🔗 Share this article

The allegation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has deceived Britons, frightening them into accepting billions in additional taxes which could be funneled into higher benefits. However hyperbolic, this isn't usual political bickering; this time, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a mess". Now, it's branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious accusation requires straightforward responses, therefore let me provide my view. Did the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available information, no. There were no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the considerations informing her choices. Was this all to channel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? No, as the figures demonstrate this.

A Reputation Sustains Another Blow, But Facts Should Win Out

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her reputation, however, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is much more unusual than the headlines suggest, and stretches wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies an account about what degree of influence you and I get over the running of our own country. This should should worry you.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published recently some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she wrote the red book, the shock was instant. Not merely has the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Take the government's most "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned this would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Weeks before the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK was less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, that is essentially what happened at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves misled us concerned her justification, because these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have made different options; she could have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be a technocrat buffeted by forces beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not the kind the Labour party cares to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be paying another £26bn a year in taxes – but most of that will not go towards funding better hospitals, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, over 50% of the additional revenue will in fact give Reeves cushion for her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% goes on paying for the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have been railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being balm for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

The government can make a compelling argument in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, particularly given that lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan enables the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those wearing red rosettes might not couch it in such terms next time they visit the doorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market as a tool of control over her own party and the electorate. This is why Reeves can't resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Political Vision and a Broken Pledge

What's missing here is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,