🔗 Share this article

The accusation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves has deceived Britons, spooking them into accepting billions in extra taxes which would be funneled into higher benefits. While hyperbolic, this isn't usual political bickering; this time, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a shambles". Now, it is denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

This serious charge requires clear answers, so here is my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on current information, no. There were no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the considerations shaping her choices. Was this all to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? No, as the figures demonstrate this.

A Standing Takes A Further Blow, But Facts Should Win Out

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her standing, however, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger than the headlines indicate, and stretches wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, herein lies an account concerning what degree of influence the public have over the running of the nation. This should should worry everyone.

First, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released last Friday some of the projections it provided to Reeves as she prepared the red book, the surprise was instant. Not only had the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "exceptional move"), its numbers seemingly went against Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

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

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary that it caused morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks before the real budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, and the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK had become less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, that is basically what happened at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, because those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she could have provided other reasons, even during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by factors beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not the kind the Labour party cares to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn annually in tax – and the majority of this will not be funding better hospitals, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of this extra cash will in fact give Reeves cushion for her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on covering the administration's policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to fund the workshy. Party MPs have been applauding her budget for being a relief for their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, especially given that bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Combined with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget enables the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those wearing Labour badges may choose not to couch it this way when they're on #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market to act as an instrument of discipline against Labour MPs 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, just as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Statecraft , a Broken Pledge

What is absent from this is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,