🔗 Share this article

This accusation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have misled the British public, scaring them into accepting billions in extra taxes which could be used for increased benefits. However exaggerated, this is not usual political bickering; this time, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "disorderly". Today, it's denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave charge requires straightforward answers, so here is my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available evidence, no. There were no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the numbers demonstrate it.

A Standing Takes A Further Blow, Yet Truth Should Prevail

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her reputation, however, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is far stranger compared to media reports suggest, extending broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies an account concerning how much say you and I get in the running of our own country. And it concern you.

First, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released last Friday some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she wrote the budget, the shock was immediate. Not merely had the OBR never done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly went against Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Take the Treasury's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated this would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK was less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, this is essentially what transpired at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves deceived us was her alibi, since those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have chosen other choices; she might have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it is powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be a technocrat buffeted by forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not one the Labour party cares to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn a year in tax – and the majority of this will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, public services, nor happier lives. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of going on services, over 50% of the additional revenue will instead provide Reeves cushion for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the administration's policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have been railing against how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs have been cheering her budget for being balm for their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were too small to feel secure, particularly given that lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget enables the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those folk with red rosettes might not frame it in such terms next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market as a tool of control against her own party and the voters. This is the reason the chancellor can't resign, no matter what promises are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing from this is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,