🔗 Share this article

The accusation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has deceived Britons, spooking them into accepting billions in additional taxes that would be used for higher welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this is not typical political sparring; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. A week ago, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a serious accusation requires straightforward answers, therefore let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor lied? On the available evidence, apparently not. There were no major untruths. But, despite Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the considerations shaping her choices. Was this all to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? No, as the figures demonstrate this.

A Standing Sustains Another Hit, Yet Truth Must Prevail

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her reputation, however, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger compared to media reports suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, herein lies a story concerning how much say the public get in the governance of our own country. And it concern you.

First, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released last Friday some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she wrote the red book, the surprise was instant. Not merely has the OBR not done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its numbers apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated it would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused morning television to break from its usual fare. Weeks prior to the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK was less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, this is basically what happened during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves misled us concerned her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have chosen other choices; she could have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, only not the kind Labour wishes to publicize. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn a year in tax – and the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, or 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 Really Goes

Rather than being spent, over 50% of the extra cash will instead provide Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the government's own policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs have been applauding her budget for being balm for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were too small to feel secure, particularly considering bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget allows the central bank to cut interest rates.

You can see why those folk with red rosettes may choose not to couch it this way when they're on the doorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market as a tool of discipline over Labour MPs and the electorate. This is why the chancellor can't resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision , a Broken Pledge

What's missing from this is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,