🔗 Share this article

The allegation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves has deceived Britons, frightening them into accepting massive extra taxes which could be used for higher welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this is not usual Westminster sparring; this time, the consequences could be damaging. A week ago, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "uncoordinated". Today, it is branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for the chancellor to quit.

This grave charge demands clear answers, therefore let me provide my view. Did the chancellor tell lies? Based on current information, apparently not. She told no whoppers. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there is no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public about the considerations informing her choices. Was this all to funnel cash towards "benefits street", like the Tories assert? No, and the numbers prove it.

A Standing Takes Another Blow, But Facts Should Win Out

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her standing, however, if facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Maybe the stepping down recently of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the leak of its internal documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the real story is far stranger than media reports suggest, extending wider and further beyond the careers of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies an account about what degree of influence the public have in the governance of the nation. This should concern everyone.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

After the OBR published last Friday a portion of the projections it provided to Reeves as she prepared the red book, the shock was instant. Not only had the OBR not acted this way before (an "exceptional move"), its numbers apparently went against Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the OBR's own forecasts were improving.

Take the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" rule, that by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned this would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused morning television to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, and the primary cause being gloomy numbers from the OBR, specifically its conclusion suggesting the UK had become less efficient, putting more in but getting less out.

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

The Misleading Justification

The way in which Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, because those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have made other choices; she could have given alternative explanations, including on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, and it's powerlessness that is evident in Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be standing here today, facing the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, only not one Labour wishes to broadcast. Starting April 2029 UK workers and businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn a year in taxes – but most of that will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what nonsense is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of the additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves cushion for her own budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to covering the government's own policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will fund genuinely additional spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it had long been an act of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and the entire Blue Pravda have been barking about how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, taxing strivers to fund the workshy. Party MPs have been cheering her budget for being balm to their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Both sides are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were insufficient for comfort, particularly considering bond investors demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost its leader, and exceeding Japan that carries way more debt. Coupled with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget allows the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

You can see that those wearing Labour badges might not frame it this way next time they visit the doorstep. As one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets as a tool of discipline against Labour MPs and the voters. It's why the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs must fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Political Vision , a Broken Pledge

What is absent from this is any sense of strategic governance, of mobilising the Treasury and the central bank to forge a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,