🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to the British public, spooking them to accept massive additional taxes which could be spent on increased benefits. While hyperbolic, this is not typical political sparring; this time, the stakes are higher. Just last week, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a mess". Now, it's denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This grave charge demands clear responses, so here is my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? Based on the available information, apparently not. She told no major untruths. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the factors informing her choices. Was this all to channel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the numbers demonstrate it.

A Standing Sustains A Further Hit, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained another hit to her reputation, however, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger than the headlines indicate, extending wider and further than the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, this is an account about what degree of influence the public have over the running of the nation. And it should worry everyone.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published recently a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves while she prepared the budget, the shock was immediate. Not merely has the OBR not done such a thing before (an "rare action"), its numbers apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned this would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied recently, this is basically what transpired during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her justification, because these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have chosen different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, including during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as a technocrat at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, only not the kind the Labour party wishes to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be paying an additional £26bn a year in taxes – but most of that will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, nor happier lives. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of this extra cash will instead provide Reeves a buffer for her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and the entire right-wing media have been railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget for being balm to their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, particularly considering lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see that those folk with red rosettes may choose not to couch it this way next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets as a tool of discipline over her own party and the electorate. It's the reason the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent here is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,