🔗 Share this article

The accusation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived UK citizens, spooking them into accepting billions in additional taxes that could be spent on increased welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this is not usual Westminster bickering; this time, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "disorderly". Today, it's branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

Such a grave accusation demands straightforward answers, so here is my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On the available evidence, apparently not. There were no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the factors informing her decisions. Was it to funnel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? No, as the numbers prove it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Blow, Yet Truth Must Win Out

Reeves has sustained another blow to her standing, but, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is much more unusual compared to the headlines indicate, extending broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is a story concerning what degree of influence the public have in the governance of the nation. This should concern you.

First, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published last Friday some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she wrote the budget, the shock was instant. Not merely has the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "unusual step"), its numbers apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Take the government's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on 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.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks before the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, and the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK had become less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, 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 justification, because those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have made other choices; she could have given other reasons, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it's a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, just not the kind Labour wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn a year in taxes – but the majority of this will not be spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of the additional revenue will instead provide Reeves a buffer against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" 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

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have been barking about how Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget for being a relief to their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

The government can make a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly given that lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget enables the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see that those folk with Labour badges might not couch it in such terms next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market as a tool of control over Labour MPs and the electorate. This is the reason the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It's why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Promise

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