🔗 Share this article

The charge carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has misled the British public, frightening them into accepting massive extra taxes which would be used for higher benefits. However exaggerated, this isn't usual Westminster bickering; this time, the stakes are higher. Just last week, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "chaotic". Now, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

Such a grave charge requires clear answers, therefore here is my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On current information, apparently not. There were no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here 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, as the figures prove this.

A Reputation Takes Another Hit, But Facts Must Win Out

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her standing, but, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is much more unusual compared to media reports indicate, and stretches wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, this is a story about what degree of influence you and I have in the governance of our own country. This should should worry everyone.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

When the OBR published recently a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves as she prepared the red book, the shock was instant. Not merely had the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its figures seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned it would just about be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK was less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied recently, this is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, since those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have made other choices; she might have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it is a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be a technocrat buffeted by forces beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not the kind Labour cares to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn annually in tax – and most of that will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, public services, or happier lives. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of this extra cash will instead provide Reeves a buffer against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to fund shirkers. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being balm to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed too small for comfort, especially given that bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan enables the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those folk with Labour badges might not frame it this way next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as a tool of control over Labour MPs and the voters. This is why Reeves can't resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It is also why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft , a Broken Pledge

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