🔗 Share this article

The charge is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived the British public, scaring them to accept massive additional taxes that would be spent on higher welfare payments. While exaggerated, this is not typical political bickering; this time, the consequences are higher. Just last week, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it is denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious accusation demands clear responses, therefore here is my view. Did the chancellor tell lies? Based on current information, no. There were no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the considerations shaping her choices. Was this all to funnel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories claim? No, as the numbers prove this.

A Standing Takes Another Hit, Yet Truth Must Win Out

Reeves has sustained another blow to her reputation, however, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual than the headlines indicate, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is an account concerning what degree of influence you and I have in the governance of our own country. And it concern you.

First, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released recently some of the projections it shared with Reeves as she prepared the budget, the shock was immediate. Not merely had the OBR never acted this way before (an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly went against the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Consider the Treasury's most "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated it would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks before the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the main reason cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, this is essentially what happened at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves deceived us was her justification, because these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she might have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it's a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not one Labour cares to publicize. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn a year in taxes – and the majority of this will not go towards spent on better hospitals, new libraries, nor happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, over 50% of the extra cash will instead provide Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are cheering her budget for being balm for their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly given that lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the central bank to reduce interest rates.

You can see why those folk with Labour badges might not frame it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets as a tool of control against her own party and the electorate. It's why Reeves can't resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Statecraft and a Broken Promise

What's missing from this is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,