🔗 Share this article

This accusation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived the British public, scaring them into accepting billions in additional taxes which would be funneled into higher welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this is not usual Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "chaotic". Today, it is denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This serious charge demands straightforward responses, so let me provide my view. Did the chancellor tell lies? On current information, no. She told no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public about the factors informing her choices. Was it to funnel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the figures demonstrate it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Blow, But Facts Must Prevail

Reeves has taken another hit to her standing, but, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the real story is far stranger compared to the headlines indicate, and stretches broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. Fundamentally, this is an account about how much say the public get in the governance of our own country. And it should worry everyone.

First, on to the Core Details

When the OBR published last Friday some of the projections it shared with Reeves while she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not only had the OBR not acted this way 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 OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Take the government's so-called "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated this would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary it forced morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks before the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the primary cause being gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK was less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied recently, that is essentially what happened at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, because those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have made different options; she could have provided other reasons, including on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by factors outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not the kind the Labour party cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses will be paying an additional £26bn a year in taxes – but most of that will not go towards funding better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of the extra cash will instead provide Reeves a buffer against her own fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to covering the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have spent days barking about how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget as balm to their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were insufficient for comfort, particularly considering lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with our policies to cap 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 why those wearing red rosettes might not frame it this way next time they're on the doorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets to act as a tool of control against her own party and the voters. It's why Reeves can't resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing here is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,