🔗 Share this article

The charge is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has deceived UK citizens, frightening them into accepting billions in additional taxes which could be used for increased benefits. However hyperbolic, this isn't usual Westminster sparring; this time, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a mess". Today, it is branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave charge requires clear responses, so let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor been dishonest? On the available evidence, no. There were no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent 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 shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the numbers prove it.

A Standing Sustains Another Hit, Yet Truth Must Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained another hit to her standing, however, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, this is a story about how much say the public get in the running of the nation. And it concern everyone.

Firstly, to the Core Details

After the OBR published recently a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she prepared the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not merely had the OBR not done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its numbers apparently went against the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going 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 on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated it would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented it forced morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, with the main reason cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied recently, that is basically what transpired during the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, since those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have chosen other choices; she might have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The power 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. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not one the Labour party wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be contributing another £26bn a year in tax – and most of that will not go towards funding better hospitals, new libraries, or happier lives. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves cushion against her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the administration's U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration 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 barking about the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs are cheering her budget for being balm to their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, particularly given that bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

You can see why those wearing Labour badges may choose not to frame it this way next time they visit the doorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market to act as an instrument of discipline against her own party and the electorate. It's why Reeves cannot resign, no matter what promises are broken. It is also why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Statecraft and a Broken Pledge

What is absent from this is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,