🔗 Share this article

This accusation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves has deceived UK citizens, spooking them into accepting massive additional taxes that could be spent on increased welfare payments. While exaggerated, this is not typical Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the stakes are higher. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a mess". Now, it is branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

This serious accusation requires clear answers, therefore here is my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available evidence, no. She told no major untruths. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public about the considerations shaping her choices. Was this all to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories assert? Certainly not, and the figures demonstrate this.

A Reputation Takes A Further Blow, Yet Truth Should Prevail

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her reputation, but, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is far stranger than media reports suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies an account about what degree of influence the public get in the running of our own country. And it concern you.

First, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released recently some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she wrote the budget, the shock was instant. Not merely had the OBR never acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently went against Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Consider the government's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned it would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented it forced morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks before the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the primary cause being gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK was less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested recently, that is basically what happened during the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves misled us was her justification, since those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She could have made other choices; she might have given alternative explanations, even during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's powerlessness that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be a technocrat buffeted by factors beyond her control: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not the kind the Labour party cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses will be paying another £26bn a year in tax – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on better hospitals, new libraries, or happier lives. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, over 50% of the additional revenue will in fact give Reeves cushion against her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% goes on covering the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it had long been a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to fund shirkers. Party MPs are cheering her budget for being balm for their social concerns, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides are completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

The government could present a strong case in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed too small to feel secure, especially considering lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Combined with the 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 interest rates.

It's understandable that those folk with red rosettes might not couch it in such terms next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets as an instrument of discipline over Labour MPs and the voters. It's the reason the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It's why Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Pledge

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