🔗 Share this article

The allegation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived the British public, spooking them into accepting massive additional taxes that could be funneled into higher welfare payments. However exaggerated, this is not usual Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the stakes are higher. A week ago, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a shambles". Now, it is denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This grave charge requires straightforward answers, therefore here is my assessment. Has the chancellor been dishonest? On the available information, no. There were no whoppers. However, despite Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the considerations shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the numbers demonstrate it.

A Reputation Takes A Further Hit, But Facts Must Win Out

Reeves has sustained another hit to her standing, however, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is much more unusual compared to the headlines indicate, extending broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies an account about what degree of influence the public have in the governance of the nation. This should should worry everyone.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR published recently some of the projections it provided to Reeves as she wrote the red book, the shock was instant. Not merely had the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "unusual step"), its numbers apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Take the government's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned it would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, with the main reason being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. 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 significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

Where Reeves misled us was her alibi, because these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have chosen different options; she could have given other reasons, even on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, just not the kind Labour wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn a year in taxes – and most of that will not be funding better hospitals, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will instead provide Reeves cushion for her own budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on paying for the administration's policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have been barking about the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs have been cheering her budget as a relief to their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, especially considering lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Combined with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget allows the central bank to cut interest rates.

It's understandable why those wearing red rosettes may choose not to frame it this way next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market as a tool of control against Labour MPs and the voters. It's why Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It's why Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Pledge

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