🔗 Share this article

This charge represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has deceived the British public, scaring them into accepting billions in additional taxes that would be spent on higher welfare payments. While exaggerated, this isn't usual political sparring; on this occasion, the stakes could be damaging. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

This serious accusation demands clear responses, therefore let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? Based on current information, apparently not. There were no major untruths. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the factors informing her choices. Was it to funnel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the numbers prove it.

A Reputation Takes Another Hit, But Facts Should Win Out

Reeves has taken another hit to her reputation, but, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is far stranger than media reports suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies an account about how much say you and I get over the governance of the nation. This should should worry you.

First, to the Core Details

After the OBR published last Friday some of the projections it provided to Reeves as she wrote the red book, the surprise was instant. Not merely has the OBR not acted this way before (an "unusual step"), 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 OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

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

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented it forced morning television to break from its usual fare. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK had become less efficient, putting more in 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 essentially what transpired during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, because those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have made different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it is a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be a technocrat buffeted by forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, only not one the Labour party wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn annually in taxes – and the majority of this will not be funding better hospitals, new libraries, nor happier lives. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than going on services, over 50% of the extra cash will instead give Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to covering the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have spent days barking about how Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to fund the workshy. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget for being a relief for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

The government could present a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, particularly given that lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

You can see why those folk with red rosettes might not couch it in such terms next time they're on the doorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets to act as an instrument of control over Labour MPs and the voters. This is why Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It's why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Statecraft and a Broken Pledge

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,