🔗 Share this article

The charge is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived the British public, spooking them into accepting massive additional taxes that would be funneled into increased benefits. However exaggerated, this isn't usual political sparring; this time, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "disorderly". Today, it's branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This grave charge requires straightforward answers, so here is my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? Based on the available evidence, apparently not. She told no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the considerations informing her choices. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? No, as the numbers prove it.

A Standing Sustains A Further Blow, Yet Truth Must Win Out

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her standing, but, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is much more unusual than the headlines indicate, and stretches wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, this is an account concerning how much say the public have over the running of our own country. And it concern you.

Firstly, to the Core Details

After the OBR released last Friday a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves while she wrote the budget, the surprise was instant. Not merely has the OBR never acted this way before (an "rare action"), its numbers apparently went against Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Consider the government's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned this would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the main reason cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, this is basically what transpired at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her justification, since those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have made other choices; she might have provided alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it's a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, only not the kind Labour cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn annually in taxes – but most of that will not be funding better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will instead provide Reeves a buffer for her own fiscal rules. About 25% goes on paying for the government's own U-turns. 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 genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being a relief for their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

The government could present a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, particularly considering lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget enables the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those folk with red rosettes may choose not to couch it in such terms when they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets to act as an instrument of discipline over her own party and the electorate. This is why Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It's why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing from this is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,