🔗 Share this article

This accusation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to the British public, frightening them to accept massive extra taxes that could be funneled into increased benefits. While hyperbolic, this isn't typical political bickering; this time, the stakes are higher. Just last week, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "uncoordinated". Now, it is denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a serious accusation requires clear responses, so here is my assessment. Did the chancellor tell lies? On the available evidence, no. She told no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations shaping her choices. Was this all to channel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? No, as the numbers prove it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Blow, Yet Truth Must Prevail

The Chancellor has taken a further hit to her standing, but, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

But the real story is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies an account about what degree of influence you and I get in the running of our own country. This should concern you.

First, to the Core Details

After the OBR released recently a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves as she prepared the red book, the shock was immediate. Not only had the OBR not done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its figures apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Take the Treasury's most "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned it would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks before the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the primary cause being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion suggesting the UK was less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, that is basically what happened during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, because those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have chosen other choices; she could have provided alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is a lack of agency that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term 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, just not the kind Labour cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be paying another £26bn a year in taxes – but the majority of this will not be funding better hospitals, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, over 50% of this additional revenue will instead give Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on covering the government's own U-turns. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have spent days barking about how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget as a relief for their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

The government can make a compelling argument in its defence. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, particularly considering lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the central bank to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable that those wearing red rosettes may choose not to frame it in such terms next time they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets as a tool of discipline over Labour MPs and the voters. This is the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which promises are broken. It is also why Labour MPs must fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Promise

What's missing here is the notion of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,