🔗 Share this article

This accusation is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves has misled UK citizens, spooking them to accept massive additional taxes which could be used for higher welfare payments. While exaggerated, this is not typical political bickering; this time, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "uncoordinated". Now, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave accusation demands straightforward responses, so let me provide my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On the available information, apparently not. There were no whoppers. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to funnel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the figures demonstrate it.

A Standing Takes A Further Hit, But Facts Must Win Out

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her reputation, however, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is much more unusual than media reports indicate, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, this is an account concerning what degree of influence you and I get over the running of the nation. And it should worry everyone.

First, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released last Friday a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves as she wrote the budget, the shock was instant. Not only had the OBR never done such a thing before (an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

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

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks before the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK was less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, this is basically what happened at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us was her alibi, since those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she might have provided alternative explanations, even during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself as an apolitical figure buffeted by factors outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, just not one Labour wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn annually in tax – and most of that will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Rather than being spent, over 50% of the additional revenue will in fact give Reeves a buffer for her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and the entire right-wing media have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget as a relief for their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, especially considering lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say this budget enables the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those wearing Labour badges might not frame it this way next time they visit the doorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets as a tool of discipline over Labour MPs and the electorate. This is the reason the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Political Vision , a Broken Pledge

What's missing here is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,