🔗 Share this article

This charge carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has lied to UK citizens, frightening them into accepting massive additional taxes which would be funneled into higher benefits. However hyperbolic, this isn't typical political sparring; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "chaotic". Today, it's branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious charge requires clear responses, so here is my view. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available information, apparently not. She told no blatant falsehoods. However, despite Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the considerations shaping her choices. Was this all to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, and the figures demonstrate this.

A Standing Sustains A Further Blow, But Facts Should Prevail

Reeves has taken a further blow to her standing, however, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is much more unusual compared to media reports suggest, extending wider and further than the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, herein lies an account about what degree of influence you and I get over the governance of our own country. This should concern everyone.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

When the OBR published recently a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she wrote the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not merely had the OBR never acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly went against Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated this would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the main reason being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK had become less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, this is basically what happened at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves misled us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, including during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope 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 in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not the kind the Labour party cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in tax – and the majority of this will not be spent on better hospitals, public services, nor happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense 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 this extra cash will in fact give Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have been railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget for being a relief for their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, particularly considering lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan allows the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

It's understandable that those wearing red rosettes might not frame it in such terms when they visit the doorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market to act as an instrument of discipline over her own party and the electorate. This is the reason the chancellor can't resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft , a Broken Pledge

What's missing here is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,