🔗 Share this article

The accusation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has deceived UK citizens, frightening them into accepting massive extra taxes that would be spent on increased welfare payments. While exaggerated, this isn't usual political sparring; this time, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "chaotic". Now, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

Such a serious accusation requires clear responses, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available evidence, no. There were no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the considerations informing her choices. Was this all to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? No, as the numbers prove this.

A Reputation Takes A Further Blow, Yet Truth Should Prevail

Reeves has taken a further 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, over the leak of its internal documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger compared to media reports indicate, and stretches wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, herein lies a story about what degree of influence the public get in the running of the nation. And it should worry everyone.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published last Friday some of the projections it shared with Reeves as she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not only has the OBR not acted this way before (an "rare action"), its figures seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Take the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned it would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, and the main reason cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK had become less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, that is essentially what transpired during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her alibi, because those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have made other choices; she could have given alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it is a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by forces beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, only not the kind Labour cares to publicize. From April 2029 British workers and businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in tax – but most of that will not go towards funding better hospitals, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will instead provide Reeves cushion against her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and all of right-wing media have been railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs have been cheering her budget for being a relief for their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

The government could present a compelling argument in its defence. The margins from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, particularly considering bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget enables the central bank to cut interest rates.

You can see that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to frame it in such terms next time they visit the doorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market to act as an instrument of discipline over Labour MPs and the voters. This is why the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It is also why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision and a Broken Pledge

What is absent from this is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,