🔗 Share this article

The accusation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves has deceived Britons, scaring them into accepting massive extra taxes which could be spent on higher benefits. While exaggerated, this isn't typical political bickering; on this occasion, the consequences are higher. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "a shambles". Today, it is branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

Such a serious accusation requires straightforward responses, so here is my view. Has the chancellor lied? Based on current information, no. There were no whoppers. However, despite Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the numbers prove it.

A Standing Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Must Win Out

Reeves has sustained another hit to her reputation, but, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is far stranger than the headlines suggest, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, this is a story concerning how much say you and I get over the governance of the nation. This should concern you.

Firstly, on to Brass Tacks

When the OBR published last Friday some of the projections it shared with Reeves while she wrote the red book, the surprise was instant. Not only had the OBR not done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently went against Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Take the government's so-called "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned this would barely be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, and the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK was less efficient, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied recently, that is essentially what transpired at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

Where Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, because these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have chosen other choices; she could have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it's powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not the kind Labour wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn annually in taxes – and most of that will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, nor enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of being spent, over 50% of this additional revenue will instead provide Reeves cushion for her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always 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

The Tories, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being balm for their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument in its defence. The margins from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, especially given that lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate among G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Coupled with our measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue this budget allows the central bank to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable why those folk with red rosettes might not frame it this way next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets as a tool of control against her own party and the voters. This is the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It's why Labour MPs will have to fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Pledge

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