🔗 Share this article

The allegation carries significant weight: that Rachel Reeves may have misled UK citizens, frightening them into accepting billions in additional taxes which could be spent on increased benefits. However hyperbolic, this isn't usual political bickering; this time, the consequences are more serious. A week ago, detractors of Reeves and Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a mess". Today, it's denounced as falsehoods, and Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This serious accusation requires clear responses, so here is my assessment. Did the chancellor lied? On the available information, apparently not. There were no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's remarks, it doesn't follow that there's no issue here and we should move on. Reeves did misinform the public regarding the factors shaping her decisions. Was it to funnel cash to "welfare recipients", as the Tories assert? No, and the figures demonstrate this.

A Reputation Takes A Further Blow, But Facts Should Win Out

The Chancellor has taken a further blow to her reputation, however, if facts still have anything to do with politics, Badenoch should call off her lynch mob. Perhaps the resignation recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its internal documents will quench SW1's thirst for blood.

Yet the true narrative is far stranger than media reports indicate, extending broader and deeper than the political futures of Starmer and the 2024 intake. Fundamentally, this is an account concerning what degree of influence the public have over the governance of our own country. And it concern you.

Firstly, to Brass Tacks

When the OBR released recently some of the projections it provided to Reeves while she prepared the budget, the shock was immediate. Not only had the OBR never acted this way before (described as an "rare action"), its figures apparently went against Reeves's statements. Even as leaks from Westminster suggested the grim nature of the budget was going to be, the OBR's own predictions were getting better.

Consider the government's so-called "iron-clad" rule, stating by 2030 daily spending on hospitals, schools, and other services would be wholly paid for by taxes: at the end of October, the watchdog reckoned this would just about be met, albeit by a minuscule margin.

A few days later, Reeves held a press conference so unprecedented that it caused breakfast TV to interrupt its usual fare. Several weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes were going up, with the main reason cited as gloomy numbers from the OBR, in particular its finding that the UK was less productive, investing more but getting less out.

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

The Deceptive Alibi

The way in which Reeves misled us concerned her alibi, since those OBR forecasts didn't compel her actions. She might have chosen other choices; she might have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Before 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."

A year on, and it is powerlessness that jumps out in Reeves's pre-budget speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years portrays herself to be an apolitical figure buffeted by forces outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the long-term challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She certainly make a choice, just not one the Labour party cares to publicize. From April 2029 UK workers as well as businesses are set to be contributing another £26bn annually in tax – and most of that will not go towards spent on improved healthcare, new libraries, nor enhanced wellbeing. Whatever nonsense comes from Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't being lavished upon "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Instead of being spent, more than 50% of the additional revenue will in fact give Reeves a buffer for her self-imposed fiscal rules. Approximately 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's policy reversals. Examining the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible towards a Labour chancellor, a mere 17% of the tax take will fund actual new spending, for example scrapping the two-child cap on child benefit. Its abolition "will cost" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always a bit of political theatre from George Osborne. A Labour government could and should have binned it immediately upon taking office.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform and the entire right-wing media have spent days railing against how Reeves fits the caricature of left-wing finance ministers, taxing strivers to spend on shirkers. Party MPs have been applauding her budget for being balm for their troubled consciences, safeguarding the disadvantaged. Each group could be 180-degrees wrong: Reeves's budget was primarily targeted towards asset managers, speculative capital and the others in the financial markets.

The government can make a compelling argument for itself. The margins provided by the OBR were insufficient for comfort, particularly considering bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate among G7 developed nations – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Combined with the measures to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges as well as train fares, Starmer together with Reeves can say this budget allows the Bank of England to cut its key lending rate.

You can see why those wearing Labour badges may choose not to frame it in such terms next time they visit the doorstep. As a consultant to Downing Street says, Reeves has "weaponised" financial markets to act as a tool of discipline over her own party and the electorate. This is why Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs must fall into line and vote to take billions off social security, as Starmer promised recently.

A Lack of Political Vision and a Broken Pledge

What is absent from this is any sense of statecraft, of mobilising the Treasury and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with investors. Also absent is intuitive knowledge of voters,