🔗 Share this article

This allegation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have deceived UK citizens, spooking them into accepting billions in additional taxes that could be funneled into higher welfare payments. However exaggerated, this isn't typical political bickering; this time, the consequences are higher. Just last week, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were calling their budget "disorderly". Today, it is branded as lies, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

This serious charge demands straightforward answers, therefore let me provide my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? Based on current evidence, apparently not. There were no whoppers. But, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the factors informing her decisions. Was this all to channel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories assert? No, and the figures prove it.

A Standing Sustains Another Hit, But Facts Must Prevail

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her standing, but, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is much more unusual compared to media reports suggest, extending wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, herein lies a story about how much say you and I get in the governance of the nation. This should concern everyone.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR published recently a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves while she prepared the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not only had the OBR not done such a thing before (an "exceptional move"), its figures seemingly 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 getting better.

Consider the government's most "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest must be completely funded by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned it would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a press conference so unprecedented it forced breakfast TV to break from its regular schedule. Weeks prior to the real budget, the country was warned: taxes were going up, and the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK had become less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And so! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, this is basically what transpired at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, because those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have chosen different options; she could have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it's a lack of agency that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges on our productivity … any finance minister of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not the kind Labour cares to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses will be contributing an additional £26bn a year in taxes – and the majority of this will not go towards funding improved healthcare, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, over 50% of the extra cash will in fact give Reeves cushion against her self-imposed fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, such as abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, because it was always an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have spent days barking about how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to fund shirkers. Party MPs have been applauding her budget for being balm to their social concerns, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group are completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

The government can make a strong case for itself. The margins from the OBR were too small to feel secure, especially considering bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, higher than Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue their plan allows the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those folk with red rosettes may choose not to frame it this way next time they're on #Labourdoorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets as an instrument of control against Labour MPs and the electorate. It's why Reeves cannot resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It's the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

A Lack of Statecraft and an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent here is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to forge a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is innate understanding of voters,