🔗 Share this article

The allegation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled Britons, spooking them into accepting billions in extra taxes which could be used for increased welfare payments. However exaggerated, this is not typical Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a mess". Today, it is denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious charge requires clear answers, therefore let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? Based on the available information, apparently not. She told no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public about the considerations informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the figures prove it.

A Standing Takes Another Blow, Yet Truth Must Prevail

Reeves has sustained another blow to her standing, but, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the real story is much more unusual compared to media reports indicate, and stretches wider and further than the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is a story concerning what degree of influence the public get over the governance of our own country. And it concern everyone.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR released last Friday some of the projections 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 (described as an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

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

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks before the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK had become less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, that is essentially what happened at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

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 given alternative explanations, including during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as a technocrat at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, just not one the Labour party cares to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be paying another £26bn annually in tax – but the majority of this will not be spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or happier lives. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than being spent, over 50% of the extra cash will in fact provide Reeves cushion for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget for being balm to their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were too small to feel secure, especially 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, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan allows the central bank to cut interest rates.

It's understandable why those folk with red rosettes may choose not to frame it in such terms when they're on #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets as a tool of control over Labour MPs and the voters. This is the reason the chancellor can't resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent here is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,