🔗 Share this article

This allegation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has deceived the British public, spooking them to accept massive extra taxes that would be used for higher welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this isn't usual Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the stakes could be damaging. Just last week, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "disorderly". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This grave charge requires clear answers, therefore here is my assessment. Has the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available evidence, apparently not. She told no whoppers. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public about the factors informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the numbers demonstrate it.

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

Reeves has sustained a further hit to her standing, however, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is far stranger than the headlines indicate, and stretches wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies a story about what degree of influence you and I have over the running of our own country. This should concern everyone.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released recently some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she prepared the budget, the shock was immediate. Not only had the OBR never acted this way before (an "rare action"), its figures seemingly went against Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Consider the government's most "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated it would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Weeks before the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the main reason being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK had become less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied recently, that is basically what transpired at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us was her justification, because those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have chosen different options; she might have given other reasons, even during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not one the Labour party cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be paying another £26bn a year in taxes – and most of that will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, or happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of this extra cash will instead give Reeves cushion for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have been railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget for being a relief to their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case for itself. The margins from the OBR were too small to feel secure, particularly given that lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries way more 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 central bank to cut its key lending rate.

You can see why those wearing Labour badges might not frame it in such terms when they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market as an instrument of discipline against Labour MPs and the voters. It's why the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision , a Broken Promise

What is absent from this is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,