🔗 Share this article

This accusation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has deceived Britons, scaring them to accept billions in additional taxes which could be funneled into increased welfare payments. However exaggerated, this is not typical Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are higher. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a shambles". Now, it is branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

This grave charge requires clear answers, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? On current evidence, no. There were no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the factors shaping her choices. Was this all to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the numbers prove this.

A Standing Sustains Another Blow, But Facts Should Prevail

Reeves has taken another blow to her standing, but, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual than media reports indicate, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, this is an account about how much say the public have in the governance of our own country. This should concern you.

First, on to the Core Details

After the OBR published last Friday some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she wrote the red book, the surprise was instant. Not merely has the OBR never acted this way before (an "rare action"), its numbers apparently went against Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Consider the Treasury's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated it would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused morning television to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, with the main reason being gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK had become less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, that is essentially what happened during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

Where Reeves misled us was her justification, because those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have made other choices; she might have provided alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it's a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by factors outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not the kind Labour wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be contributing another £26bn annually in taxes – but the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, new libraries, or happier lives. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will instead provide Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have been railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to fund shirkers. Party MPs have been cheering her budget as balm to their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly considering lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget enables the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

You can see that those wearing Labour badges may choose not to frame it in such terms next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as a tool of control over her own party and the voters. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It's why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Political Vision 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 new accommodation with markets. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,