🔗 Share this article

This charge represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have misled the British public, spooking them into accepting billions in additional taxes which would be spent on increased benefits. However hyperbolic, this is not usual political bickering; on this occasion, the stakes could be damaging. A week ago, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "disorderly". Today, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious accusation requires clear answers, therefore let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? On current evidence, apparently not. She told no whoppers. 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 misinform the public regarding the considerations shaping her choices. Was this all to channel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, as the figures demonstrate this.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Hit, But Facts Should Prevail

Reeves has taken a further hit to her standing, but, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger than media reports suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, herein lies a story about what degree of influence you and I have in the running of our own country. This should should worry you.

First, to the Core Details

After the OBR released recently some of the projections it shared with Reeves while she prepared the red book, the shock was immediate. Not only has the OBR never acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its figures seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

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

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary that it caused morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks before the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the main reason cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, this is basically what happened at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us was her justification, since those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have made different options; she could have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility 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 buffeted by factors beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not the kind Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting 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 be spent on better hospitals, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of this additional revenue will in fact give Reeves cushion against her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have been railing against how Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget for being a relief for their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were too small for comfort, especially given that lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget enables the central bank to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable that those folk with Labour badges might not frame it in such terms next time they visit the doorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets to act as a tool of discipline against her own party and the voters. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It's why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent from this is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,