🔗 Share this article

The allegation represents a grave matter: that Rachel Reeves may have lied to Britons, spooking them to accept billions in extra taxes that could be used for increased welfare payments. While exaggerated, this isn't usual political bickering; this time, the stakes are more serious. Just last week, detractors of Reeves alongside Keir Starmer had been calling their budget "a mess". Now, it's denounced as lies, with Kemi Badenoch demanding the chancellor to quit.

This serious accusation requires clear responses, so here is my view. Did the chancellor been dishonest? Based on the available evidence, no. There were no major untruths. But, notwithstanding Starmer's yesterday's comments, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we should move on. Reeves did mislead the public about the factors informing her decisions. Was it to funnel cash towards "benefits street", as the Tories assert? No, and the numbers prove this.

A Reputation Takes Another Hit, But Facts Must Win Out

Reeves has taken a further blow to her reputation, however, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch ought to call off her attack dogs. Perhaps the stepping down recently of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) chief, Richard Hughes, due to the leak of its own documents will satisfy Westminster's thirst for blood.

But the real story is much more unusual compared to the headlines suggest, and stretches broader and deeper than the careers of Starmer and his class of '24. Fundamentally, herein lies an account concerning how much say you and I have over the running of the nation. And it should worry everyone.

Firstly, on to the Core Details

After the OBR published last Friday a portion of the projections it shared with Reeves while she wrote the red book, the shock was immediate. Not merely had the OBR never acted this way before (an "unusual step"), its figures seemingly contradicted Reeves's statements. Even as rumors from Westminster were about how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's forecasts were improving.

Consider the Treasury's so-called "iron-clad" fiscal rule, that by 2030 daily spending for hospitals, schools, and other services must be wholly paid for by taxes: in late October, the OBR reckoned this would barely be met, albeit by a tiny margin.

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

And lo! It happened. Notwithstanding the implications from Telegraph editorials combined with Tory media appearances suggested over the weekend, this is basically what transpired at the budget, which was significant, harsh, and grim.

The Deceptive Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her alibi, since those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She could have chosen other choices; she could have provided other reasons, even on budget day itself. Before the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of public influence. "The promise of democracy. The strength of the vote. The possibility for national renewal."

A year on, yet it's a lack of agency that jumps out from Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor for a decade and a half casts herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of factors outside her influence: "Given the circumstances of the persistent challenges with our productivity … any chancellor of any political stripe would be standing here today, facing the choices that I face."

She did make decisions, only not the kind the Labour party cares to broadcast. From April 2029 British workers and businesses are set to be paying another £26bn annually in tax – and the majority of this will not go towards spent on better hospitals, public services, nor happier lives. Whatever bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it isn't getting splashed on "benefits street".

Where the Money Really Goes

Instead of going on services, more than 50% of the additional revenue will in fact give Reeves cushion against her own budgetary constraints. About 25% is allocated to paying for the administration's policy reversals. Reviewing the watchdog's figures and being as generous as possible to Reeves, only 17% of the tax take will fund genuinely additional spending, such as abolishing the limit on child benefit. Its abolition "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, as it was always an act of theatrical cruelty from George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The Real Target: Financial Institutions

Conservatives, Reform and all of right-wing media have been barking about how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of Labour chancellors, soaking hard workers to spend on shirkers. Labour backbenchers are applauding her budget as a relief to their troubled consciences, protecting the most vulnerable. Each group are 180-degrees wrong: The Chancellor's budget was largely aimed at investment funds, hedge funds and participants within the bond markets.

Downing Street can make a strong case in its defence. The forecasts provided by the OBR were too small to feel secure, especially given that bond investors charge the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 rich countries – exceeding that of France, that recently lost a prime minister, and exceeding Japan which has far greater debt. Combined with our policies to hold down fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget enables the central bank to reduce interest rates.

You can see that those folk with Labour badges might not frame it this way when they're on the doorstep. According to a consultant for Downing Street says, Reeves has effectively "utilised" the bond market to act as a tool of control against Labour MPs and the voters. It's why Reeves can't resign, regardless of which pledges she breaks. It's why Labour MPs must knuckle down and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised yesterday.

Missing Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent from this is the notion of strategic governance, of mobilising the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is innate understanding of voters,