🔗 Share this article

The charge is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled the British public, frightening them into accepting massive additional taxes that would be funneled into increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this is not typical Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "chaotic". Now, it's denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This serious charge requires clear responses, so let me provide my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On the available information, no. There were no blatant falsehoods. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the considerations shaping her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? No, and the figures demonstrate it.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Must Prevail

Reeves has taken another blow to her standing, however, if facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger than the headlines indicate, extending broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies an account about what degree of influence the public have over the governance of the nation. This should should worry you.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

After the OBR released recently some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she wrote the budget, the shock was instant. Not only has the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its numbers seemingly went against Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Take the Treasury's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR calculated this would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, with the primary cause being gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK was less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied recently, that is essentially what happened at the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She could have made other choices; she might have given alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "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 is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not the kind Labour cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn a year in taxes – but the majority of this will not be funding better hospitals, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will instead provide Reeves cushion against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on paying for the administration's U-turns. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, 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, because it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: The Bond Markets

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being a relief to their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case in its defence. The margins from the OBR were too small to feel secure, especially considering bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan allows the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

You can see that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to couch it in such terms when they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets to act as a tool of discipline over her own party and the voters. It's the reason the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It's why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing here is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,