🔗 Share this article

The accusation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived UK citizens, spooking them into accepting billions in additional taxes that would be funneled into increased benefits. While hyperbolic, this is not usual Westminster sparring; this time, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "disorderly". Today, it's denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave charge demands straightforward responses, so let me provide my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available information, apparently not. She told no blatant falsehoods. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public about the considerations informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the numbers prove this.

A Reputation Sustains Another Blow, Yet Truth Should Win Out

The Chancellor has taken a further hit to her reputation, but, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is far stranger than media reports indicate, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is a story about what degree of influence you and I get in the governance of our own country. This should should worry you.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR released last Friday a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she wrote the budget, the shock was immediate. Not only had the OBR never done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its numbers seemingly went against the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

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

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary it forced morning television to break from its regular schedule. Weeks before the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK was less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, that is basically what transpired during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves misled us was her alibi, because those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she could have provided alternative explanations, even during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be a technocrat buffeted by factors beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, only not the kind Labour wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in tax – and most of that will not be spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, over 50% of this extra cash will instead give Reeves cushion for her own budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have been barking about how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget as balm for their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

The government could present a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were too small for comfort, especially considering bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan enables the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those wearing red rosettes might not couch it in such terms next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets as a tool of discipline against her own party and the electorate. This is the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It is also why Labour MPs must fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Political Vision , a Broken Promise

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,