🔗 Share this article

This accusation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived UK citizens, spooking them to accept billions in additional taxes which would be used for increased welfare payments. While hyperbolic, this isn't usual Westminster bickering; on this occasion, the consequences could be damaging. Just last week, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "a shambles". Today, it is branded as lies, with Kemi Badenoch calling for Reeves to step down.

This serious accusation demands clear responses, so here is my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on current evidence, no. She told no blatant falsehoods. However, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there's no issue here and we should move on. The Chancellor did mislead the public regarding the considerations informing her choices. Was it to funnel cash to "benefits street", as the Tories claim? No, as the figures prove this.

A Standing Sustains Another Hit, Yet Truth Must Win Out

The Chancellor has sustained a further hit to her reputation, however, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to stand down her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation yesterday of OBR head, Richard Hughes, over the unauthorized release of its own documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger than media reports suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, herein lies a story concerning what degree of influence the public get over the running of our own country. This should should worry you.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

After the OBR released last Friday a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves as she wrote the red book, the surprise was immediate. Not merely had the OBR not done such a thing before (an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Consider the Treasury's most "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending for hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the watchdog reckoned it would barely be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

Several days later, Reeves gave a media briefing so unprecedented that it caused morning television to break from its regular schedule. Several weeks prior to the real budget, the nation was put on alert: taxes were going up, and the primary cause being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its finding suggesting the UK had become less productive, putting more in but getting less out.

And lo! It came to pass. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied over the weekend, this is essentially what happened at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Deceptive Justification

Where Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, because these OBR forecasts didn't force her hand. She might have chosen different options; she might have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Prior to last year's election, Starmer pledged precisely this kind of people power. "The promise of democracy. The power of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

One year later, and it is a lack of agency that is evident from Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by factors outside her influence: "In the context of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any finance minister of any party would be in this position today, confronting the choices that I face."

She did make a choice, just not the kind Labour cares to publicize. From April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be paying an additional £26bn a year in tax – and most of that will not be spent on better hospitals, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and others, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Money Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, over 50% of the extra cash will in fact provide Reeves cushion against her self-imposed budgetary constraints. Approximately 25% is allocated to covering the government's own U-turns. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, such as scrapping the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government should have abolished it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with the entire right-wing media have spent days barking about the idea that Reeves conforms to the caricature of Labour chancellors, taxing hard workers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers are cheering her budget as balm for their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was largely targeted towards asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were insufficient to feel secure, especially considering lenders demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with the measures to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget enables the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

It's understandable why those wearing red rosettes might not frame it in such terms when they visit the doorstep. As one independent adviser for Downing Street puts it, Reeves has effectively "weaponised" financial markets as an instrument of discipline over her own party and the voters. This is the reason Reeves can't resign, no matter what promises she breaks. It is also why Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer indicated recently.

Missing Political Vision , a Broken Promise

What's missing from this is the notion of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the central bank to reach a new accommodation with investors. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,