🔗 Share this article

This allegation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has misled Britons, spooking them into accepting billions in extra taxes which could be funneled into increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this isn't usual Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the stakes are higher. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "uncoordinated". Now, it's branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious accusation requires clear answers, so here is my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? On current evidence, apparently not. She told no major untruths. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the considerations informing her decisions. Was it to funnel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? No, and the numbers prove this.

A Reputation Sustains Another Hit, Yet Truth Must Prevail

Reeves has sustained another blow to her standing, but, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is far stranger compared to media reports suggest, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies an account about what degree of influence the public get in the running of our own country. And it concern everyone.

First, on to the Core Details

When the OBR published recently a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves while she prepared the red book, the shock was immediate. Not only had the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "exceptional move"), its numbers seemingly went against the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Take the Treasury's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated this would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented it forced morning television to break from its usual fare. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the main reason being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK was less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, that is essentially what transpired at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, since those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have made other choices; she could have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it's powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not one the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn a year in taxes – and the majority of this will not be spent on better hospitals, public services, nor happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than being spent, over 50% of the extra cash will in fact provide Reeves cushion against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to fund shirkers. Party MPs are cheering her budget for being balm to their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were too small for comfort, particularly given that bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget allows the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see that those folk with Labour badges might not frame it this way next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets to act as an instrument of control over her own party and the electorate. This is why the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what promises are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing here is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,