🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves has deceived Britons, scaring them into accepting massive extra taxes that would be funneled into increased welfare payments. However exaggerated, this isn't usual political sparring; this time, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave charge requires straightforward answers, so here is my view. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current information, apparently not. There were no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the factors shaping her choices. Was this all to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the numbers prove this.

A Standing Takes Another Blow, Yet Truth Should Prevail

The Chancellor has taken a further hit to her reputation, but, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is much more unusual than media reports suggest, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies a story about how much say the public get in the governance of the nation. And it concern everyone.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR published recently a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves as she wrote the budget, the shock was instant. Not only has the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "unusual step"), its numbers apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Take the Treasury's most "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated it would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks before the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK was less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, this is essentially what transpired during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

Where Reeves deceived us was her alibi, since these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she could have provided alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Before 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."

A year on, yet it's powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not one the Labour party cares to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn annually in tax – but most of that will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of being spent, over 50% of the additional revenue will instead provide Reeves cushion for her own fiscal rules. About 25% goes on covering the administration's policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have spent days barking about how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget as a relief to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

The government could present a strong case for itself. The margins from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, especially considering lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget enables the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those folk with Labour badges might not couch it in such terms when they visit #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market to act as a tool of control against her own party and the voters. This is the reason Reeves can't resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It's why Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing here is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,