🔗 Share this article

The accusation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has misled UK citizens, frightening them into accepting massive extra taxes that could be used for higher welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this is not typical political bickering; on this occasion, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a mess". Today, it's branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

This serious charge requires straightforward responses, therefore here is my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on current evidence, no. She told no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the factors shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? No, as the figures demonstrate this.

A Reputation Takes A Further Hit, Yet Truth Should Win Out

Reeves has taken another blow to her reputation, however, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is far stranger compared to the headlines suggest, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies an account concerning how much say the public have in the governance of our own country. And it concern everyone.

First, to the Core Details

After the OBR published last Friday a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves while she wrote the red book, the surprise was instant. Not only has the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "exceptional move"), its numbers seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

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

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary it forced morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the main reason being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK was less productive, investing more but getting less out.

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

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have chosen other choices; she could have given alternative explanations, including during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not one the Labour party cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be paying an additional £26bn annually in taxes – and the majority of this will not be spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, nor happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of the additional revenue will instead give Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with all of right-wing media have been barking about how Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget as balm for their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, especially given that bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget allows the central bank to reduce interest rates.

You can see that those folk with Labour badges might not couch it this way next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets to act as an instrument of control against Labour MPs and the electorate. It's why Reeves can't resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent here is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,