🔗 Share this article

This charge is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has lied to the British public, spooking them to accept massive extra taxes that could be used for increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this isn't usual political bickering; this time, the consequences are higher. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "disorderly". Today, it's denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious accusation demands clear answers, so let me provide my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On the available evidence, apparently not. She told no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the factors informing her choices. Was it to funnel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories claim? No, and the figures demonstrate it.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Blow, Yet Truth Should Win Out

Reeves has taken another hit to her standing, but, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is far stranger compared to media reports indicate, and stretches wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, herein lies a story about what degree of influence the public get over the governance of the nation. This should should worry everyone.

First, to the Core Details

After the OBR released last Friday some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she prepared the budget, the surprise was instant. Not merely has the OBR never done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently went against the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Consider the government's so-called "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned 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 break from its usual fare. Weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK had become 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, this is basically what happened during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us was her alibi, because these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have made other choices; she might have given alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not the kind Labour cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn a year in tax – and most of that will not be funding better hospitals, new libraries, or happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of the additional revenue will instead provide Reeves cushion against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the administration's policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been 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

The Tories, Reform and all of right-wing media have spent days barking about how Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget as balm to their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were insufficient for comfort, particularly given that lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see why those wearing Labour badges may choose not to 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 to act as an instrument of control over her own party and the electorate. It's the reason the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Statecraft and a Broken Pledge

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,