🔗 Share this article

The allegation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to the British public, scaring them into accepting massive extra taxes which could be used for higher welfare payments. While exaggerated, this isn't typical Westminster bickering; this time, the stakes could be damaging. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it's branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor's resignation.

This serious accusation demands straightforward answers, therefore here is my assessment. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available evidence, apparently not. There were no blatant falsehoods. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the considerations shaping her decisions. Was this all to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, as the numbers prove this.

A Reputation Sustains Another Blow, Yet Truth Must Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained a further hit to her standing, but, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will quench Westminster's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger than the headlines suggest, extending broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies a story about how much say the public have over the running of the nation. And it should worry you.

First, on to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published last Friday a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves while she wrote the red book, the shock was instant. Not only has the OBR not done such a thing before (described as an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently went against Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the watchdog's forecasts were getting better.

Take the government's so-called "unbreakable" rule, stating 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 watchdog reckoned this would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, and the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK had become less productive, putting more in but yielding less.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite what Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances implied recently, that is basically what transpired at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves deceived us was her alibi, because those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have made other choices; she might have provided alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, facing the decisions that I face."

She did make decisions, only not one the Labour party cares to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be paying an additional £26bn a year in taxes – but the majority of this will not go towards funding better hospitals, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of the extra cash will instead provide Reeves cushion for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, a mere 17% of the tax take will go on genuinely additional spending, for example abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of political theatre by George Osborne. A Labour government could and should abolished it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and all of right-wing media have spent days barking about how Reeves conforms to the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are applauding her budget for being balm for their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case for itself. The forecasts from the OBR were insufficient for comfort, particularly given that lenders charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer and Reeves can say their plan allows the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable why those wearing red rosettes may choose not to frame it in such terms next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets as an instrument of control against her own party and the electorate. It's the reason the chancellor can't resign, no matter what pledges she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated yesterday.

Missing Political Vision , a Broken Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,