🔗 Share this article

The charge is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has deceived UK citizens, scaring them into accepting billions in additional taxes that would be used for increased benefits. However exaggerated, this isn't usual Westminster sparring; this time, the consequences could be damaging. Just last week, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a mess". Today, it is denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This grave charge requires straightforward answers, therefore let me provide my view. Did the chancellor lied? On current evidence, no. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the considerations shaping her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories assert? No, as the numbers demonstrate this.

A Standing Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Should Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained a further blow to her reputation, however, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

But the real story is much more unusual compared to media reports indicate, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies an account about what degree of influence the public get over the governance of our own country. And it should worry everyone.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published recently a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves while she prepared the red book, the surprise was instant. Not only has the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently went against the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Take the government's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned it would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks before the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK had become less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, this is essentially what happened at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

Where Reeves misled us was her alibi, since these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have made other choices; she might have provided alternative explanations, even during the statement. 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."

A year on, yet it's a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not one Labour cares to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers and businesses will be paying an additional £26bn a year in taxes – but most of that will not go towards spent on better hospitals, new libraries, nor happier lives. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of the extra cash will instead give Reeves a buffer for her own budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

Conservatives, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to fund shirkers. Party MPs have been cheering her budget as a relief for their social concerns, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Both sides are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, especially considering bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Combined with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan allows the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

You can see why those folk with Labour badges may choose not to couch it in such terms when they visit #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as a tool of control over her own party and the voters. It's why the chancellor can't resign, no matter what promises are broken. It's why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing from this is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,