🔗 Share this article

This charge represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have deceived UK citizens, frightening them to accept billions in extra taxes which would be funneled into higher welfare payments. However hyperbolic, this isn't usual Westminster sparring; this time, the stakes could be damaging. A week ago, critics aimed at Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been labeling their budget "a shambles". Today, it is denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor's resignation.

Such a grave charge demands clear answers, so let me provide my assessment. Has the chancellor tell lies? Based on the available evidence, no. There were no major untruths. However, despite Starmer's recent remarks, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public regarding the considerations shaping her decisions. Was this all to channel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories claim? Certainly not, as the figures prove this.

A Reputation Sustains A Further Blow, Yet Truth Should Prevail

Reeves has sustained another blow to her reputation, but, should facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Maybe the stepping down yesterday of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the unauthorized release of its internal documents will quench SW1's appetite for scandal.

Yet the real story is far stranger compared to the headlines indicate, extending wider and further than the careers of Starmer and the class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies an account concerning what degree of influence you and I get over the governance of the nation. And it concern you.

Firstly, to the Core Details

When the OBR published recently a portion of the forecasts it provided to Reeves while she prepared the budget, the shock was instant. Not only has the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly went against Reeves's statements. While rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were getting better.

Take the government's most "unbreakable" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly funded by taxes: at the end of October, the OBR reckoned it would barely be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

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

And lo! It happened. Despite what Telegraph editorials and Tory media appearances implied recently, that is basically what happened at the budget, that proved to be significant, harsh, and grim.

The Misleading Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us was her justification, since those OBR forecasts did not force her hand. She might have chosen other choices; she might have given other reasons, including during the statement. Prior to last year's election, Starmer promised exactly such people power. "The hope of democracy. The power of the vote. The potential for national renewal."

A year on, and it's a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's pre-budget speech. Our first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by forces beyond her control: "In the context of the long-term challenges on our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be in this position today, confronting the decisions that I face."

She did make a choice, just not the kind Labour cares to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses will be paying another £26bn annually in tax – and the majority of this will not be spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, or happier lives. Regardless of what bilge comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not being lavished upon "benefits street".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, over 50% of this extra cash will instead provide Reeves a buffer for her own budgetary constraints. About 25% goes on covering the government's own policy reversals. Examining the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the taxes will go on actual new spending, such as scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it was always an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with all of Blue Pravda have been railing against how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to fund shirkers. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget for being balm for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the most vulnerable. Each group could be completely mistaken: The Chancellor's budget was primarily aimed at asset managers, speculative capital and participants within the bond markets.

The government could present a strong case for itself. The margins from the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, particularly considering bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries way more debt. Combined with our policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say their plan enables the central bank to reduce its key lending rate.

It's understandable that those folk with red rosettes might not frame it this way next time they visit the doorstep. According to one independent adviser to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" financial markets as an instrument of discipline against Labour MPs and the electorate. It's why the chancellor cannot resign, no matter what promises are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote to take billions off social security, just as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Political Vision , a Broken Pledge

What is absent from this is any sense of statecraft, of harnessing the Treasury and the Bank to reach a fresh understanding with markets. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,