🔗 Share this article

The charge is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have misled UK citizens, spooking them into accepting billions in extra taxes which could be used for higher benefits. However exaggerated, this is not typical Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "chaotic". Now, it's denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious charge requires straightforward responses, therefore let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor been dishonest? On the available evidence, apparently not. There were no blatant falsehoods. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the factors informing her decisions. Was it to funnel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories claim? No, as the numbers prove it.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Blow, Yet Truth Must Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained another hit to her reputation, however, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is much more unusual than media reports indicate, extending wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies a story about how much say the public have over the governance of the nation. And it should worry you.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

When the OBR published last Friday a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves while she prepared the red book, the surprise was instant. Not merely had the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its figures seemingly went against Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Take the Treasury's most "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated this would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the primary cause being pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK was less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied recently, this is basically what transpired during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she might have provided alternative explanations, even during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it's a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, just not the kind Labour cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn a year in taxes – and the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, over 50% of this extra cash will in fact provide Reeves a buffer against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have been railing against the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs have been cheering her budget as balm to their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

The government could present a compelling argument in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, particularly given that bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan enables the central bank to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable why those wearing red rosettes might not couch it in such terms when they visit #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets as a tool of discipline against her own party and the voters. It's the reason Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft , a Broken Pledge

What is absent here is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,