🔗 Share this article

This charge is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has deceived UK citizens, frightening them into accepting billions in additional taxes that would be used for increased welfare payments. However exaggerated, this is not usual political bickering; this time, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "uncoordinated". Now, it's branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This serious charge demands clear responses, therefore let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? Based on the available evidence, apparently not. 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. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the considerations shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the numbers prove this.

A Standing Sustains Another Hit, But Facts Must Prevail

The Chancellor has taken a further hit to her reputation, however, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the real story is much more unusual than media reports indicate, and stretches wider and further than the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, this is a story about how much say you and I get over the running of our own country. This should should worry you.

First, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released last Friday a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not only has the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its figures seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Take the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated it would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK was less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, this is essentially what happened at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, since these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have made different options; she might have given other reasons, including during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as a technocrat at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not one the Labour party cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be paying another £26bn annually in tax – but the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, or happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of the additional revenue will in fact give Reeves a buffer against her own fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to covering the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have spent days barking about how Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being a relief to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

The government could present a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, especially considering bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan allows the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

It's understandable that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to frame it in such terms next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market as a tool of control over Labour MPs and the voters. It's why Reeves cannot resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent from this is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,