🔗 Share this article

The accusation carries significant weight: suggesting Rachel Reeves may have lied to the British public, frightening them to accept billions in extra taxes that would be used for increased welfare payments. While exaggerated, this is not usual Westminster bickering; this time, the consequences are higher. A week ago, detractors aimed at Reeves and Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a mess". Today, it is denounced as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

This serious charge demands clear answers, therefore let me provide my view. Has the chancellor lied? Based on the available information, no. She told no whoppers. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent comments, it doesn't follow that there is nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the considerations informing her decisions. Was this all to channel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? Certainly not, and the numbers demonstrate it.

A Reputation Sustains Another Hit, But Facts Must Win Out

Reeves has sustained another hit to her standing, but, should facts continue to 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.

Yet the real story is far stranger compared to the headlines suggest, and stretches broader and deeper beyond the political futures of Starmer and his class of '24. At its heart, this is an account about how much say the public get over the governance of the nation. This should concern everyone.

Firstly, to the Core Details

After the OBR released recently some of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she wrote the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not only has the OBR never done such a thing before (an "rare action"), its figures apparently contradicted Reeves's statements. While leaks from Westminster were about how bleak the budget was going to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Consider the Treasury's most "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned it would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so extraordinary it forced breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Several weeks before the actual budget, the country was put on alert: taxes were going up, with the primary cause cited as pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK was less efficient, investing more but yielding less.

And so! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, that is essentially what transpired at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, since these OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She could have chosen other choices; she could have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, and it is powerlessness that is evident from Reeves's breakfast speech. Our first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, only not the kind the Labour party wishes to publicize. From April 2029 British workers as well as businesses are set to be paying another £26bn a year in taxes – and most of that will not be funding improved healthcare, new libraries, nor happier lives. Regardless of what nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, over 50% of this additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves a buffer against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the government's own policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will go on actual new spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury a mere £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. This administration could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with the entire Blue Pravda have been barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking strivers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers have been applauding her budget as a relief for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the financial markets.

Downing Street can make a compelling argument in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were deemed insufficient for comfort, particularly considering bond investors charge the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost its leader, and exceeding Japan which has way more debt. Coupled with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the central bank to reduce interest rates.

It's understandable why those wearing red rosettes may choose not to couch it this way next time they visit the doorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" financial markets to act as a tool of discipline against her own party and the electorate. This is why Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Political Vision , a Broken Promise

What's missing here is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to reach a new accommodation with markets. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,