🔗 Share this article

This accusation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, scaring them into accepting massive extra taxes which could be funneled into increased welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this isn't typical Westminster sparring; this time, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a mess". Today, it is denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

This grave accusation demands straightforward responses, so here is my view. Did the chancellor lied? On current evidence, apparently not. There were no blatant falsehoods. However, notwithstanding 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 towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the numbers prove it.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Must Win Out

The Chancellor has taken a further hit to her standing, but, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger compared to media reports suggest, extending wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, this is a story about what degree of influence the public have over the governance of our own country. And it should worry you.

First, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published recently a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she wrote the red book, the shock was immediate. Not only had the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "exceptional move"), its figures seemingly went against the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Consider the government's so-called "iron-clad" 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 reckoned it would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, with the main reason being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK had become less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied recently, this is essentially what transpired during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us was her alibi, since those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have made different options; she could have provided alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it's a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as a technocrat at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances 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 did make decisions, just not the kind the Labour party cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn annually in taxes – and the majority of this will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, public services, nor happier lives. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of the extra cash will instead provide Reeves a buffer against her own fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to covering the administration's U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have been railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to fund shirkers. Party MPs have been cheering her budget for being a relief to their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

The government could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, particularly given that lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget enables the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see why those folk with red rosettes might not couch it in such terms next time they visit the doorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as a tool of discipline over her own party and the voters. It's why the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It's why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft and a Broken Pledge

What is absent here is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,