🔗 Share this article

The charge is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have misled UK citizens, spooking them into accepting billions in additional taxes that could be funneled into increased welfare payments. While exaggerated, this is not usual political sparring; this time, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it's branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious charge demands straightforward answers, so here is my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available information, no. She told no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public about the factors informing her decisions. Was it to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the figures demonstrate it.

A Standing Sustains Another Blow, Yet Truth Should Prevail

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her standing, but, should facts continue to have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is far stranger than media reports indicate, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is a story about how much say you and I get over the governance of our own country. And it concern you.

First, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released last Friday some of the forecasts it shared with Reeves while she wrote the budget, the surprise was instant. Not only had the OBR not done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently went against the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Take the government's most "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated this would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the main reason being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK had become less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested recently, this is essentially what transpired at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have made different options; she might have given other reasons, including during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer promised 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 is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by factors outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not the kind the Labour party wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn a year in taxes – and the majority of this will not go towards funding better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, over 50% of the extra cash will instead provide Reeves a buffer against her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible to Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and all of right-wing media have been railing against the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs have been cheering her budget as balm to their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case for itself. The margins from the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, particularly given that lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan allows the central bank to cut interest rates.

You can see that those wearing Labour badges may choose not to frame it in such terms when they're on #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" the bond market as a tool of discipline over her own party and the electorate. This is why the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Political Vision , a Broken Pledge

What is absent from this is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,