🔗 Share this article

This charge represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived the British public, frightening them to accept massive additional taxes that could be funneled into higher welfare payments. However exaggerated, this is not usual political bickering; this time, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "disorderly". Today, it's denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious charge requires straightforward responses, therefore here is my view. Did the chancellor lied? On current information, no. There were no blatant falsehoods. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the figures prove this.

A Standing Takes A Further Blow, Yet Truth Should Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained a further blow to her reputation, but, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is far stranger compared to the headlines suggest, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, this is a story concerning how much say the public have in the running of the nation. This should should worry everyone.

First, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released last Friday some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she wrote the budget, the shock was instant. Not only has the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Take the government's so-called "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated this would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks before the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the main reason cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK was less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, that is basically what happened at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, because those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she might have given alternative explanations, including during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as a technocrat buffeted by forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, just not the kind Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be paying an additional £26bn annually in taxes – but most of that will not go towards spent on better hospitals, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of this extra cash will instead give Reeves a buffer for her own budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to covering the administration's U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with all of right-wing media have been barking about how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs have been applauding her budget as balm to their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

The government can make a strong case for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, especially given that bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget allows the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

It's understandable that those folk with Labour badges might not couch it this way when they're on #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets to act as a tool of discipline over her own party and the voters. This is why Reeves can't resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It's why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,