🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has deceived UK citizens, scaring them into accepting billions in extra taxes that would be spent on increased welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this isn't typical Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the stakes are higher. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "uncoordinated". Now, it's branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave accusation requires clear responses, so here is my assessment. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available evidence, no. She told no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the considerations informing her decisions. Was this all to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the numbers demonstrate this.

A Standing Takes A Further Hit, But Facts Must Prevail

The Chancellor has taken another hit to her standing, but, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

But the true narrative is far stranger than the headlines indicate, extending broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, this is an account concerning how much say you and I have over the governance of our own country. This should concern you.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released last Friday a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves as she wrote the red book, the shock was instant. Not merely has the OBR never acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Consider the government's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly 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 press conference so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks before the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, and the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK had become less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested over the weekend, this is essentially what transpired at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, because these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have made other choices; she could have provided other reasons, including on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it's powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not the kind the Labour party cares to publicize. From April 2029 British workers and businesses will be contributing another £26bn a year in taxes – but the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, nor happier lives. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of this extra cash will in fact give Reeves cushion against her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% goes on covering the administration's U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget as balm to their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

The government can make a compelling argument for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, especially considering bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan allows the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

You can see why those folk with red rosettes may choose not to frame it in such terms next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets to act as an instrument of control over her own party and the electorate. It's why Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It is also the reason 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 Statecraft and a Broken Promise

What's missing here is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,