🔗 Share this article

The accusation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has lied to Britons, spooking them to accept massive extra taxes that would be used for increased benefits. While hyperbolic, this is not typical Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it's branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

Such a serious accusation requires clear answers, therefore here is my assessment. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available information, no. There were no major untruths. But, despite Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the considerations informing her choices. Was this all to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, as the numbers prove this.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Blow, But Facts Should Prevail

The Chancellor has taken a further hit to her standing, however, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual than the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, this is an account about what degree of influence you and I get over the running of the nation. And it should worry everyone.

First, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released last Friday some of the projections it provided to Reeves as she wrote the budget, the shock was immediate. Not merely had the OBR never done such a thing before (an "rare action"), its numbers apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Take the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned it would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, this is essentially what happened at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, since those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have chosen different options; she might have given other reasons, even during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it is powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term 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, just not one Labour cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be contributing another £26bn a year in taxes – but most of that will not be spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will instead give Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have been railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget as a relief for their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

The government could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were too small for comfort, particularly considering bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, 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 enables the central bank to cut interest rates.

It's understandable that those wearing red rosettes may choose not to couch it in such terms when they visit the doorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets as a tool of control over her own party and the electorate. This is the reason the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Statecraft , a Broken Promise

What is absent from this is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,