🔗 Share this article

The charge is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, spooking them into accepting billions in extra taxes which would be funneled into higher benefits. However hyperbolic, this isn't usual Westminster sparring; this time, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a mess". Today, it's branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

This serious charge requires straightforward answers, therefore let me provide my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on current evidence, apparently not. There were no blatant falsehoods. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the factors informing her choices. Was it to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, as the figures prove this.

A Standing Takes A Further Hit, Yet Truth Must Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained another blow to her standing, however, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger compared to media reports indicate, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies an account concerning what degree of influence you and I get in the governance of our own country. This should should worry everyone.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

After the OBR published last Friday a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not merely had the OBR never acted this way before (an "rare action"), its figures apparently went against the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Consider the government's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated this would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary it forced morning television to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks before the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK was less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, that is essentially what happened during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us was her alibi, because these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have made different options; she could have provided alternative explanations, including during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it's powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by factors outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not the kind Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be paying another £26bn a year in taxes – but most of that will not go towards funding improved healthcare, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will instead give Reeves cushion for her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the government's own policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have been barking about the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget for being a relief for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, especially given that lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget allows the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to frame it this way next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market to act as a tool of discipline over Labour MPs and the electorate. It's why the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent here is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,