🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has deceived the British public, frightening them into accepting billions in extra taxes which would be funneled into increased welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this isn't typical Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a shambles". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This serious charge demands straightforward answers, so let me provide my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On the available evidence, no. She told no blatant falsehoods. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public about the factors shaping her decisions. Was it to funnel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories assert? No, and the figures demonstrate it.

A Standing Sustains Another Hit, Yet Truth Must Win Out

Reeves has sustained another blow to her standing, however, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

But the real story is much more unusual than media reports suggest, extending broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, herein lies a story about how much say you and I get over the governance of our own country. And it should worry you.

First, to the Core Details

After the OBR published recently some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves as she prepared the budget, the surprise was instant. Not merely had the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures apparently went against the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Take the government's most "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated it would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused morning television to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks before the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK was less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, that is basically what happened during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, since those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have chosen other choices; she might have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it is powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be a technocrat buffeted by forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not one the Labour party cares to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be contributing another £26bn a year in tax – and most of that will not be funding better hospitals, new libraries, nor happier lives. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will instead give Reeves a buffer for her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget for being balm for their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, especially given that bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan allows the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see that those wearing Labour badges may choose not to frame it in such terms next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets to act as an instrument of discipline over her own party and the electorate. It's the reason the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision and a Broken Pledge

What is absent here is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,