🔗 Share this article

The allegation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived UK citizens, frightening them into accepting massive extra taxes which could be funneled into higher benefits. While hyperbolic, this is not usual Westminster bickering; this time, the stakes could be damaging. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "uncoordinated". Now, it is branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave accusation requires straightforward responses, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? On current information, no. There were no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the numbers demonstrate it.

A Standing Sustains Another Blow, But Facts Should Win Out

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her reputation, but, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is much more unusual than media reports indicate, extending broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies a story about how much say the public have over the running of our own country. This should concern you.

Firstly, to the Core Details

After the OBR released recently some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she wrote the budget, the shock was instant. Not merely has the OBR never done such a thing before (an "rare action"), its numbers apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Take the government's most "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned it would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK had become less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested recently, that is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us was her alibi, because those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have made other choices; she could have given other reasons, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, only not one the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be paying another £26bn a year in taxes – but the majority of this will not be funding improved healthcare, 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 Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will instead provide Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have been railing against the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget for being balm to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly considering bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan allows the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

It's understandable that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to frame it in such terms next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as an instrument of control against her own party and the electorate. This is why the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It is also why Labour MPs must fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,