🔗 Share this article

The charge is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have misled Britons, frightening them into accepting billions in additional taxes that would be used for increased benefits. While hyperbolic, this isn't typical political sparring; this time, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "uncoordinated". Now, it's branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This serious charge requires straightforward responses, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available information, apparently not. There were no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? No, as the figures prove it.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Blow, But Facts Should Prevail

Reeves has sustained another blow to her standing, but, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the real story is far stranger than the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, this is an account about what degree of influence you and I have in the running of the nation. This should concern everyone.

First, to the Core Details

After the OBR published recently a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she prepared the red book, the surprise was instant. Not only has the OBR not acted this way before (described as an "unusual step"), its numbers apparently went against Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned it would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK was less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, that is essentially what transpired at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us was her alibi, because those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have made different options; she might have given alternative explanations, including during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by forces beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not one Labour cares to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn annually in taxes – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of going on services, over 50% of this additional revenue will instead provide Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the government's own policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget as balm for their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

The government can make a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, especially considering lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan allows the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

You can see that those folk with red rosettes may choose not to frame it this way next time they're on the doorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" the bond market to act as a tool of control over Labour MPs and the electorate. It's why Reeves can't resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Statecraft and a Broken Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,