🔗 Share this article

The allegation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves has deceived the British public, frightening them into accepting billions in extra taxes which could be used for higher benefits. While hyperbolic, this isn't typical Westminster sparring; this time, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a shambles". Today, it is branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

This grave charge demands straightforward answers, therefore let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available information, apparently not. She told no whoppers. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did misinform the public about the factors shaping her choices. Was this all to channel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? No, as the figures demonstrate it.

A Reputation Takes Another Blow, But Facts Should Win Out

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

But the true narrative is much more unusual than media reports suggest, and stretches wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, this is an account concerning how much say the public get in the running of the nation. This should concern everyone.

Firstly, to the Core Details

When the OBR released last Friday some of the projections it provided to Reeves while she wrote the budget, the shock was immediate. Not merely had the OBR never acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers seemingly went against Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog calculated it would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary that it caused morning television to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks before the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the main reason being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its conclusion that the UK was less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, this is essentially what happened at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, since these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have made different options; she might have given alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it is powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as a technocrat buffeted by forces beyond her control: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, just not one the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be paying another £26bn a year in tax – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, public services, nor happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Instead of being spent, over 50% of the additional revenue will instead give Reeves cushion for her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs are cheering her budget for being balm to their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Each group are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case for itself. The margins from the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, particularly considering lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget allows the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those wearing red rosettes might not frame it this way when they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets to act as an instrument of control over Labour MPs and the electorate. It's the reason the chancellor cannot resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It is also why Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Statecraft , an Unfulfilled Pledge

What is absent here is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,