🔗 Share this article

The charge carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has deceived Britons, spooking them to accept billions in extra taxes which could be used for increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this isn't typical political bickering; this time, the stakes are higher. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "disorderly". Now, it is denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious charge requires straightforward responses, so here is my assessment. Has the chancellor been dishonest? On current information, apparently not. She told no whoppers. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures demonstrate this.

A Standing Sustains A Further Blow, But Facts Must Prevail

Reeves has taken another blow to her reputation, but, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is much more unusual than the headlines indicate, extending broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies an account about how much say the public get in the governance of the nation. This should should worry you.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released last Friday a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves while she wrote the budget, the surprise was instant. Not merely had the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently went against Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Take the Treasury's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned this would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks before the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK was less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested recently, this is basically what happened during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us was her justification, because these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she could have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with 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, just not the kind the Labour party cares to publicize. From April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn annually in tax – but the majority of this will not be spent on improved healthcare, public services, or happier lives. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of this extra cash will instead give Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on covering the administration's policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform and the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to fund shirkers. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being a relief for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument in its defence. The margins from the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, particularly given that lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget enables the central bank to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable why those wearing Labour badges may choose not to couch it in such terms when they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets to act as an instrument of control over Labour MPs and the voters. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, no matter what promises are broken. It's why Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Political Vision , 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 investors. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,