🔗 Share this article

The allegation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived UK citizens, frightening them into accepting billions in additional taxes which could be spent on increased welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this isn't usual political bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "disorderly". Today, it's branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This grave accusation requires straightforward answers, therefore here is my assessment. Has the chancellor been dishonest? On the available information, apparently not. There were no blatant falsehoods. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the factors informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? No, and the figures demonstrate this.

A Standing Sustains A Further Blow, Yet Truth Must Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained a further blow to her reputation, however, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is much more unusual compared to media reports suggest, extending wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is a story about how much say the public have in the running of our own country. This should should worry everyone.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

After the OBR released last Friday some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she wrote the budget, the shock was immediate. Not merely has the OBR never acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Take the government's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned this would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK was less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, this is essentially what happened during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us was her justification, since those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she could have given alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it is a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not one the Labour party wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be contributing another £26bn a year in tax – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, public services, nor happier lives. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of the extra cash will in fact give Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have been railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to fund shirkers. Party MPs have been cheering her budget for being balm to their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were too small to feel secure, particularly considering bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan enables the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those folk with Labour badges may choose not to frame it this way when they're on the doorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market as an instrument of control over Labour MPs and the voters. It's why the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing from this is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,