🔗 Share this article

The charge is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived UK citizens, scaring them into accepting massive extra taxes which would be funneled into higher benefits. While hyperbolic, this is not usual Westminster sparring; this time, the stakes are higher. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a mess". Now, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

This serious accusation demands straightforward answers, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? On current information, no. There were no whoppers. However, despite Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the factors shaping her choices. Was it to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the numbers demonstrate this.

A Standing Sustains A Further Hit, But Facts Should Win Out

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her standing, however, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is far stranger than media reports suggest, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, herein lies a story concerning how much say the public get in the running of our own country. This should concern everyone.

First, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released last Friday some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she wrote the budget, the shock was instant. Not only has the OBR not acted this way before (an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly went against the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned this would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary it forced morning television to break from its usual fare. Several weeks before the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the main reason being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK was less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested recently, that is essentially what transpired during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her justification, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have made different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, even during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "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 is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, only not the kind the Labour party wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be paying an additional £26bn a year in taxes – and most of that will not be spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or happier lives. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than going on services, over 50% of the extra cash will in fact provide Reeves cushion against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with all of right-wing media have been barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to fund shirkers. Party MPs are cheering her budget as balm for their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument in its defence. The margins from the OBR were too small to feel secure, especially considering bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget enables the central bank to cut interest rates.

You can see why those folk with red rosettes may choose not to couch it in such terms next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets to act as an instrument of discipline over her own party and the voters. This is why Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It is also why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing from this is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,