🔗 Share this article

This allegation is a serious one: suggesting Rachel Reeves has deceived Britons, frightening them into accepting massive extra taxes that could be used for increased welfare payments. However exaggerated, this isn't typical Westminster bickering; this time, the stakes are higher. Just last week, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer were labeling their budget "disorderly". Now, it's denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

Such a serious accusation requires clear answers, so let me provide my view. Has the chancellor lied? Based on current evidence, apparently not. There were no major untruths. However, notwithstanding Starmer's recent remarks, that doesn't mean there's nothing to see and we can all move along. Reeves did mislead the public about the factors shaping her choices. Was it to channel cash to "welfare recipients", like the Tories claim? No, as the numbers prove it.

A Reputation Takes A Further Blow, But Facts Must Prevail

The Chancellor has taken another blow to her standing, however, should facts still matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her lynch mob. Maybe the resignation yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger than media reports indicate, extending wider and further beyond the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies an account concerning how much say you and I have in the governance of the nation. This should concern you.

First, to the Core Details

After the OBR released recently some of the projections it provided to Reeves while she wrote the budget, the surprise was immediate. Not only has the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "exceptional move"), its numbers seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster were about the grim nature of the budget would have to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Consider the government's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services must be completely paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned this would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a media briefing so unprecedented it forced morning television to interrupt its usual fare. Weeks before the real budget, the country was put on alert: taxes would rise, and the primary cause cited as gloomy numbers provided by the OBR, specifically its finding that the UK had become less productive, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory broadcast rounds suggested recently, this is essentially what happened during the budget, that proved to be big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us was her justification, because those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have chosen different options; she might have given alternative explanations, even on budget day itself. Before last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

One year later, yet it is a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself as an apolitical figure at the mercy of forces outside her influence: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any party would be standing here today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She certainly make decisions, just not one Labour cares to publicize. Starting April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing an additional £26bn annually in tax – but the majority of this will not go towards spent on better hospitals, public services, or happier lives. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it isn't getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of this additional revenue will in fact give Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% goes on paying for the government's own policy reversals. 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 genuinely additional spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. This administration should have have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and all of Blue Pravda have been barking about the idea that Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, soaking hard workers to fund the workshy. Party MPs are cheering her budget as a relief for their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the financial markets.

Downing Street could present a strong case for itself. The forecasts provided by the OBR were too small to feel secure, particularly considering lenders demand from the UK the greatest borrowing cost among G7 rich countries – higher than France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with the policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget enables the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

You can see why those wearing red rosettes may choose not to couch it in such terms when they're on #Labourdoorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets to act as an instrument of control against her own party and the electorate. It's why the chancellor can't resign, regardless of which promises she breaks. It's why Labour MPs must knuckle down and support measures to take billions off social security, just as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Political Vision and an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent from this is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to reach a fresh understanding with investors. Missing too is any innate understanding of voters,