🔗 Share this article

This accusation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to the British public, frightening them into accepting billions in extra taxes that could be used for higher benefits. While exaggerated, this isn't usual Westminster sparring; this time, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "chaotic". Today, it is branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

Such a serious charge demands clear answers, so let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? On the available information, no. There were no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did misinform the public regarding the considerations shaping her decisions. Was it to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the figures prove this.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Hit, Yet Truth Must Prevail

Reeves has sustained a further blow to her standing, but, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should stand down her attack dogs. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is much more unusual compared to the headlines indicate, and stretches broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies an account about what degree of influence you and I have over the running of our own country. This should concern everyone.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR published recently a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves as she prepared the budget, the shock was immediate. Not merely has the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently contradicted the chancellor's words. While leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Consider the Treasury's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated this would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the main reason being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding suggesting the UK had become less productive, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Notwithstanding what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied recently, this is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her justification, because these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have made different options; she might have given alternative explanations, including during the statement. Before last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such public influence. "The hope of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, yet it is a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make a choice, only not one the Labour party cares to broadcast. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be paying another £26bn a year in tax – and the majority of this will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or happier lives. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Rather than being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will instead provide 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 a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have spent days railing against how Reeves fits the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget for being a relief to their social concerns, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely targeted towards investment funds, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

The government can make a strong case for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, especially considering lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with our measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer and Reeves argue their plan allows the Bank of England to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those folk with red rosettes might not frame it this way next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets as an instrument of control over her own party and the voters. It's why the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It is also the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Pledge

What's missing from this is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is any intuitive knowledge of voters,