tool of discipline over her own party and the electorate. This is why the chancellor can't resign, no matter what promises are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Statecraft and a Broken Promise

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,