🔗 Share this article

This charge is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled the British public, scaring them to accept billions in additional taxes which could be spent on increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this is not usual Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "chaotic". Now, it is branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This serious accusation requires clear answers, so here is my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available information, apparently not. There were no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the considerations shaping her choices. Was this all to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the numbers prove it.

A Standing Takes Another Hit, But Facts Must Prevail

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

But the true narrative is much more unusual compared to media reports suggest, and stretches wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, herein lies an account concerning how much say you and I get in the governance of our own country. And it concern everyone.

First, to the Core Details

After the OBR released last Friday a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she prepared the red book, the surprise was instant. Not merely has the OBR not done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers seemingly went against Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Take the government's most "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated it would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary that it caused morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK had become less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested recently, this is basically what transpired during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves misled us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have chosen other choices; she could have given other reasons, including on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it's a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not one Labour cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn annually in tax – but the majority of this will not be funding better hospitals, public services, or happier lives. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of being spent, over 50% of this extra cash will in fact give Reeves cushion for her own budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have spent days barking about how Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget for being balm for their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, particularly given that bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with the 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 wearing red rosettes may choose not to frame it in such terms when they visit the doorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets as a tool of control over her own party and the electorate. It's why the chancellor cannot 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, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Political Vision and a Broken Promise

What is absent from this is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,