🔗 Share this article

The accusation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have misled UK citizens, frightening them to accept massive additional taxes that could be spent on increased welfare payments. However exaggerated, this is not usual political sparring; on this occasion, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a shambles". Now, it's denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

Such a grave charge demands clear responses, so here is my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? Based on the available information, apparently not. There were no major untruths. However, despite Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the factors informing her decisions. Was this all to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the numbers demonstrate it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Blow, Yet Truth Should Win Out

Reeves has sustained a further hit to her standing, however, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

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

Firstly, to the Core Details

After the OBR released last Friday a portion of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she prepared the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not only had the OBR never acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Consider the government's most "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned this would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks before the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, with the main reason being gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested recently, this is essentially what transpired at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, because those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she could have given alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it's a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be a technocrat buffeted by forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not the kind Labour wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in tax – and most of that will not be spent on improved healthcare, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will in fact give Reeves a buffer against her own budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on covering the administration's policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with all of right-wing media have been railing against how Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs have been cheering her budget for being balm for their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, especially given that lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget enables the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

You can see that those wearing red rosettes may choose not to frame it this way when they're on #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets as an instrument of control against her own party and the voters. This is the reason the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what promises are broken. It is also why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Statecraft and a Broken Promise

What's missing here is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,