🔗 Share this article

The charge carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived UK citizens, scaring them to accept billions in extra taxes that could be used for higher welfare payments. While exaggerated, this isn't typical political bickering; this time, the stakes could be damaging. A week ago, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a mess". Now, it's branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This grave accusation demands straightforward answers, therefore here is my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? On current information, apparently not. There were no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the factors informing her choices. Was it to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories claim? No, as the numbers prove this.

A Standing Sustains Another Hit, Yet Truth Must Win Out

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her reputation, however, if facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench Westminster's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is far stranger compared to the headlines suggest, and stretches wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, this is an account about how much say the public have in the governance of the nation. And it should worry you.

First, to the Core Details

After the OBR released recently a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she wrote the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not merely had the OBR never done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its numbers seemingly went against the chancellor's words. While rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Consider the government's most "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR calculated this would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused morning television to break from its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, with the primary cause being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK had become less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, this is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves misled us was her justification, since these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have chosen different options; she might have provided other reasons, including during the statement. 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."

A year on, and it's a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as a technocrat at the mercy of forces 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, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, only not one the Labour party wishes to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be contributing another £26bn annually in tax – but most of that will not be funding better hospitals, new libraries, nor happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Really Goes

Rather than being spent, over 50% of the additional revenue will instead provide Reeves a buffer for her own budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the administration's policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, only 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to spend on the workshy. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget for being balm for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a compelling argument for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, particularly considering bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost its leader, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget allows the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

You can see why those folk with red rosettes might not couch it in such terms when they visit #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market as an instrument of control against her own party and the voters. This is why the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent here is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,