🔗 Share this article

This allegation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived UK citizens, scaring them to accept billions in additional taxes which could be used for higher welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this isn't usual political bickering; this time, the consequences are higher. Just last week, critics of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a mess". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious charge requires straightforward responses, so let me provide my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On the available information, no. She told no blatant falsehoods. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the factors shaping her choices. Was this all to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? No, as the numbers demonstrate this.

A Standing Takes Another Hit, But Facts Should Prevail

Reeves has sustained another blow to her standing, but, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, extending wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, this is a story concerning what degree of influence you and I get in the running of our own country. And it concern you.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR published recently some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she prepared the budget, the shock was immediate. Not merely has the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were improving.

Consider the government's most "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned this would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the real budget, the country was warned: taxes would rise, and the main reason cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied recently, that is basically what happened at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

Where Reeves misled us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have made different options; she could have given alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be a technocrat buffeted by forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not one Labour cares to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn a year in taxes – and the majority of this will not be funding better hospitals, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will instead give Reeves a buffer for her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, for example scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of political theatre from 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 railing against the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget for being a relief for their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument for itself. The margins from the OBR were too small for comfort, especially given that lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Combined with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan enables the Bank of England to reduce interest rates.

You can see why those wearing red rosettes might not frame it this way next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets as a tool of control against Labour MPs and the voters. This is the reason the chancellor can't resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It's why Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing here is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is any intuitive knowledge of voters,