🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived Britons, frightening them to accept billions in additional taxes that could be used for increased welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this isn't typical political sparring; this time, the stakes are higher. A week ago, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a mess". Now, it is branded as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

This serious accusation requires clear answers, therefore here is my view. Has the chancellor lied? On the available evidence, apparently not. There were no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there's nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the considerations informing her choices. Was this all to channel cash to "benefits street", like the Tories assert? No, and the figures demonstrate this.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Must Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained another blow to her reputation, however, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its own documents will satisfy SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, and stretches wider and further than the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies an account about what degree of influence you and I get in the governance of the nation. And it concern you.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR released last Friday some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she wrote the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not only had the OBR never done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated it would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the main reason being gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK was less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And so! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied recently, this is essentially what happened during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, because these OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have chosen other choices; she might have given alternative explanations, even during the statement. Before the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it's a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, only not one the Labour party cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be paying another £26bn a year in tax – and most of that will not be spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or happier lives. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than going on services, over 50% of this additional revenue will instead give Reeves a buffer against her own budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on paying for the administration's policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always an act of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget for being a relief to their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, especially considering bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan allows the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

You can see that those folk with Labour badges may choose not to couch it this way next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets as a tool of control over Labour MPs and the electorate. It's the reason the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs will have to knuckle down and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Political Vision , a Broken Pledge

What's missing here is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,