🔗 Share this article

This allegation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has deceived UK citizens, frightening them to accept massive extra taxes that could be funneled into increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this is not usual Westminster bickering; this time, the stakes are higher. Just last week, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a shambles". Now, it's denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious accusation requires clear responses, so here is my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available information, no. She told no blatant falsehoods. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the factors informing her choices. Was this all to funnel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories claim? No, and the numbers demonstrate it.

A Standing Sustains A Further Blow, Yet Truth Should Prevail

Reeves has sustained another hit to her standing, but, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is much more unusual than media reports indicate, and stretches broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, this is a story concerning what degree of influence you and I get in the running of the nation. And it concern you.

First, on to the Core Details

After the OBR published last Friday a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves while she prepared the red book, the shock was immediate. Not only had the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently went against Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated this would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary it forced morning television to break from its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the main reason being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested recently, that is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, because those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have made different options; she could have given alternative explanations, even during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not one the Labour party cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn a year in tax – but most of that will not be funding better hospitals, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of going on services, over 50% of this additional revenue will in fact give Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have been railing against the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget as balm to their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, especially given that lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Combined with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan allows the central bank to cut interest rates.

You can see that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to couch it in such terms next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets as a tool of discipline over her own party and the voters. It's why Reeves can't resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It's why Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing here is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,