🔗 Share this article

This charge is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has misled UK citizens, spooking them to accept billions in additional taxes that could be spent on increased benefits. However hyperbolic, this isn't usual political bickering; this time, the consequences could be damaging. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "uncoordinated". Now, it's branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

This serious accusation requires straightforward responses, so here is my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? On the available evidence, apparently not. She told no major untruths. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we can all move along. Reeves did misinform the public about the considerations informing her choices. Was it to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the figures demonstrate this.

A Standing Takes Another Blow, Yet Truth Must Prevail

Reeves has sustained another hit to her standing, however, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is far stranger than the headlines indicate, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. Fundamentally, herein lies an account concerning how much say you and I have in the governance of the nation. This should concern you.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

When the OBR released last Friday some of the projections it provided to Reeves while she wrote the budget, the surprise was instant. Not only had the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly went against the chancellor's words. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the OBR's own forecasts were getting better.

Consider 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 watchdog calculated it would just about be met, albeit only by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused morning television to interrupt its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, with the main reason cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK had become less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

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

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves misled us was her alibi, since those OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have made different options; she could have provided alternative explanations, even during the statement. Prior to the recent 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 from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half portrays herself to be a technocrat buffeted by forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, only not one Labour cares to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn annually in tax – and most of that will not be funding better hospitals, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of this additional revenue will in fact give Reeves cushion against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to covering the government's own policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of political theatre by George Osborne. This administration should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have been railing against how Reeves fits the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget as a relief for their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

The government can make a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, especially given that lenders charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan enables the central bank to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those wearing red rosettes may choose not to frame it this way when they visit #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets as a tool of control against Labour MPs and the voters. It's the reason Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It's the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

A Lack of Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent from this is the notion of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,