🔗 Share this article

The accusation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, scaring them into accepting billions in additional taxes that would be used for higher welfare payments. However exaggerated, this isn't typical political bickering; on this occasion, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a mess". Now, it is denounced as lies, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave charge requires clear responses, therefore here is my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? On current evidence, apparently not. There were no whoppers. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the factors informing her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the figures prove it.

A Standing Sustains A Further Blow, Yet Truth Should Win Out

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her standing, however, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is much more unusual compared to media reports suggest, extending wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies an account about how much say you and I have over the running of our own country. And it should worry everyone.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR published last Friday some of the projections it shared with Reeves as she wrote the red book, the surprise was instant. Not merely has the OBR not acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently went against the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Take the Treasury's most "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated it would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK was less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, this is essentially what transpired at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, since those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have chosen different options; she could have provided alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it is powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, only not the kind Labour cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn a year in taxes – but most of that will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of this extra cash will instead provide Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have been barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget as a relief for their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, particularly given that lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget allows the central bank to cut interest rates.

You can see why those wearing red rosettes might not couch it in such terms next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as an instrument of control against her own party and the voters. It's why Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Statecraft and a Broken Promise

What is absent from this is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,