🔗 Share this article

This accusation represents a grave matter: suggesting Rachel Reeves has lied to UK citizens, spooking them into accepting billions in extra taxes that could be used for increased benefits. While hyperbolic, this isn't usual Westminster sparring; on this occasion, the consequences are more serious. Just last week, critics of Reeves and Keir Starmer were calling their budget "chaotic". Today, it's branded as falsehoods, with Kemi Badenoch demanding Reeves to step down.

This serious accusation demands clear responses, therefore here is my view. Did the chancellor tell lies? On the available information, apparently not. There were no blatant falsehoods. However, despite Starmer's yesterday's remarks, that doesn't mean there is nothing to see and we can all move along. The Chancellor did mislead the public about the considerations shaping her choices. Was it to funnel cash towards "welfare recipients", like the Tories assert? No, as the figures demonstrate this.

A Standing Takes A Further Hit, Yet Truth Must Prevail

The Chancellor has sustained another hit to her standing, but, should facts continue to matter in politics, Badenoch should stand down 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 own documents will satisfy SW1's thirst for blood.

But the true narrative is far stranger than the headlines indicate, extending wider and further than the political futures of Starmer and his 2024 intake. At its heart, this is an account concerning what degree of influence you and I get over the running of our own country. And it should worry you.

First, to the Core Details

When the OBR released last Friday some of the projections it provided to Reeves as she wrote the red book, the shock was instant. Not only has the OBR never done such a thing before (described as an "rare action"), its numbers seemingly contradicted the chancellor's words. Even as rumors from Westminster suggested how bleak the budget would have to be, the watchdog's predictions were improving.

Take the Treasury's so-called "unbreakable" rule, stating by 2030 day-to-day spending on hospitals, schools, and the rest would be wholly funded by taxes: in late October, the watchdog calculated this would just about be met, albeit only by a tiny margin.

Several days later, Reeves held a media briefing so extraordinary that it caused breakfast TV to break from its usual fare. Weeks prior to the actual budget, the nation was warned: taxes would rise, with the primary cause being pessimistic numbers provided by the OBR, in particular its conclusion that the UK was less efficient, investing more but getting less out.

And lo! It happened. Despite the implications from Telegraph editorials and Tory broadcast rounds implied recently, that is essentially what happened at the budget, which was big and painful and bleak.

The Misleading Alibi

Where Reeves deceived us concerned her justification, since those OBR forecasts did not compel her actions. She might have made other choices; she might have provided other reasons, even during the statement. Prior to the recent election, Starmer promised precisely this kind of 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 in Reeves's breakfast speech. The first Labour chancellor in 15 years casts herself to be a technocrat at the mercy of factors beyond her control: "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 did make a choice, only not one Labour wishes to publicize. Starting April 2029 British workers and businesses will be paying another £26bn a year in tax – but most of that will not go towards funding improved healthcare, public services, or enhanced wellbeing. Regardless of what bilge is spouted by Nigel Farage, Badenoch and their allies, it is not getting splashed on "welfare claimants".

Where the Cash Actually Ends Up

Rather than going on services, more than 50% of this additional revenue will in fact provide Reeves cushion for her own fiscal rules. About 25% is allocated to paying for the government's own policy reversals. Reviewing the OBR's calculations and giving maximum benefit of the doubt to Reeves, only 17% of the taxes will fund actual new spending, for example abolishing the two-child cap on child benefit. Removing it "costs" the Treasury only £2.5bn, because it had long been an act of theatrical cruelty by George Osborne. A Labour government should have have binned it in its first 100 days.

The True Audience: Financial Institutions

The Tories, Reform along with all of right-wing media have been railing against how Reeves conforms to the stereotype of left-wing finance ministers, soaking strivers to spend on the workshy. Party MPs have been cheering her budget for being a relief for their troubled consciences, protecting the disadvantaged. Both sides could be completely mistaken: Reeves's budget was largely aimed at asset managers, hedge funds and the others in the bond markets.

The government could present a compelling argument in its defence. The margins from the OBR were deemed insufficient to feel secure, particularly given that bond investors demand from the UK the highest interest rate of all G7 developed nations – higher than France, which lost a prime minister, higher than Japan that carries far greater debt. Coupled with the policies to cap fuel bills, prescription charges and train fares, Starmer together with Reeves argue this budget allows the Bank of England to cut interest rates.

You can see that those folk with red rosettes may choose not to couch it in such terms when they visit #Labourdoorstep. According to a consultant to Downing Street puts it, Reeves has "utilised" the bond market to act as an instrument of discipline against Labour MPs and the electorate. It's why Reeves can't resign, no matter what pledges are broken. It is also the reason Labour MPs will have to fall into line and vote that cut billions from social security, as Starmer promised recently.

Missing Political Vision , an Unfulfilled Promise

What is absent from this is any sense of strategic governance, of harnessing the finance ministry and the Bank to forge a new accommodation with markets. Missing too is intuitive knowledge of voters,