🔗 Share this article

The accusation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has deceived Britons, spooking them into accepting massive additional taxes which could be used for higher benefits. While hyperbolic, this is not usual political sparring; this time, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a shambles". Today, it's branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious accusation requires clear responses, therefore let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? On the available information, apparently not. There were no whoppers. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the factors informing her choices. Was it to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories assert? No, and the figures demonstrate this.

A Standing Takes Another Hit, Yet Truth Should Prevail

The Chancellor has taken a further hit to her reputation, but, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is much more unusual compared to the headlines indicate, extending broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is an account concerning how much say you and I have in the governance of the nation. And it concern everyone.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

When the OBR published last Friday a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves while she prepared the budget, the surprise was instant. Not only has the OBR never acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Take the Treasury's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned it would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK was less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, this is basically what happened at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, because these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she might have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it is a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, only not the kind Labour cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn a year in tax – and the majority of this will not be funding improved healthcare, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will instead provide Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the administration's policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have been railing against how Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget as balm to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards 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 to feel secure, especially considering lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

You can see why those folk with red rosettes may choose not to frame it in such terms when they're on the doorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market to act as an instrument of control over her own party and the electorate. It's why Reeves cannot resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Statecraft and a Broken Promise

What is absent from this is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,