🔗 Share this article

The charge carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has deceived UK citizens, spooking them to accept massive additional taxes which would be used for higher benefits. However exaggerated, this isn't usual political sparring; on this occasion, the consequences are higher. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "disorderly". Now, it is branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a serious charge requires straightforward answers, so let me provide my view. Has the chancellor been dishonest? On current evidence, no. There were no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? No, as the figures prove it.

A Reputation Takes Another Hit, But Facts Should Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained a further blow to her reputation, however, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies a story concerning how much say you and I have over the running of the nation. And it concern you.

First, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published last Friday a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves while she wrote the red book, the shock was immediate. Not merely has the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its figures seemingly went against Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's most "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned it would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented it forced morning television to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the main reason being gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, this is essentially what transpired during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, because these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have made different options; she could have given other reasons, even during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it is a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, only not the kind Labour wishes to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn a year in tax – but most of that will not be spent on better hospitals, 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 Cash Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of this extra cash will instead give Reeves a buffer against her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with all of right-wing media have been railing against how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget as a relief to their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were too small to feel secure, particularly given that lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with our measures to cap 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.

You can see why those folk with red rosettes might not couch it in such terms next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets to act as a tool of control against her own party and the electorate. It's the reason the chancellor can't resign, no matter what promises are broken. It's why Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft and a Broken Pledge

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,