🔗 Share this article

This charge is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has misled UK citizens, frightening them into accepting massive extra taxes which could be funneled into increased welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this is not typical Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a mess". Now, it's branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave charge demands straightforward answers, so here is my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? On current evidence, no. There were no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the considerations shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures prove it.

A Reputation Takes A Further Blow, But Facts Must Win Out

Reeves has taken a further hit to her standing, but, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is much more unusual compared to the headlines indicate, extending wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, herein lies a story about how much say the public have over the running of our own country. This should concern you.

Firstly, to the Core Details

After the OBR published recently a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she wrote the red book, the shock was instant. Not merely had the OBR not acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its figures seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Take the government's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated this would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented that it caused morning television to break from its usual fare. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, and the primary cause being gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, that is essentially what transpired at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us was her justification, because those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have chosen different options; she might have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it's powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be a technocrat buffeted by factors beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, only not one Labour wishes to publicize. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn annually in taxes – but most of that will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of this extra cash will in fact give Reeves cushion against her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget as a relief to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

The government can make a strong case in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, particularly considering bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Combined with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget enables the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

It's understandable why those folk with red rosettes might not frame it in such terms next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets as an instrument of discipline over her own party and the voters. This is the reason Reeves can't resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent here is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,