🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves has deceived Britons, frightening them into accepting massive extra taxes that would be used for higher welfare payments. However exaggerated, this is not usual political sparring; this time, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a shambles". Today, it's denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave accusation demands clear responses, so let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? Based on current information, no. She told no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations informing her choices. Was it to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the numbers prove it.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Blow, But Facts Must Prevail

Reeves has sustained a further blow to her standing, however, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Maybe the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is much more unusual compared to the headlines indicate, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, herein lies an account concerning how much say the public get in the running of our own country. This should concern everyone.

First, on to the Core Details

After the OBR published last Friday some of the projections it shared with Reeves while she wrote the budget, the surprise was instant. Not merely has the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "rare action"), 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.

Take the Treasury's most "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned this would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary that it caused morning television to break from its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK was less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, this is essentially what happened at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, since these OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have chosen other choices; she might have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged 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 is powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as a technocrat buffeted by factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not the kind the Labour party wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn a year in tax – but the majority of this will not be spent on improved healthcare, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of the extra cash will in fact give Reeves a buffer against her own fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the government's own U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to fund shirkers. Party MPs are cheering her budget for being a relief to their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

The government can make a strong case for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, particularly given that bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those folk with red rosettes may choose not to frame it this way next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets to act as an instrument of discipline over her own party and the voters. This is the reason the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It's why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft , a Broken Promise

What is absent from this is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,