🔗 Share this article

The charge is a serious one: that Rachel Reeves may have misled Britons, spooking them to accept massive additional taxes that would be spent on higher welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this isn't typical political bickering; this time, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "disorderly". Today, it is branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

This serious charge requires clear responses, so here is my view. Did the chancellor lied? Based on current information, apparently not. She told no major untruths. But, despite Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there is no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the considerations shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, and the numbers demonstrate this.

A Standing Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Must Prevail

The Chancellor has taken another hit to her standing, but, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

But the real story is much more unusual than the headlines indicate, extending wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, this is a story concerning how much say the public get in the governance of the nation. And it concern everyone.

First, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released last Friday a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves as she prepared the red book, the shock was instant. Not only has the OBR never acted this way before (an "rare action"), its numbers apparently went against Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's most "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned it would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks before the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK had become less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied recently, that is basically what transpired during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her alibi, since those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have made different options; she could have given other reasons, even during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential 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 casts herself as a technocrat buffeted by forces outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, just not the kind Labour wishes to publicize. From April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn annually in taxes – and the majority of this will not be spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or happier lives. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of the additional revenue will instead give Reeves cushion for her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have been barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been cheering her budget for being a relief for their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly given that lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget enables the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable why those wearing Labour badges might not couch it in such terms when they're on #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets as an instrument of discipline against Labour MPs and the electorate. It's why Reeves can't resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft , a Broken Pledge

What's missing from this is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,