🔗 Share this article

The charge is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has deceived UK citizens, spooking them to accept billions in additional taxes that could be used for higher benefits. While hyperbolic, this is not usual political bickering; this time, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a serious accusation demands straightforward responses, therefore here is my view. Did the chancellor tell lies? On current information, no. There were no whoppers. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the considerations informing her choices. Was this all to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? No, as the numbers prove it.

A Standing Takes A Further Blow, Yet Truth Should Prevail

Reeves has sustained another blow to her standing, but, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual than media reports indicate, extending broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies an account concerning how much say the public get in the governance of our own country. This should concern everyone.

First, on to the Core Details

When the OBR published recently some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she wrote the budget, the shock was immediate. Not only has the OBR never acted this way before (an "rare action"), its figures apparently went against Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Take the Treasury's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated it would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the main reason being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK had become less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, that is basically what transpired at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves misled us was her alibi, since these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have chosen other choices; she might have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not the kind the Labour party wishes to publicize. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn a year in taxes – and the majority of this will not be funding better hospitals, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of being spent, over 50% of this additional revenue will instead give Reeves cushion against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the administration's policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have spent days barking about how Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs are cheering her budget as balm to their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were too small for comfort, especially considering bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan allows the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those folk with red rosettes might not couch it this way next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets as an instrument of discipline against Labour MPs and the electorate. This is the reason the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision , a Broken Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,