🔗 Share this article

This charge carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled the British public, scaring them to accept billions in additional taxes which would be spent on higher welfare payments. However exaggerated, this isn't typical political bickering; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a shambles". Today, it's branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

This grave charge requires straightforward answers, so let me provide my view. Has the chancellor been dishonest? On the available evidence, no. She told no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the factors shaping her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the figures prove this.

A Standing Sustains Another Blow, But Facts Must Win Out

Reeves has sustained another blow to her reputation, however, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is much more unusual compared to the headlines indicate, and stretches wider and further than the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, herein lies an account concerning what degree of influence you and I get over the governance of the nation. This should concern you.

First, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published last Friday some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not merely had the OBR never acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its figures seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Consider the government's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated this would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks before the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the primary cause being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK had become less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, that is basically what transpired during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

Where Reeves deceived us was her alibi, since those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have made other choices; she could have given alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it's a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not one Labour cares to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be paying another £26bn annually in tax – and the majority of this will not go towards spent on better hospitals, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than going on services, over 50% of this additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to covering the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have spent days barking about how Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs have been applauding her budget as a relief for their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, especially given that lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan allows the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

You can see why those wearing Labour badges might not couch it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market as a tool of discipline over her own party and the voters. This is why the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent from this is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,