🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, frightening them to accept massive additional taxes which could be funneled into higher benefits. However exaggerated, this isn't typical Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the stakes are higher. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a shambles". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

This serious charge requires clear answers, so here is my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On the available evidence, apparently not. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, despite Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public about the considerations informing her choices. Was this all to funnel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? No, and the numbers demonstrate this.

A Standing Takes A Further Hit, Yet Truth Should Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained another hit to her reputation, but, if facts continue to have anything to do with 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 quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is much more unusual compared to media reports indicate, extending broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and the class of '24. At its heart, this is a story concerning how much say the public get over the governance of the nation. And it concern everyone.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR released recently a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves while she wrote the budget, the shock was immediate. Not merely has the OBR not acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its figures apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated it would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary it forced morning television to break from its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, and the main reason being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK was less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied over the weekend, this is essentially what transpired during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, because those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have made other choices; she might have provided other reasons, including during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not the kind the Labour party cares to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be paying another £26bn a year in taxes – but most of that will not go towards funding better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of this extra cash will instead give Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have been barking about how Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget as a relief to their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, especially given that lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan allows the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to couch it in such terms when they're on the doorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market as an instrument of control over Labour MPs and the voters. This is why the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It's why Labour MPs must fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft and a Broken Promise

What's missing here is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is any innate understanding of voters,